human rights forum 1 -...

1Human Rights FORUM

2 Human Rights FORUM

CONTENTStable of

Editorial Board • NYMIA PIMENTEL-SIMBULAN DR. P.H. • SONNY MELENCIO • GINA DELA CRUZ -Editor-in-Chief • BERNARDO LARIN - Managing Editor • JM VILLERO - Art Director • ARNEL RIVAL -

Illustrator • EUGENE BACASMAS

The Human Rights Forum is published quarterly by the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) withoffice address at 53-B Maliksi St., Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City • Telefax: 433-1714 • Tel. No.: 426-4048 •

E-mail:[email protected] • Website: www.philrights.org • ISSN 0117-552-1

PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTS INFORMATION CENTER

The Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) is the research and informationcenter of the Philippine Alliance of Human Advocates (PAHRA).

UNDER SIEGEPress freedom and the embattled Arroyo administrationBy ODINA BATNAG

PROBING FOR SENSE AND SENSIBILITIESThe Manila Peninsula Incident on hindsightBy PERCIVAL CENDAÑA

The Manalo BrothersFROM VICTIMS TO DEFENDERSBy MAX M. DE MESA

ALAMIN ANG INYONG MGAKARAPATAN

Global Moratorium on Executions:TOWARDS WORLDWIDE ABOLITIONOF THE DEATH PENALTYBy TRACY PABICO

HR DIGEST

HR TRIVIA

FACTS AND FIGURES

48

1216182223

This publication is made possible through the support of the Embassy of Finland

EMBASSY OF FINLANDManila

3Human Rights FORUM

n EDITORYAL

Karapatan sa Impormasyonnagtatanggol sa karapatang pantao ang pagpapalabas ng KorteSuprema ng writ of habeas data kung saan pwedeng magpetisyonang mga indibidwal laban sa ilegal na paraan ng pangongolektang impormasyon at maling paggamit nito.

Pangalawa, importante ring magkaroon ng kaalaman ang mgamamamayan hinggil sa mga bagay-bagay sa gobyerno sapagkatkung wala ito, hindi pwedeng magkaroon ng makabuluhan ataktibong partisipasyon ang taumbayan sa pamamahala sapambansa at lokal na lebel.

Hindi maaaring magtagumpay ang mga proyekto at programang pamahalaan sa pagkuha ng suporta ng taumbayan kung hindisila nabigyan ng impormasyon at lubusang nakonsulta hinggil samga inisyatibang ito.

Hindi rin magkakaroon ng matalinong mga desisyon ang mgamamamayan sa mga panahon ng eleksyon, plebisito, at iba pangmga uri ng konsultasyon kung hindi ipinapakita ng ating mgaopisyal ang kabuuang larawan at kalagayan ng mga pampublikongusapin.

Sa makabagong panahong ating kinalalagyan, napakadalinang magpaabot ng mga kinakailangang kaalaman upangmagkaroon ng malusog na ugnayan ang mga mamamayan atang pamahalaan.

Ngunit taliwas ito sa kalakaran sa Pilipinas. Madalas nakatagoang katotohanan at kung may maglalakas-loob na ibunyag itotulad ni Lozada, pilit naman itong babaluktutin at tatabunan ngmga nasa kapangyarihan. l

HALIGI NG buhay na demokrasya ang malayang pagkuhaat pagpapaalam sa mga mamamayan ng mgaimpormasyon hinggil sa mga pampublikong usapin.

Una, napakahalaga ng mga impormasyon at kaalaman upangmagkaroon ng ‘check and balance’ sa pagitan ng mga sangay ngpamahalaan at upang mabantayan din ng publiko at ng midya angposibleng pag-abuso sa kapangyarihan ng mga nasa pwesto.

Kaya hindi rin naman kataka-takang ‘pag may nahihiginganganomalya ang mga tao, unang tinitiyak ng mga tiwaling opisyalna walang mahahalagang impormasyong makakalabas sa publikosa pamamagitan ng midya.

Marami na namang ganitong mga kaganapan sapagkatsangkatutak na ring iskandalo ang nasiwalat sa publiko pero hindinaresolba at wala namang naparusahan. Pero sa ngayon, kitang-kita ang pagbusal na ito sa katotohanan sa kaso ng NBN-ZTEoverpricing scandal.

Sa ginawang pagdukot kay ZTE star witness Rodolfo ‘Jun’ Lozadaupang mahadlangan ang pagharap niya sa Senado, nakita ngsambayanang Pilipino ang pangil ng Estado at kung hanggangsaan ang pwede nitong gawin mapigilan lamang ang paglabas ngbaho ng Malakanyang.

Sa kabilang banda, nabunyag din sa pagtestigo ni Lozada angnakakabahalang paniniktik at pagsagap sa mga komunikasyon ngmga ‘kaaway ng Estado’ na sa totoo lang ay iyong mga taongkritikal sa nakaupong pangulo.

Kaya rin naman dapat ituring na isang tagumpay ng mga


UNDER SIEGE

On Nov 29, 2007, two groups actuallymade a stand at the Manila Peninsula– those who called for a change ingovernment and the journalists whocovered the call.

n By ODINA BATNAG

Press freedom and

OBut while the police have

already arrested and chargedthe Magdalos – as the soldiersaffiliated with Sen. AntonioTrillanes IV are known – andtheir civilian supporters, theyhave yet to do the same withthe media workers who refusedto obey the police “request” to

stop covering the event andleave the hotel.

Media in manaclesNot that the police haven’t

tried. As soon as the Magdaloswere arrested, the policehandcuffed some members ofthe media and brought them to

the headquarters of theNational Capital Region PoliceOffice (NCRPO).

The reasons they gavevaried: Criminal Investigationand Detection Group-NationalCapital Region (CIDG-NCR)head Asher Dolina said themedia needed to be processed,and he made it clear it waseither as “witnesses” or“suspects.” Others said some ofthe Magdalo soldiers could havedisguised themselves as mediamen, and so they needed to

check the identities of all thereporters who chose to staybehind and see the siegethrough.

In the end some 50 reporters,several of them handcuffed withplastic tie wires, were broughtto Bicutan in a bus and“processed.” But not all.

In “Media Nation,” a talkshow on media at the ANC cablechannel, Philippine NationalPolice (PNP) spokespersonNicanor Bartolome admittedsome reporters were allowed to

the embattled Arroyoadministration

5Human Rights FORUM

MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD?The Pen played host to a show ofmilitary force against journalistscovering another failed military-led attempt to unseat GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo. Clockwise,from left: journalists in plastichandcuffs about to be herded toBicutan; soldiers about to stormthe hotel; media coverage insidethe Manila Pen, where the“Magdalo soldiers” holed out; andmedia coverage outside the hotel.Photos by LITO OCAMPO

“The point fordemanding fordamages isprecisely tomake it costlyfor those whowould abusethe powermomentarilyentrusted tothem by thecitizens of thisland.”


go after their IDs were checked.Others simply chose to walk out,and were not stopped by thepolice.

In Bicutan, the reporterswere asked for their name,address and contact details, andthen allowed to leave. Therewere no charges filed, then orlater; nor was it made clear whythey had to be brought all theway to Bicutan, instead of to thenearest police station.

Chilling effectSince then, the government

– and not just the police – hastried to justify the illegal arrestof the reporters.

When media groupsquestioned the legality of thearrests and warned against its“chilling effect” on members ofthe press, the police insisted thatthe Manila Peninsula hotel wasa “crime scene,” and thus underthe authority and jurisdiction ofthe police.

