Danilo Reyes, Programme Officer, Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
Sixteen years ago on 13 June 1993, unidentified gunmen shot dead an influential police colonel, Rolando Abadilla, in Quezon City in the Philippines. Abadilla, henchman of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, had been accused of being complicit to political murders during the period of martial rule.
The anniversary of Abadilla’s death also marks an exceptionally lengthy struggle to exonerate the five men accused of killing him, known as the “Abadilla Five”. All five had to confess to the murder, and later disclosed they had done because they could not bear suffering from the extreme torture, including suffocation with plastic bags, electrocution and brutal beatings.
What’s more, the Alex Boncayao Brigade, an urban guerrilla group, has openly claimed responsibility for Abadilla’s murder, but the court refused to consider this as evidence with which it could have exonerated the five men. The 1999 conviction of the five — Lenido Lumanog, Augusto Santos, Senior Police Officer Cesar Fortuna, Rameses de Jesus and Joel de Jesus — was upheld in an appellate court on 1 April 2008. The five have petitioned to nullify the ruling on the grounds that the decision was copy verbatim of the brief from the previous trial, in particular, in the reasoning and argument of the solicitor general. This petition was unresolved by the Supreme Court for over a year.
Not only has their quest for exoneration endured unthinkable court delays, but even their complaints against the police for violating their rights and illegally arresting, torturing and detaining them during their arrest suffered delays. This is despite the findings of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the Department of Justice that there was prima facie evidence against the policemen involved.
(photo: Lolita San Felipe (left), grandmother of Augusto Santos and Rufina (right), mother of Joel de Jesus, protesting outside the Philippines Supreme Court in 2009.)
Not a single case was filed against the policemen in court. These complaints have dragged on for 13 years and remain pending before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Military and Law Enforcement Offices (Moleo), an agency with the mandate to investigate administrative and criminal complaints against security forces, which in turn has a mandate under the Ombudsman Act of 1989 to “act promptly on complaints.”
The experiences of the Abadilla Five detainees not only reflect the failure of the justice system in meeting its legal obligations, but also reveal the reality of continuous suppression that other victims may be experiencing with similar consequences when seeking legal remedies. Any discussion on protection of rights and freedom from torture must take into consideration questions of court delays.
In a country where the system of justice — particularly the courts and those investigating violations — is unable to hold public officers accountable for their wrongdoing, it is clear that respect for the norms and principles of human rights, the 1987 Constitution, treaties and conventions it signed and even its own laws, only exist on paper. The plight of these detainees raises serious questions as to the credibility of the government in upholding respect and protection of rights.
Failure on the part of the government has not only resulted in the continuing detention and suffering of the Abadilla Five detainees — who are victims of torture and fabricated charges — but has also affected their families. Some have lost their property; others are finding it hard to make ends meet. Their children and grandchildren have faced discrimination; some have been forced to work at young ages to support their families. The detainees themselves have been forced to put up an emotional and psychological fight due to the torture suffered and years of detention.
Lenido, one of the detainees, has undergone a kidney transplant and has to survive on his daily intake of medicines in the heavily congested detention facilities at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City. Augusto also has been mentally disturbed due to long detention period. Neither has been offered help or rehabilitation.
The plight of the Abadilla Five reflects the harsh realities of the defective justice system in the country. Action should be seriously considered to ensure the protection of the rights of the accused, seeking remedies for victims of violations, issues of court delays, and holding accountable those who fail to perform their duties and fulfill their obligations.
Postscript
After the publicity of the case and publication of the book where this article first appeared, the delayed court review of the detainees’ petition to review their conviction and complaint of torture against the policemen was acted upon.
Firstly, in April 2008 the Court of Appeals (CA) concluded nine years of delay to affirm the guilty verdict rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. It is believed, even by the legal counsel of the detainees, that had the detainees, families of the victims and those supporting their case, not renewed the publicity, the case would have been prolonged even more than is usual.
Secondly, after the CA’s decision was made public, some of the detainees filed a Petition of Certiorari on the ground of questions in the application of law. The detainees’ legal counsel argued that the CA’s decision affirming their conviction was copied verbatim from the submission of the government’s Solicitor General. The Supreme Court, however, found nothing wrong in this practice by invoking earlier jurisprudence. Thus, procedurally it appears the appeal and petition process had been complied with; however, substantively there is a question whether or not there was a real review because the decision was a “copy verbatim”.
In September 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the CA upholding the guilty verdict by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City promulgated eleven years ago, in August 1999. The ruling, based only on the confession of “positive identification” of witness Freddie Alejo of the detainees as the perpetrators, concluded a 14-year legal saga where the detainees, their families and their lawyer never ceased maintaining their innocence.
In January 2011, after 15 years Moleo finally acted on the recommendation of the CHR to initiate criminal prosecution against the policemen involved. They were charged with arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of the detainees. The Moleo was acting on the report of the CHR released in July 1996, “In the matter of the complaints of SP02 Cesar Fortuna et. al., for violation of their human rights in connection with their arrests and detention for the alleged assassination of Colonel Rolando Abadilla, Sr., on 13 June 1996.” In this report the CHR concluded:
“…The records also show that the suspects Cesar Fortuna, Arturo Napolitano and Joel de Jesus were apprehended on June 19, 1996, while suspects Leonardo Lumanog, Rameses de Jesus, Romeo Costibolo and Lorenzo de los Santos were arrested on June 20, 1996. That being so, they spent six (6) and five (5) days respectively in detention before the inquest and filing of whatever charge. The thirty-six (36) hours required by law to deliver a person arrested to the proper judicial authority for crimes punishable by afflictive and/or capital punishment has not been observed. Neither was there a satisfactory explanation.
It is also clear from records that except for Joel de Jesus, the suspects were not given the opportunity to avail of a lawyer of their choice while in custodial investigation. Except for suspect Augusto Santos, they were not allowed to see their families and friends until after the CHR and the media intervened.
Undoubtedly, the suspects were apprehended without a warrant issued by a judicial authority.
CONCLUSION
… Premises considered, the Commission finds prima facie evidence that respondents could have violated Republic Act No. 7438, otherwise known as the Law on Custodial Investigation, particularly on visitorial rights and the right to counsel, including the law on arbitrary detention.”
Excerpt on medical findings on Delos Santos:
“LORENZO DELOS SANTOS, 36, abrasions, contusions or arms, thighs and legs.
It should be noted, however, that the examination conducted on the suspects by Dr. Jesse Rey T. Cruel, Medico-Legal III of the CHR, was only made on June 25, 1996, several days after the arrests on June 19, 1996.”
Nevertheless, it is good that the Moleo has affirmed the claim of the detainees that they were tortured after many years of investigation when it recommended prosecution of the policemen. But the two officers, namely P/Sr. Supt. Romulo D. Sales and P/Sr. Supt. Bartolome V. Baluyot, who ordered the detainee’s arrest, detention and torture, could no longer be prosecuted. They are already dead.
(photo: (from left to right) Cherielyn, wife of Joel de Jesus; Marilou, wife of Lenido Lumanog and Lolita San Felipe, filing their position at the Philippine Supreme Court.)
————-
Footnote: This article written by Danilo Reyes was originally published in a book dated June 2009, titled: “Abadilla 5 Families: When will their waiting end?” The book contains interviews of family members of the Abadilla Five relating their travails in their quest for justice and how the incarceration of their loved ones has ultimately derailed their lives. We are republishing this edited version to include details on the progress, or lack of progress, of the case.
