Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Philippines): Activist killed along with her husband after surviving an earlier attempt on her life
 

UPDATE (Philippines): Activist killed along with her husband after surviving an earlier attempt on her life

May 11, 2006

UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeal

12 May 2006

[RE: UA-096-2006: PHILIPPINES: Activist killed and an attempt made on another’s life; UA-101-2006: PHILIPPINES: Two more activists killed in Bohol and Tarlac; FA-007-2006: PHILIPPINES: A picture of the human rights situation in the Philippines in 2005]
-----------------------------------
UP-106-2006: PHILIPPINES: Activist killed along with her husband after surviving an earlier attempt on her life

PHILIPPINES: Extra-judicial killing; violence against activists and their families; absence of protection for activists in grave danger; complete collapse of rule of law
-----------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes with extreme shock that Elena Mendiola a.k.a. Baby, an activist who survived an attempt on her life on 10 March 2006 (please see our previous appeal: UA-096-2006), and her partner Ricardo Balauag have been killed. Elena suffered a gunshot wound to her head while Ricardo was shot in the head and body when armed men attacked them in Barangay (village) Garit, Echague, Isabela on May 10.

It is reported that although there are witnesses in Elena and Ricardo’s killings they are too afraid to testify out of fear for their lives because of the lack of protection. While local police may have conducted investigations into this case, given the witnesses’ reluctance to cooperate, there are concerns that the police investigation may not be effective and may not produce conclusive findings. This would of course make it extremely difficult to effectively prosecute the perpetrators in court.

The killing of Elena, who was the secretary general of Bayan Muna (People’s First), and Ricardo is yet another example where the denial of protection led to death. Although there is a law that provides protection for witnesses and families of the dead, called the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (RA 6981), the Department of Justice (DoJ) is failing to effectively implement it. The AHRC has previously raised concerns regarding this and has called on the government to remedy the situation. (Please see our previous statements: AHRC-OL-002-2006; AS-74-2005).
 
Take the case of another Bayan Muna leader Florante Collantes in Tarlac who was killed in Barangay (village) Tuec, Camiling, Tarlac on 15 October 2005. (To see the list of leaders killed please see: FA-007-2006) A reliable source said a witness could identify the gunmen and is willing to cooperate once they are afforded with adequate protection. They fear they could also be in danger once they are exposed. Despite the extreme danger they are facing, Collantes’ wife Adelia and her daughter Mary Ann are forced to live in their house as they have no choice but to stay because their livelihood is there.

Although the provincial government is aware of this situation, in particular Governor Jose Yap of Tarlac province, no adequate intervention was taken to ensure the witnesses and family’s protection. Governor Yap is also avoiding responsibility when asked whether the province could temporarily assume responsibility to provide for their security and protection. He argued that is it the job of the DoJ not the local government. No offers were even made to provide them sanctuary or to assist them to apply for security and protection to the DoJ.

This is also similar in the case of Tirso Cruz, a labour union leader in Hacienda Luisita who was killed in Barangay (village) Pando, Concepcion, Tarlac. (Please see our previous appeal: UA-101-2006). Cruz’s father Federico (60), has disclosed that days after his son’s killing he was informed that there was a death threat and plot on his son’s life. The person who could have identified the person who made the threat, however, is reluctant to cooperate with the victim’s family for fear that they too could be in danger once they are exposed. To date, no one has been charged in connection with Cruz’s killing.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Although the Philippine government, in particular the Department of Justice (DoJ) is aware of the urgent need to effectively and adequately implement with urgency the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Programme, the effort to meet this objective is completely negligible. The families of the dead and the witnesses are also unaware as to how to apply and to where in order to avail of the security and protection services. This indicates that the programme is either not known to the public or they have lost faith that it will work.

As State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the government is also failing to comply with the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee dated 1 December 2003. In it paragraph 8 (a) states that the Commission has recommended the State: “should adopt legislative and other measures to prevent such violations, in keeping with articles 2, 6 and 9 of the Covenant, and ensure effective enforcement of the legislation”.