Palace officials, on the otherhand, tried to convince themedia to help draw up rulesdefining coverage, but reportersbalked at this, believing thatsuch rules would only restrictthem and thus be tantamount toprior censorship. When ameeting between governmentofficials and several mediagroups failed to come up with aconsensus on media coverage,the NCRPO issued a set ofguidelines restricting reporters(at least those covering theNCRPO headquarters inBicutan) to the press room. Italso warned police officers thatterrorism and other suchsensitive issues are topics thatthey are not supposed to discusswith the media. Instead, policeofficers were told to referquestions on such topics to thedesignated spokespersons.

Policing the mediaOn January 11, the justice

department issued an advisorythat read:

“PLEASE BE REMINDEDTHAT YOUR RESPECTIVECOMPANIES, NETWORKS ORORGANIZATIONS MAYINCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITIESUNDER THE LAW, IF ANYONE

OF YOUR FIELD REPORTERS,NEWS GATHERERS,P H O T O G R A P H E R S ,CAMERAMEN AND OTHERJOURNALISTS WILL DISOBEYLAWFUL ORDERS FROMDULY AUTHORIZEDGOVERNMENT OFFICERSAND PERSONNEL DURINGEMERGENCIES WHICH MAYLEAD TO COLLATERALDAMAGE TO PROPERTIESAND CIVILIAN CASUALTIESIN CASE OF AUTHORIZEDPOLICE OR MILITARYOPERATIONS.”

Four days later, in theirweekly forum, the police said itwas standard operatingprocedure (SOP) to arrestanyone who would obstruct apolice operation.

“We have SOPs and mediahave ethics. We have a law thatsays anybody who would notfollow instructions could becharged with obstruction ofjustice,” Razon was quoted innews reports on January 16.

“Force will be used – if needbe – to eject members of themedia from a “crisis situation,”Chief Supt. Silverio Alarcio ofthe PNP directorate foroperations was quoted by thePhilippine Daily Inquirer.

“We can force you outbecause you are not supposedto be inside. You might have tobe pushed out to enforce thelaw. It’s for your protection andso that you won’t be counted asvictims.”

Razon was moredescriptive: “Anong freedom of

the press pa ang pag-uusapannatin, kung yung member ngpress ay patay na?”

Witch huntAs if to support their claims

that the media got in the way ofthe police in the ManilaPeninsula siege, the PNP wenton the offensive the followingday, actually blaming a reporterfor the escape of one of theMagdalo leaders, Marine Capt.Nicanor Faeldon. Faeldon isbeing tried on charges of coupd’etat at the Makati RegionalTrial Court, and was one ofthose who walked out of thetrial, along with Trillanes andthe other Magdalo officers.

“We were able to ascertainthat the reporter assisted inFaeldon’s escape,” Razon wasquoted in the Philippine DailyInquirer on January 17.

“Nakita po sa CCTV at merondin testimony,” Razon wasquoted by the Philippine Star.As early as December, Razon

had told the Manila Standardthey were looking into theparticipation of a woman whoappeared to have providedFaeldon with a press card, whichhelped him escape.

He said charges ofobstruction of justice, as well ascomplicity to commit rebellion,might be filed against thereporter.

But not just yet. Razon saidthey would rather wait untilFaeldon is recaptured beforeidentifying the reporter.

In the days that followed,media went on a guessing gameas police officers hiding behindthe cloak of anonymity andmedia’s right to privilegedinformation continued to leakout information describing thereporter. A senior police officereventually identified thereporter before a group ofreporters covering the policebeat, but “off the record.”

When a national dailyfinally identified the reporter,it quoted an unknown source assaying that the reporter wascaught on video helpingFaeldon. As if on cue, the TVstation released the footage ofthe reporter and Faeldon thefollowing day, “in the interestof transparency.”

The newspaper source,however, said the reporter hadcurly hair, and that the video wasthe police’s strongest evidenceagainst the reporter. Thefootage, however, only showedtwo people talking, their headsleaning towards each other, thereporter’s tape recorder betweenthem. On the video, thereporter’s hair was straight, notcurly.

Later reports quoted policeofficers as saying they had avideo of the reporter talking toFaeldon, and handing himsomething. Earlier reports saidit was a press card. Not one ofthe police sources quotedexplained, at least in the newsitems that came out, how afemale reporter’s ID could havehelped a male Marines officerescape from the battalion ofpolicemen and Marines thatsurrounded the hotel.

The reporter – as well as

“Hindi naminmaaaringhayaan na angkalayaan sapamamahayagay magipit samakipot niyangkinalalagyan.”

WHEN JOURNALISTS MAKE IT TO THE NEWS: “Media must act to helppreserve democracy.” Photo by LITO OCAMPO

7Human Rights FORUM

other media groups – dared thepolice to file charges in court,but the police was just adamant.They would not officially namethe reporter; neither would theyfile charges in court. Still, daysafter the incident, Razoninsisted: “I am not inventingthis; a reporter helped Faeldonescape.”

Fighting backThe Philippine media,

however, is fighting back.When the police tried to

handcuff the media, not allagreed. ABS-CBN news anchorCes Drilon loudly protested, asdid Malaya columnist EllenTordesillas. When the othersfollowed Drilon’s andTordesillas’ lead and startedshouting “walang handcuffs!” asthey sat on the teargas-filledstairs of the Manila Peninsula,the police backed down andsimply brought the rest of thereporters to Bicutan in a bus.

Within days, the NationalPress Club, which had earlierdrawn flak for “replacing” somerevolutionary symbols in amural it had commissioned forits building, questioned beforethe Commission on HumanRights (CHR) the legality of thearrests.

At least three cases havebeen filed in court, questioningnot only the legality of thearrests of the media workers butthe statements that followed,which said the arrests were legaland would be repeated, shoulda similar situation occur.

Led by the National Unionof Journalists of the Philippines(NUJP), a group of reportershave filed a class suit at theMakati Regional Trial Court; 11of those arrested at the ManilaPeninsula have filed a Writ ofAmparo before the SupremeCourt; another case, for a Writof Prohibition, has also beenfiled at the Supreme Court.

On the day the class suit andthe Writ of Prohibition werefiled before the Makati RTC andthe Supreme Court, reportersmade a rare show of unity byholding a joint press conference,to highlight the fact that thePhilippine media is united in

fighting for the rights offreedom of expression and toinformation.

Writ of AmparoThe Writ of Amparo asked

for protection from the court,considering the threats of arrestfrom the police and the promise– in the light of the DOJmemorandum – that it will berepeated, should a similarsituation arise in the future.

“Unless we do somethingabout it, the next crisis situationwill see journalists againarrested or worse, and chargedwith abetting rebellion or someother such offense reminiscentof the martial law catch-all ofsubversion,” said the plaintiffsto the class suit in a statementissued on January 28, the day itwas filed.

“The uncertainty is the resultof a government policy of press

intimidation to assure itspolitical survival anddominance. That policy is beingimplemented as journalistscontinue to be killed andharassed, and bodes ill for thefuture of press freedom anddemocracy itself,” thepetitioners added.

Aside from asking forprotection for the journalistsfrom arrest and harassment bythe police, petitioners in theclass suit are also asking for P10million in exemplary damages.

“The point for demandingfor damages is precisely to makeit costly for those who wouldabuse the power momentarilyentrusted to them by the citizensof this land,” the petitionerssaid.

“Today, we warn all thosewho would use and abuse thepower that the people entrustedin them by cloaking the truth

from the people, that we can andwe will back our words withaction whenever our and thepeople’s rights and liberties arethreatened and assaulted,” saidthe NUJP in a statement.

“The line has been moved,”said Maria Ressa of ABS-CBN,in a statement after they filedthe Writ of Prohibition beforethe Supreme Court. The rules ofcoverage are changing, she said,and the media must act to helppreserve democracy.

“Isinasagawa namin angpagkilos na ito sapagkat hindi naminmaaaring hayaan na ang kalayaansa pamamahayag ay magipit samakipot niyang kinalalagyan base sadi-makatwiran na prinsipyo nabinubuo ng mga nasakapangyarihan para pagsilbihan angkasalukuyang political na interes,”Ressa added.

In this, at least, the mediaand the police agree.

Redefining the rules oncoverage

In an interview with ANC’s“Media Nation” in January,Bartolome admitted they wouldwant to redefine the rules oncoverage. When media groupscriticized the PNP for engagingin a “witch hunt” in saying theyhave evidence that a reporterhelped Faeldon escape from thehotel but then refusing to eitherreveal their evidence or to filecharges in court, a Palace officialagain called on the media to meetwith them and define rules ofcoverage to prevent similarconflicts between the police andthe media in the future.

No one, so far, has agreed tosuch a redefinition of the rulesof coverage.

Instead, reporters continueto sign on to the two cases, theone before the Makati RTC andthe Writ for Prohibition beforethe Supreme Court. l

*Ms. Batnag is a reporter of JijiPress, a Japanese news agency inManila. She was identified by thePhilippine Daily Inquirer as thelady reporter being accused by thepolice of helping rebel soldierCapt. Nicanor Faeldon escapeduring the Nov. 29, 2007 “ManilaPeninsula Siege.”

A RADIO REPORTER IN HELMET: But is it enough protection against arepressive State? Photo by LITO OCAMPO


SENSE ANDSENSIBILITIES

PROBING FOR

THE MANILAP e n i n s u l aincident ofNovember 29,2007 has

taken on quite a myriad ofnames. It has been calleda take-over, a stand-off, awalk-out, a mutiny, acriminal act, a foolishadventure, a farce, a

n By PERCIVAL CENDAÑA

comic opera, a power grab, a coup, an insurrectionand another destabilization plot. Even the supposedlymundane task of grappling for a name to label theManila Peninsula incident reflects the many differentways of how people are making sense of it and fromwhere they are looking at it.

On the one hand, a label isextremely crucial in finding themeaning that might eventuallylead to a plausible andacceptable explanation. Threemonths after the incident, manyquestions are still leftunanswered. But on the otherhand, even without thedefinitive answers, makingsense of what happened isinterestingly possible especiallyif juxtaposed with the nationalpolitical context. This in the end

reveals what already is obviousabout the politics of this countryand everything that is wrongwith it.

“Dissent without actionis consent”1

Even the verbs used to referto what Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim,Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV andother co-accused did on thatThursday morning courthearing vary. Some accounts saythey “walked out” while others

report that they “strolled out”of the Makati RTC. These twowords denote different things:the first is forceful while thelatter is leisurely. Whichever ofthe two verbs is correct, twothings remain constant. One,they were not restrained fromleaving the courthouse; andtwo, their security detail joinedthem in their unhurried marchto the Manila Peninsula.

The first hour of the incidentgave the impression that apainstakingly well-plannedscheme was unfolding becausethe plotters even went to theextent of winning over their

MUTINOUS: did he walk or did he stroll?

ON CALL: Director Geary Barias ofthe National Capital Region PoliceOffice (NCRPO)

The Manila Peninsula Incident onHindsight

9Human Rights FORUM

guards. But then again it is notsurprising. As columnist RandyDavid puts it, General Lim andSenator Trillanes “are highlyregarded by their men and bytheir contemporaries in theofficers corps.” Professor Davideven stressed that “few seniorofficers in the military today canmatch their popularity amongsoldiers.” The two are not onlywell regarded, they are also notgreenhorns in the field ofmilitary mutiny.

One of the first questionsthat begs to be answered is whythey did it given that the oddswere heavily stacked against

them—not much arms to defendthemselves with, only a handfulof followers, the February 2006unsuccessful bid wherein Limallegedly expected soldiers tomarch with Anti-Arroyo forcesand the repeated failure tomuster massive public outrageagainst the Arroyoadministration.

Pundits and observers pointout to two plausibleexplanations, each with a quitecomplex plot involving otherallied military forces.

The first theory says thatManila Peninsula is asmokescreen, a necessary

SMASHED:::::By late

afternoon ofNovember 29,

Lim andTrillanes’ caper

was over.They were

teargassed.Photos by

LITO OCAMPO


diversion to take away theattention from the synchronizedmilitary operations of theirallies aimed at toppling theadministration. The targets ofthe offensive could have beenthe chain of command loyal tothe Arroyos, key governmentofficials and the residents ofMalacañang.

The second theory identifiesManila Peninsula as the signal,the commencement ofconcerted efforts of their alliesin strategic military camps inwhat could be described as“mutiny in place.” Basically, thetroops in various camps willdeclare that they arewithdrawing support from theArroyo administration.

In the early evening ofNovember 29, after thesurrender of Lim, Trillanes andcompany, it became apparentthat none of the two scenariosmaterialized. Whatever it isthey were planning fizzled outand their action joined thecountry’s long list of failedpurely military-led attempts tooverthrow the regime in power.

Observers point out thatwhat happened was a greatmiscalculation on the part ofLim and Trillanes. In the end, arepeat of February 2006happened. The other actors inthe plot, whoever or whereverthey may be, did not delivertheir part in the supposedlygrand plan.

More severe critics argue thatthe two were delusional toexpect their action to sparkmassive defections in themilitary which the plotters sayis consistent with theirconstitutional mandate of beingthe protector of the people andthe state. Critics even went to theextent of saying that the plottersmissed an important logisticpoint if they expect civiliansupport for the simple reasonthat the incident took place a dayahead of the Bonifacio Dayrallies.

The post-Manila Penin-sula discussions revolvedmainly around this matter,thus skirting and/or shroud-ing the more substantial issueof the compelling reasons

behind the incident.

“Fighting this righteouscause”2

Government spokespersonsduring the day of the incidentdescribed the issues beingraised by those in the ManilaPeninsula as both trite and stale.They dismissed the grievancesof Gen. Lim and company asrecycled opposition rhetoric.The destabilization plot,according to them, disrupts theeconomic development that isbeing espoused by theadministration.

Fr. Joaquin Bernascharacterized the public’sreaction as “while indicatingdisagreement with the meansused by Trillanes and Lim,shows a widespread desire foran end to corruption that hasweighed down the currentadministration.” In calling forthe ouster of the regimepremised on the illegitimacy ofthe Arroyo presidency, Lim andTrillanes have laid down theircase that in effect reminds thepublic of the wrongdoings andills of the currentadministration. They alsoreminded the public of how thevarious legal processes haveclosed down for the airing ofgrievances and exactingaccountability. This leads to anappreciation that the ManilaPeninsula incident should notbe at all surprising.

The Manila Peninsulaincident happened in the context

of the NBN-ZTE deal, thebribery scandal in Malacañangand the sham impeachmentcomplaint filed againstPresident Arroyo. Some contendthat it was a logical conclusionto the abuses committed by theadministration, from therepeated dismissal ofimpeachment complaints to theclampdown of democratic andconstitutional processes inhaunting atmosphere ofimpunity. The destabilizationplot was a result of the refusalof the government to addressallegations of fraud andcorruption squarely.

The Manila Penisulaincident in effect is arepercussion of the crisis ofinstitutions. And an institutionin a self-inflicted crisis is proneto incidents like this.

Do “not unnecessarily rile themedia at this point in time”3

One of the most powerfulimages from the ManilaPeninsula incident, other than

the brazen use of force when themilitary rammed a tank throughthe main entrance of the hotel,was the line of media people inplastic handcuffs defiantlyraising their restrained hands.The military said that they werejust being “invited” to Bicutanfor processing, an invitationthat they cannot possibly refuse.