On May 10, the Philippine government was elected as one of the members to the UN Human Rights Council. Prior to the Philippines being elected into the Council, the AHRC expressed serious concern about the Philippine government’s committment to ensure protection and respect for human rights that it claims to uphold. (Please see our statement: AS-076-2006). By failing to implement the concluding observations, the government’s commitment to human rights is questionable and must be acted upon.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the concerned agencies listed below asking for their urgent intervention to ensure that the killing of Elena Mendiola and Ricardo Balauag is investigated. Also request the Department of Justice (DoJ) to ensure that potential witnesses to this case are afforded with adequate security and protection. The DoJ must likewise look into similar concerns for adequate security and protection to witnesses and families of the dead regarding the cases of activist Florante Collantes and Tirso Cruz who were killed in Camiling and Concepcion, Tarlac respectively.


Dear _________,

PHILIPPINES: Activist killed along with her husband after surviving an earlier attempt on her life

Name of the victims killed:
1. Elena Mendiola a.k.a. Baby
2. Ricardo Balauag
Both members of political party Bayan Muna (Peoples First) and residents of Sillauan Sur, Echague, Isabela.
Place of incident: Barangay (village) Garit, Echague, Isabela
Date of incident: 10 May 2006

I am writing to draw your attention to the case of Elena Mendiola and Ricardo Balauag who were killed in Barangay (village) Garit, Echague, Isabela on 10 May 2006. I am extremely shocked by the number of killings of activist in your country. I am aware that prior to Elena’s killing, she had survived an attempt on her life on 10 March 2006, thereby making this situation totally unacceptable as this demonstrates the authorities failure to protect her and her family.

I am requesting yet again that your office ensure that an effective and adequate investigation is conducted into this case. I have learned that that there are potential witnesses to Elena and Ricardo’s killing, however, even though they are willing to testify and cooperate, they are afraid for fear for their safety. As you are aware, in this situation protection for witnesses is extremely essential if you are to reach effective and conclusive findings, and to effectively prosecute the perpetrators in court.

I urge your office to request the Department of Justice (DoJ) to ensure that witnesses to Elena and Ricardo’s case are afforded with security and protection without delay as provided for by the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (RA 6981). The DoJ, as the implementing agency for the witness protection programme, must take a pro-active role to closely coordinate with the families of the dead to meet this objective.

Additionally, I have also received updated information on the case of activists Florante Collantes and Tirso Cruz, who were killed in the municipalities of Camiling on 15 October 2005 and Concepcion on 17 March 2006, Tarlac respectively. I have learned that there are also potential witnesses to these cases, however, although they have expressed willingness to pursue the case in court, they are afraid that their lives too could be in danger once exposed. Collantes and Cruz’s cases have not reached court and the perpetrators have not been charged.

Therefore, I also urge you to take effective steps to ensure that witnesses and families of Collantes and Cruz are afforded with adequate security and protection as provided for in RA 6981. I am extremely disappointed by the government’s inadequate action, in particular the DoJ to intervene by effectively implementing the RA 6981. This is particularly true for the alarming number of cases involving the extra-judicial killings of activists.

I would like to remind you of the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee dated 1 December 2003 on the Philippine government as State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Under the par. 8 (a) observation, the Commission recommended the State: “should adopt legislative and other measures to prevent such violations, in keeping with articles 2, 6 and 9 of the Covenant, and ensure effective enforcement of the legislation”. This, however, has yet to be effectively acted upon.

I trust that you will take effective action in these cases.

Yours sincerely,

-------------------------------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Ms. Purificacion Quisumbing
Commissioner
Commission on Human Rights
SAAC Bldg., Commonwealth Avenue
U.P. Complex, Diliman
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 928 5655 / 926 6188
Fax: +63 2 929 0102
Email: drpvq@chr.gov.ph

2. P/DIR Gen. Arturo Lumibao
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp General Rafael Crame
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2726 4361/4366/8763
Fax: +63 2724 8763

3. Mr. Raul Gonzalez
Secretary
Department of Justice
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 521 1614
Email: sechbp@infocom.com.ph

4. Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
President
Republic of the Philippines
Malacanang Palace
JP Laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila 1005
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 735 6201 / 564 1451 to 80
Fax: +63 2 736 1010

5. Mr. Philip Alston
Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions
Atten: Lydie Ventre
Room 3-016, c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9155
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (general)
Email: lventre@ohchr.org

6. Ms. Yakin Erturk
Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
c/o Ms Vernonica Birga
Room 3-042
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9615
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN)
Email: vbirga@ohchr.org (please also cc: rrico@ohchr.org)

7. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights defenders
Attn: Melinda Ching Simon
Room 1-040
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 93 88
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS)
E-mail: MChingSimon@ohchr.org


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-106-2006
Countries :
Campaigns :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.