No wonder, in a hour’s timeafter the surrender of GeneralLim and Senator Trillanes, thespotlight of media coverageshifted to their fellowpractitioners being held for“processing.” The president’sinstruction to governmentofficials on how to handle themedia came two days late.

Veteran journalist AmandoDoronila captured theindignation of journalists whenhe said that “never in the pasthave media people beenarrested, handcuffed andmanhandled for coveringconflict and investigated forinvolvement in an insurrection,regardless of where thesympathies lie.” Doronila alsodebunked the administration’sclaim that the presence of mediawas obstructing militaryoperations.

After the incident, theArroyo government earnedanother enemy. The battle forthe freedoms being waged bymedia institutions drags up tonow as the governmentcontinues to try to restrainmedia from covering events likethe Manila Peninsula incident.The hardline stance of theadministration as reflected in arecent government memo-randum on the coverage ofevents like the Manila Peninsulaincident is effectively layingbare its persistence to have itsway in such situations withoutmedia documenting theiractions.

That single image ofhandcuffed journalists says a lotabout the attitude of thisadministration towardspeople’s rights. It is also a veryconcrete manifestation of thegovernment’s disregard of thecitizens’ fundamental civilliberties. This is furtheremphasized by the imposition

A SWAT team take cover behind a TV network’s vehicle. Photo by LITO OCAMPO

Whathappenedwas a greatmiscalculationon the part ofLim andTrillanes.

11Human Rights FORUM

of a curfew in the evening ofNovember 29 without aproclamation of nationalemergency.

The imposition of thecurfew, the government said,was to prevent other mutineersfrom launching another attack.But observers say that it wasmainly directed towardsachieving a chilling effect on thepublic especially thosesegments critical of the Arroyogovernment, to show that theadministration will and can takedrastic measures.

But more pragmatic punditspoint out that it was meant tostain the image of SenatorTrillanes, who garnered awhopping 11 million votes inthe elections. The logic, they say,is for the people to blameTrillanes et al. for theinconvenience of the curfew.Whatever the real motivationbehind it, the curfew is alimitation on the freedom ofmovement, a right guaranteedby the 1987 Bill of Rights.

The warrantless arrests andthe curfew violate fundamentalrights and are direct assaults oncivil liberties. After November29, the already poor humanrights record of the Arroyo got

even worse.

Better to die for the nation andnot because of some illness4

Gen. Lim explained to thepublic their actions on thatfateful Thursday morning bysaying, “we shall do whateverwe can do to prevent anybacksliding to the corruptionand abuse of power of theimmediate past, and advancethe cause of truth, freedom,justice, peace and progress forall Filipinos.”

The message, lofty as it is,did not resonate up to the levelGen. Lim and Sen. Trillanesexpected. It did not succeed incapturing the sympathy of theirfellow soldiers and the generalpublic. Significant segments inthe military did not withdrawsupport from the Arroyoadministration and the publicdid not pour into the streets inprotest. But that does notundermine the validity of theircause and the weight of theissues they raised even if theform they chose divided eventhose critical of the Arroyoregime.

Beyond the substance andrhetoric, the Manila Peninsulaincident must also be

appreciated not only in thecontext of the current politicalconjuncture but also on a morestructural perspective. A flaweddemocracy like the Philippinesis prone to events like this. Theexperience of some LatinAmerican countries and evensome of our Asian neighborslike Thailand points out thatmilitary intervention as animpulse is fuelled by theinstability and lack of credi-bility of democratic institutions.As such, these democracies arehostage to direct militaryinterventions with the end goalof regime change.

The Philippine experiencehas brewed its own permutationof power transfer outside thelegally mandated processes. ThePeople Power phenomenon asmanifested in Edsa 1 and 2 is aporous combination of civilianand military participation. It hasbeen proven time again by thePhilippine experience that apurely military intervention isbound to fail as exemplified bythe repeated attempts of GringoHonasan and company duringthe Aquino regime and up to acertain extent the Oakwoodmutiny.

One thing is for sure, the

Manila Peninsula incidentwould not be the last. As longas the political crisis persistsand our democracy remainsflawed, some forces will alwaysview military intervention as anoption to rectify societal illsbrought about by corrupt andfraudulent regimes. l

FOOTNOTES1 Pronouncement in the media

of Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim,November 29, 2007

2 From the statement readduring the press conferencein the Manila Peninsula,November 29, 2007

3 President Arroyo’sinstruction to her topofficials, December 1, 2007

4 Bibeth Orteza, screenwriterand breast cancer survivor,during an interview inside theManila Peninsula, November29, 2007, said “Sana kungkailangan mo mamatay,mamatay ka para sa bayan,‘wag kang mamatay dahil sasakit”

Mr. Cendaña is the DeputySecretary General of AkbayanParty-list. The views expressed inthis article do not necessarily reflectthe official stand of Akbayan.

WHEN THE TANKS CAME ROLLING IN: The posh Manila Peninsula hotel at the height of the November 29 incident. Photo by LITO OCAMPO


FROM VICTIMS TTHE MANALO BROTHERS

Breaching the barrier

n By MAX M. DE MESA

We must not make a scarecrow of the law,Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,And let it keep one shape, till custom make itTheir perch and not their terror.

- Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, II,i,1......................................................................................................................

THE LINE that separates a victim of humanrights violations (HRVs) from a humanrights defender (HRD) is demarcated by thedecision of the human will. The Manalobrothers, Reynaldo and Raymond,

breached that line when they decided to file chargesagainst their abductors, torturers, the accomplices andthose with command responsibility over these securitypersonnel.1 This was done on August 23, 2007, lessthan two weeks after their escape from their 18 month-captivity in the hands of the military. Their reasons,not uninformed with fear of possible retaliation, werenot only to seek justice for themselves, but to help breakthe impunity of perpetrators of enforceddisappearances, torture and extrajudicial killings,among other human rights violations. By breaking theirsilence, the Manalo brothers have initially redefinedthemselves.

On December 26, 2007, underthe new rule of the writ of amparo,the second division of the Courtof Appeals, in a decision pennedby Associate Justice LucasBersamin, unequivocably statedthat “General Palparan’s

participation in the abductionwas also established”,2

saying that he was “at thevery least…aware of the[Manalo brothers’]captivity at the handsof men in uniformassigned to hiscommand.” Thisknowledge, accordingto the Court, showedP a l p a r a n ’ s“ i n d u b i t a b l e

command policy thatunavoidably encouraged and

not merely tolerated theabduction of civilians withoutdue process of law and withoutprobable cause.”3

DenialsPalparan was the

commanding general of thePhilippine Army’s 7th infantrydivision at the time the Manalobrothers were abducted fromtheir homes in Brgy. Buhol naMangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacanby soldiers and six members ofthe military-controlled CitizensArmed Forces Geographical Unit(CAGFU) on February 14, 2006.

The brothersRaymond

andReynaldo

Manalo putto the test

the newwrit of

amparo.


TO DEFENDERS

Soon after the release of thedecision, Palparan denied inmedia interviews anywrongdoing on his part or anyknowledge of the two brothers.4

The General disavowed anyhand or knowledge in theenforced disappearance, tortureand illegal detention of thebrothers, as well as the gravethreats against life and securityof the latter and their parents.Such brazen denial and defianceof the courts have beendisplayed before, as shown bycourt records.

On May 12, 2006, relatives of

the brothers filed a petition forhabeas corpus before the Courtof Appeals. Respondents to thispetition were then Lt. Gen.Hermogenes C. Esperon asCommanding General of thePhilippine Army, then Maj. Gen.Jovito Palparan as Commanderof the 7th Infantry Division inLuzon, M/Sgt. Rizal Hilarioalias Rolly Castillo, and Michaeldela Cruz, Madning dela Cruz,Puti dela Cruz, Pula dela Cruz,Randy Mendoza and RudyMendoza as members of theCAFGU.

Respondents, in their returnof the writ, denied beinginvolved or participating in theManalo brothers’ enforceddisappearance, “and haveconsistently done so ever since.”

Severe tortureWhile in the custody of their

captors, the Manalo brotherswere kept at different periodsin Fort Magsaysay, Laur, NuevaEcija, the headquarters of the 7thinfantry division; Camp Tecsonin San Miguel, Bulacan; in asafehouse in Zambales; at theheadquarters of the Army’s 24thinfantry battalion in Limay,Bataan; and in another safehousein Pangasinan. It was inPangasinan where the Manaloswere able to escape on August13, 2007.

In the course of their arrestand illegal detention, Reynaldoand Raymond experiencedhorrific acts of cruelty, inhumantreatment and torture. AsReynaldo recounts,

Two soldiers entered theroom and beat me up. Theydoused me with urine,poured hot water over me,hit me in my stomach with apiece of wood, slapped metwice in the forehead with a.45 calibre gun, punched mymouth, kicked my headwhen I collapsed on the

KEEPING THE FLAMES ALIVE:Human rights advocates call for an

end to human rights violations.Photos by: JAY AZUCENA


cement floor, and burneddifferent parts of my bodywith a smoldering wood.When another soldiernoticed I was havingdifficulty breathing, hestopped his companion.They then went to the otherroom where Raymond wasand beat the latter in turn.They tortured him in thesame manner I was tortured,including the burning of thedifferent parts of his bodywith a smoldering wood.

While the brothers werebeing held in Fort Magsaysay,Raymond was able to escape.But he was caught and broughtback to the camp. The captorstook their anger on Reynaldo,saying the escape proved thatthe brothers were really NPAs.Reynaldo was severely beaten.“Pinalo ang aking likod gamit ang.45 baril, pinagsusuntok sa mukhahanggang hindi ko na makaya angsakit. (They whacked my backwith a .45 pistol, they repeatedlypunched my face until I couldnot endure the pain anymore.)

During captivity, the brothers“were beaten severely; bathed intheir urine; whipped with a chainwith a barbed wire attached toits end; had water poured in theirnostrils; and were made to eatrotten food.” Their captors alsothreatened to harm them or theirfamilies if they escape or tellanyone about the torture thatthey had gone through.5

WitnessIt was also during their

detention that the brothers metother detainees, includingwomen detainees. Two of themwere the missing University ofthe Philippines students(Sherlyn Cadapan and KarenEmpeño) who were abducted onJune 26, 2006 while doingresearch in a farmingcommunity in Brgy. San Miguel,Hagonoy, Bulacan. The twowere abducted along withManuel Merino, a farmer.

Raymond recounts thatwhile they were in DTU [insideFort Magsaysay], he got toknow a woman named Malu,also a captive. “Parang ginawang

asawa ni “Master” del Rosario,”according to Raymond’stestimony. Malu told Raymondthat she was from BagongPagasa, that she was abductedin Sibol, near San Ildefonso. Atthe time Raymond met Malu,she had been held by themilitary for about a year.

Sometime in November2006, while detained inside thebarracks of Camp Tecson in SanMiguel, Bulacan [which hoststhe First Scout Ranger Regiment(FSRR) and is under the 24th IB],Raymond got to know SherlynCadapan. Raymond describedSherlyn as “babaeng nakakadena”(chained woman). Sherlyn toldRaymond that she hadundergone severe torture. “SiSherlyn ang pinahirapan ninaMickey, Donald at Billy. Sabi niSherlyn sa akin na siya’y ginahasa.”(Sherlyn was tortured byMickey, Donald and Billy. Shetold me she was raped.)

Raymond himself witnessedthe torture of the two women.

Sherlyn and KarenOn November 26, 2006, the

brothers, along with Manuel,Sherlyn and Karen were broughtto the 24th Infantry Battalion (IB)camp in Limay, Bataan. It washere that Raymond witnessedthe torture of the two UPstudents.

Sherlyn told her captors thatthere was a gun at her mother-in-law’s house in Calumpit,Bulacan. On the evening of April11, 2007, the soldiers took her tothe place. They found nofirearm. While they were there,Sherlyn attempted to leave aletter for her mother-in-law. Themilitary escorts saw the letterand confiscated it.

Upon their return to thecamp, Raymond saw the soldierstorture Sherlyn.

“Itinali siya sa bangko, itinaasang kanyang mga paa. Binuhusansiya ng tubig sa ilong; kinuryentesiya.” (She was tied to a bench,her feet were lifted. Water waspoured into her nose; she waselectrocuted.)

“Sumisigaw sya,” (She wasscreaming) Raymond recalls.“Matagal-tagal siyang pinahirapan.Halos 1 drum ng tubig ang ibinuhos

sa kanya.. “ (They tortured her fora long time. Almost a barrel ofwater was poured down on her.)

When Sherlyn said thatKaren helped her with the letter,the soldiers took Karen outsideand tortured her too. WhileRaymond could not see what thesoldiers were doing to Karen,he could hear her screams.

The following day,Raymond recounts, he heard thesoldiers taunting the two UPstudents. “Inuyam sila saginawang pananakit, ipinaalala sakanila ang ginawang paghipo sakanilang ari at pagpasok ng kahoy sakanilang ari.” (They were tauntedabout the pain inflicted on them;they were reminded that theirprivate parts were touched anda wooden stick was insertedinside their sex organs).

TransfersThe five captives were then

brought from Limay, Bataan, toa safehouse off the shore ofZambales. Although Raymondcannot be sure of the exact date,he recalls that the transferoccurred on May 8 or 9. Therethe Manalo brothers stayed untilJune, when they were againbrought back to Limay, Bataan.

After two or three weeks inLimay, the Manalo brothers andManuel were taken to a forestedarea by a certain “Lat”, wherethey slept until Caigas orderedLat to herd them back to themilitary camp.

The three were again takento the forest the following night,this time by a certain “Robin.”The next morning, they werebrought back to the camp.

It was then that Raymondnoticed that the two UP studentswere gone.

“Hindi ko na sila nakita,”Raymond attested. (I never sawthem again.)

The three captives werethen kept inside the cell whereSherlyn and Karen had beenkept. There they stayed chainedfor three days, Raymondrecalls.

Operation LubogRaymond and Manuel were

forcibly made to join themilitary’s Operation Lubog in

Bataan. In one such operation,Raymond witnessed the soldierskill two relatives of suspectedNew People’s Army (NPA)guerillas.

“Dinala kami sa Brgy. Bayan-bayanan, Bataan at doon nakita kongpinatay ang isang matandanglalaking nagkakaingin lamang, siMang Erning. Siya raw ay pinataydahil may anak siyang lalaki na NPAat ang lugar niya ay tuluyan ngNPA. Pinatay siya sa gubat napinagkakainginan niya; ginamit angmatalas na kahoy at tinaga ang leegat ulo. Tinapon ang bangkay sabangin sa likod ng manggahan.”(We were taken to Brgy. Bayan-bayanan, Bataan, where I sawthem kill an old farmer namedErning. According to them, theykilled him because he had a sonwho is with the NPA, and theirplace was an NPA lair. Theykilled him in the forest wherehe had his kaingin; they used asharpened piece of wood. Theyhacked him in the neck andhead. They tossed the body inthe ravine behind the mangotrees.)

After a few weeks, themilitary had another operation.This time, they were taken toBrgy. Orion, to a house whereNPAs are said to usually dropby. Raymond said that when themilitary saw that there was onlyan old, sick man inside thehouse, they grabbed the oldman’s son and took him to theriverbank. Donald Caigas shotthe son three times in the head.

TorchedRaymond recalls another

night when he saw Donaldputting a silencer on his gun.Donald told Raymond not topay attention to anything theymight see or hear during thenight.

“Kung mayroon man kamingmakita o marinig, walang nangyari.”

The next day, they saw thebody of one of the captives whohad been brought to the camp.“Mayroong ibinuhos sa kanyangkatawan at ito’y sinunog. Masansangang amoy.” (They poured some-thing on his body and torchedhim. The smell was horrible.)

About a couple of weeksafter this, the military abducted


two Aetas. “Itinali sila sa labas ngisang kubo, piniringan, ikinadenaat labis na binugbog. Nakita kongnakatakas ang isa sa kanila at binarilsiya ng sundalo ngunit hindi siyatinamaan.” (They were chainedoutside a hut, blindfolded andheavily beaten. I saw one of theAetas escape. A soldier shothim, but he was not hit.)

That night, Raymond sawthe soldiers kill the other Aetacaptive. They also torched hisbody and buried him.

Almost a month after, apick-up vehicle brought twobodies to the camp. The bodieswere placed outside the fence.These were also torched.“Napakamasangsang ang amoy.”(The smell was horrible.)

ManuelManuel, the farmer who had

been abducted along with thetwo UP students, was notspared. Three days after henoticed that Sherlyn and Karenwere gone,

“Ikinadena kami ng 3 araw.Sa ikatlong araw, nilabas ni Latsi Manuel (kasama nina Sherlynat Karen) dahil kakausapin dawsiya ni Gen. Palparan.Nakapiring si Manuel, walangsuot pang-itaas, pinosasan.Nilakasan ng mga sundalo angtunog na galing sa istiryo ngsasakyan. Di nagtagal, narinigko ang hiyaw o ungol ni Manuel.Sumilip ako sa isang haligi ngkamalig at nakita kong sinisilabansi Manuel. (We were chainedfor three days. On the thirdday, Lat took Manuel outbecause General Palparanwanted to speak to him.Manuel was blindfolded,handcuffed, and was notwearing a shirt. The soldierspumped up the volume onthe stereo in their vehicle.Soon after, I heard Manuel’smoans and screams. I peeredout and saw Manuel beingburned alive.)

MiscalculationsSomehow, the brothers have

been spared by divine design orby military miscalculations.After all, there were severaloccasions wherein they could

have been summarily killed.When Manuel was caught

during his escape attempt, hiscaptors brought him to anotherarea of Fort Magsaysay, near thecamp entrance. He was severelybeaten: punched, kicked,flogged with a chain until hisback was bleeding. Thengasoline was poured over him.Suddenly, a person referred toas “Ma’am” called out thatsomeone wanted to seeRaymond before he was killed.The soldiers brought him backto where Reynaldo was beingheld, still in Fort Magsaysay.

The brothers were kept inchains for three or four days. TheManalos were told that thesoldiers were still decidingwhether to kill them or not.

More denialsBut General Palparan

refused to give credence to thetestimony that the two brotherswere brought by Rizal Hilarioand a certain Efren to meet himin a basketball lot in Sapang, SanMiguel, Bulacan. In thismeeting, Palparan gaveRaymond “another chance tolive,” on the condition that thelatter will tell his parents not toattend rallies and court hearings,or seek help from human rightsorganizations, and instead, tohelp convince Raymond’sbrother Bestre to surrender.

For consistency and despiteadded witnesses to the contrary,General Palparan must also denyabout what took place next whenRaymond and Reynaldo werebrought to their home at around

3 in the morning. Guarding themon this “visit” were Efren,Hilario and Hilario’s men, whowere also the ones who hadabducted them. But it was onlyRaymond who was shown to theparents. Reynaldo was keptinside the vehicle because hecould not yet walk.

According to Raymond, heconveyed to his parents thegeneral’s instructions. Hilarioand his men were also presentduring this talk. Hilario alsothreatened the Manalo couplethat should they join any rallyor associated with people fromhuman rights organizations,they will not see their childrenanymore.

Command responsibilityIt may be recalled that

during a session with the MeloCommission, Palparan agreedwith the concept under theDoctrine of CommandResponsibility that“responsibility for summaryexecutions or disappearance extendsbeyond the person or persons whoactually committed those acts.Anyone with higher authority, whoauthorized, tolerated or ignoredthese acts are liable for them.”6

It must also be rememberedthat then Major General JovitoPalparan was praised by Ms.Arroyo, Chief Executive andCommander-in-Chief, in herState of the Nation Address in2006 for his supposed exemplaryperformance in counter-insurgency. By extension, theGeneral’s actions against humanrights, albeit implicitly as in a

blank check, could be covered bythe commendation.

Challenges and risksBy going after those who

have abducted, tortured anddetained them, the Manalobrothers have captured thesupport and admiration of localand international human rightsadvocates. The Paris-basedInternational Federation forHuman Rights (FIDH), forexample, in its August 30, 2007Fact-Finding Report on thePhilippines, noted that theManalos account “confirms thefear of FIDH that torture ispresumably regular in theprocess of arrest or abductionby the military or police.” FIDHalso noted the existence of a“culture of torture” within thethe Armed Forces of thePhilippines (AFP).

The Philippine Alliance ofHuman Rights Advocates(PAHRA), in its press statement,challenged both the presidentand the Commission on HumanRights (CHR) to act on theManalo brothers’ expose, notingthat

These are serious allega-tions that no responsibleCommander-in-Chief has theright to ignore. These areexplosive revelations that noresponsive national humanrights institution has theprerogative not toinvestigate.

The challenges and risks arecontained in their veryexperiences and to what theyhave witnessed. The responsesthey make to these challengesand the risks they are willing totake will define the kind ofhuman rights defenders theywill be and the rights they willdefend.

In being arrested withoutwarrants, uninformed of theirrights, illegally detainedwithout charges before theproper authorities and withoutcounsel of their choice – theseare violations against the rightto due process. Abduction andenforced disappearance inflictnot only emotional trauma onthe families from whom the

Members of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)denounce State terrorism. Photo by JAY AZUCENA


KARAPATANAlamin ang inyong mga

KATULAD DIN ng writ of amparo, angpetisyong habeas data ay napagpasyahangpagtibayin ng Korte Suprema upang

maipagtanggol ang karapatan ng mga tao, lalo naang mga kritikal sa pamahalaan, laban sa pang-aabuso ng mga nasa kapangyarihan.

Bagama’t ang remedyong ito ay para sa lahat, ang nagbunsodsa mataas na hukuman upang isulong ito ay ang patuloy pa ringpagpatay at sapilitang pagkawala ng mga myembro ng mgagrupong bumabatikos sa pamahalaan.

Ito ay nagkabisa nitong ika-2 ng Pebrero 2008.

Ano ang writ of habeas data?Ang petisyong ito ay nagbibigay proteksyon sa mga taong

nilabag o malalabag pa lamang ang karapatan sa ‘privacy,’ buhay,kalayaan, at seguridad dahil sa mga ilegal na aksyon opagpapabaya ng sinumang opisyal o ahensya ng pamahalaangnangongolekta at nag-iimbak ng mga impormasyon hinggil sakatauhan, pamilya, tahanan, at mga komunikasyon ng mgabiktima.

Ipinaliwanag ni Chief Justice Reynato Puno na bagamat anghabeas data ay katambal ng writs of amparo at habeas corpus, maaaririn itong magamit nang hiwalay upang mapangalagaan angkarapatan sa ‘privacy’ ng mga impormasyon hinggil sa isangindibidwal.

Sa ilalim ng remedyong ito, maaaring hilingin sa korte ngisang tao na ilabas, baguhin, itama, pigilin, o tuluyang sirain ngisang opisyal o ahensya ang anumang impormasyong nakalapnila hinggil sataong nag-petisyon. Ito aykung mapapatu-nayang ilegalang paraan ngpagkalap at ginagamit samaling paraan angnasabing impormasyon.

Halimbawa nito angilegal na pangangalap atpaggamit ng impor-masyon ng mga militaro ng kapulisan upanggantihan o di kaya’ypatahimikin ang mgalegal na personalidad nakabilang sa mgasinasabing maka-kaliwang grupo.

Writ of Habeas Data

victims are taken but result ineconomic dislocation as well.For the poor, each member is amajor contributor to thesustenance and well-being of thewhole family – on food, health,housing and education, amongothers. Here we realize againthe indivisibility andinterrelatedness of humanrights – civil, cultural, economic,social and political.

There are still those namedand unnamed victims ofextrajudicial killings, and thosestill detained and tortured in themilitary’s safehouses who maynever obtain justice becauserelatives would not know whereto begin to search.

While we are glad to seesome initial victories, like thatof the case of the Manalobrothers, we may also begin tosee the limitations of the rule ofthe writ of amparo. What wemust guard against is that the‘birds of prey’ may get used toit and make it also their perch.7

Impunity cannot be stoppedby any individual. It needs apeople’s resolve.

To break this impunity,human rights defenders musttake root in the different grass-root communities and sectors ofPhilippine society. Formationsof human rights defenders mustbe organized at all territoriallevels to facilitate themonitoring and documentationof human rights violations.Absent the military’s will tohave a change of heart,solidarity actions to respect,protect and advance humanrights must go beyondterritorial, religious, politicaland ideological boundaries forthe emergence of people’sresolve to end enforceddisappearances and extrajudicialkillings. l

The author is the Chairpersonof the Philippine Alliance of HumanRights Advocates (PAHRA) andConvenor of the Citizens’ Councilfor Human Rights (CCHR). CCHRwas formed in 2005 to resist theincreasing State repression of civilliberties, such as the freedoms ofexpression, association andassembly.

FOOTNOTESFOOTNOTESFOOTNOTESFOOTNOTESFOOTNOTES

1 Petition. Republic of thePhilippines, Supreme Court.G.R.No. . . . . 179095, August 23,2007, 1:11 P.M. filed for theManalo brothers by theCounsels from the Free LegalAssistance Group (FLAG

2 Salaverria, Leila, B. “Courtsays Palparan knew ofabductions”. Philippine DailyInquirer (PDI), December 28,2007, pp.1 and A15

3 Ibid., p. A154 Orejas, Tonette. “Palparan:

There’s no such policy; thoseare only perceptions”. PDI,December 28, 2007, p. A15.Palparan was also seen onthe evening TV news ofDecember 27, 2007 whichmay also have contributed tonewspaper reports thefollowing day.

5 Petition. Republic of thePhilippine, Supreme Court.G.R.No. . . . . 179095, op.cit., p.1, Preliminary Statement

6 Report. INDEPENDENTCOMMISSION TO ADDRESSMEDIA AND ACTIVISTKILLINGS,[more popularlyknown as the MeloCommission] Created underAdministrative Order No. 157(s. 2006), pp. 30-31

7 Gabieta, Joey A and Aning,Jerome. “Missing activistcouple released by military inLeyte”, Philippine DailyInquirer (PDI), 30 Dec. 2007,p. A1. Also see Burgonio, TJ.“Karapatan: AFP liable forcouple’s abduction”. PDI, 31Dec. 2007, p. A5. The articlesare about a couple, ManuelPajarito and Juliet Fernandez,who were arrested at acheckpoint in Pinabacdao,Samar, on May 11, 2007.They were believed to havebeen brutally killed and Julietraped. Search by parents ofJuliet was in vain. Both werelater presented alive beforethe media on Dec. 26, 2007.The relief over the couplebeing alive should not glossover, much less condone, themilitary impunity of theabduction and thearbitrariness in complyingwith the rule of law.


Ano ang mga dapat lamanin ng petisyon?1.) Mga personal na detalye hinggil sa nagkakaso at

kinakasuhan.2.) Paano nalabag o nalalagay sa panganib ang karapatan

sa ‘privacy’ at paano naaapektuhan nito ang karapatansa buhay, kalayaan, at seguridad ng biktima.

3.) Ang mga aksyon at pamamaraang ginawa ngnagpepet i syonupang makuha omabawi angimpormasyongtinutukoy ngpetisyon.

4.) Ang kinaro-roonan ng mgad o k u m e n t o ,rehistro, at ‘data-base’ ng opisina atng taong may hawako may kontrol ngimpormasyon. Ito aykung nalalaman ngnagpepetisyon angdetalyeng ito.

5.) Ang mga nais hilingin ng nagpetisyon tulad ngpagtatama, pagbabago, pagpigil sa pagsasapubliko,at pagsira sa mga dokumento at iba pang anyo ngdokumentasyong naglalaman ng impormasyon.

Kapag may mga pagbabanta, maaari ring hilingingitigil na ng inirereklamo ang aksyong ito.

6.) At iba pang kaugnay na remedyong makatarungan atpatas.

Pag-isyu ng Writ of Habeas DataKapag naisampa na ang petisyon at nakita ng huwes batay

sa kanyang pagsusuri na dapat ngang maglabas ng writ na ito,magpapadala ang ‘clerk of court’ ng writ, na may selyo ngnasabing hukuman, sa lahat ng partidong kasangkot, sa loobng tatlong araw.

Kung makita ng hukom o ng huwes na kailangangmabilisang maipalabas ang writ, pwedeng siya mismo angsumulat nito at magtalaga siya ng taongpwedeng maghain nitosa kinauukulangmga tao.

N a k a s a a ddin dapat sakopya ng writ angpetsa ng gaganapingmabilisang paglilitis hinggil sanakahaing petisyon na hindidapat lumampas sa sampungaraw (10 working days) mula saaraw na naisyu ang nasabingwrit. l

Sino ang pwedeng magsampa nito?Sinumang biktima ay

maaaring magpetisyon sa kortengunit sa kaso ng mga sapilitangpagkawala at pagpatay, pwedengmagsampa sa hukuman ang mgasumusunod:

a.) Sinumang miyembrong pamilya ng biktima;asawa, anak, at mgamagulang;

b.) Sinumang kamag-anakng biktima, hanggang saika-apat na antas, kunghindi makapagsampaang mga naunangnabanggit.

Ang pagsusumite ngreklamong ito sa korte ay walangbayad para sa mga kapus-paladat dapat ding agad na tanggapinng hukuman ang petisyon kahit nawala pang patunay na ang nagsumite ay kapus-palad nga.Mayroon silang labinlimang (15) araw upang makapaglabas ngmga patunay na sila nga aymga dukha.

Saan ito pwedeng isampa?Ang petisyong ito ay

maaaring isumite saRegional Trial Court (RTC)kung saan nakatira angnagrereklamo o kaya ay anginirereklamo. Pwede ring saRTC na nakakasakop sa lugar kungsaan kinolekta o inimbak angimpormasyong tinutukoy ng petisyon.Depende na ito sa desisyon ng mag-pepetisyon.

Maaari ring idulog ang petisyong itosa Korte Suprema o sa Court of Appealso di kaya’y sa Sandiganbayankung angpakay ngr e k l a m oay pam-publikongi m p o r -masyon nakinolekta ngi s a n gahensya oopisina nggobyerno.


THE GLOBAL campaign for the abolition ofthe death penalty made a significant leapwhen the United Nations General Assembly(UNGA) in its 62nd Session adopted aResolution on the Moratorium on the Use

of the Death Penalty. The Resolution wasrecommended by the Third Committee (Social,Humanitarian and Cultural Committee). It waspassed despite overwhelming protests from a numberof Member States on December 18, 2007 by a vote of104 to 54, with 29 abstentions.

TOWARDSGLOBAL MORATORIUM

WORLDWIDEABOLITIONOF THE DEATH PENALTY

ON EXECUTIONS:

Moratorium on executionsThe resolution on

moratorium on the use of thedeath penalty reaffirms theright to life as it is affirmed inArticle 3 of the UniversalDeclaration on Human Rightsand in other internationalhuman rights treaties such as theInternational Covenant on Civiland Political Rights and theConvention on the Rights of theChild. It also recalls resolutionson the question of the deathpenalty adopted by the formerCommission on Human Rights.

The resolution welcomes“the decisions taken by anincreasing number of States to applya moratorium on executions,followed in many cases by theabolition of the death penalty”.

It calls on all States thatcontinue to impose the deathpenalty to “respect international

n By TRACY PABICO

Marlin Gray Vigil Pictures, October 26, 2005, St. Louis Independent MediaCenter. www.stlims.org

In October2007,

PhilRightstook part inlobbying forthe adoption

of a globalmoratorium on

the use of thedeath penalty.


IN FAVOUR: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina,Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia,Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi,Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica,Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon,Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary,Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan,Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali,Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (FederatedStates of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia,Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau,Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, RussianFederation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe,Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden,Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, UnitedKingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

Against: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain,Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chad,China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica,Egypt, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives,Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, PapuaNew Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, SaintVincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, SolomonIslands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidadand Tobago, Uganda, United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Belarus, Bhutan, Cameroon, Central African Republic,Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, EquatorialGuinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lao People’sDemocratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Morocco,Niger, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Togo, United ArabEmirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Absent: Guinea-Bissau, Peru, Senegal, Seychelles, Tunisia.

standards that provide safeguardsguaranteeing the protection of therights of those facing the deathpenalty, and to provide theSecretary-General with informationrelating to the use of capitalpunishment and the observance ofsafeguards”.

The resolution entreatsother countries to “progressivelyrestrict the use of the death penaltyand reduce the number of offencesfor which it may be imposed”.

The resolution also calls onall States that have abolished thedeath penalty not to re-introduce it.

Although not legallybinding, the UNGA resolutionon a moratorium on the use ofthe death penalty is a significanthuman rights tool. Theresolution is an affirmation ofMember States’ commitment towork towards abolition of thedeath penalty. It is also arelevant instrument that willencourage other Member States

to review their use of the deathpenalty

Debate at the Third CommitteeThe draft resolution on a

moratorium on the use of thedeath penalty was approved bythe Third Committee with arecorded vote of 99 in favor to 52against and with 33 abstentions.The approval of the draftresolution had been a result ofintense debate and deliberation.Each Member State stood firmlyon their national positions on thedeath penalty: abolitionist orretentionist, for or against.

RetentionistA total of 14 amendments to

the draft resolution wereintroduced by countries (Egypt,Singapore, Barbados, Antiguaand Barbuda, and Botswana)opposed to the moratorium onthe use of the death penalty.

Opponents to the resolutionstated that the move was anattempt by States that haveabolished the death penalty toimpose their values on Statesthat have not.

The draft resolution wasperceived as an imposition onthe sovereignty of each State topractice its own legal systems.A number of Member Statesargued that the death penalty isnot illegal under internationalhuman rights law and that everyState has the sovereign right todetermine its own criminal andjudicial system. Opponents tothe resolution also argued thatthe death penalty is a matter ofthe country’s criminal justice

VOTE ON AMORATORIUM ONTHE USE OF THEDEATH PENALTYTHE DRAFT resolution on a moratorium on the

use of the death penalty (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 104 in

favour to 54 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:.............................................................................................

SOURCE:

UNGA DPI News and Media Division. General Assembly adoptslandmark text calling for moratorium on death penalty. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10678.doc.htm.December 18, 2007

.............................................................................................

NO TO THE DEATH PENALT Y:European Union (EU) dimplomatsand Filipino Lawmakers.

Photo by TRACY PABICO

UN BUILDING UN PHOTO LIBRARY


domestic matters of a State.Co-sponsors had hoped that

the adoption of the draftresolution will lead to auniversal dialogue on the deathpenalty and human rights.

In the end all proposedamendments were defeated andthe draft resolution was adopted.

Cross-Regional InitiativeThe initiative for a global

moratorium on executions wasprimarily led by ten countries:Albania, Angola, Brazil,Croatia, Gabon, Mexico, NewZealand, the Philippines,Portugal (for the EuropeanUnion) and Timor Leste. Theidea was to organize a cross-regional initiative that will callon other States to adopt aresolution calling for amoratorium on executions.

Eighty-seven countries,including the 27

and not of human rights.Arguments were focused on

the principle of non-intervention of the UN indomestic matters andmaintenance of nationalsovereignty for each MemberState.

AbolitionistsCo-sponsors and supporters

of the draft resolution defendedthat the draft resolution does notviolate the sovereigntyprinciple of any Member State,as such resolutions are notinterventions. They believedthat the promotion of a

moratorium on the deathpenalty by the internationalcommunity did not constitute aform of intervention in thedomestic jurisdiction of a State.The purpose of the draftresolution was not to intervene,but to reinforce a growingtrend towards phasing out thedeath penalty, which was alegitimate concern of theinternational community.

They believed that the issueof death penalty is a matter thatfell within the principle ofhuman rights as well as thedignity of a human person, and that the promotion of all human

rights and fundamentalfreedoms must beconsidered a priorityconcern of the UN. Thedeath penalty is certainly

not just within the

The UNGAresolution on amoratorium onthe use of thedeath penaltyis a significanthuman rightstool.


IT IS the country’s biggestbudget ever. With a P1.2267trillion budget, people

should be expecting moreservices from the governmentin 2008. The 2008 budget ispremised on the generation ofP1.236 trillion in governmentincome, of which P1.108 trillionis expected from taxes, and P127billion from non-tax sources.

The approved budget isabout P300 million less thanwhat Malacañang originallyproposed.

Lawmakers cut some P25.9billion from debt servicing asproposed in the budgetMalacañang submitted toCongress. They likewise cutP12.638 billion from theproposed allocations for “slow-moving projects, excessallocations and othermiscellaneous allotments.”According to Rep. EdcelLagman, head of the Housecommittee on appropriations,these amounts were then re-allocated to social services.

The P38.5 billion comingfrom the debt service reductionand the cuts in “slow-movingprojects” were realigned toincrease the appropriations forhealth, education, agriculture,social welfare, infrastructure,local governance and develop-ment, justice and the judiciary,labor and employment, energy,environment, and public safetyand security.

Infrastructure allocationsreceived the highest realign-

ment of P12.982 billion, for a newtotal appropriation of P94.729billion.

Health, education andagriculture also receivedincreases of P5.790 billion,P4.829 billion and P1.872 billionrespectively.

HR DiGEST

2008 budget: hefty,but is it enough?

With the increasedallocation, basic and highereducation now has anappropriation of P158.602billion; health, P25.847 billion;and agriculture, P29.161 billion.

At P295 billion, debtservicing remains the biggestbudgetary item, eating about24% of the total budget.

Aside from debt servicing, theother contentious items includethe insertion of additional P13.5billion as Priority DevelopmentAssistance Fund (PDAF) forcongressmen, popularly referredto as “pork barrel”, and the P114billion “unprogrammed funds”requested by Malacañang, whichRep. Lorenzo Tañada IIIdescribed as a “blank check”being handed to PresidentArroyo. l

Recorded executions worldwidefell by more than 25% in 2006,with a drop from at least 2,148in 2005 to at least 1,591.

“I am particularly en-couraged by the supportexpressed for this initiative frommany diverse regions of theworld,” U.N. Secretary-GeneralBan Ki-moon said in a statement.“This is further evidence of atrend toward ultimately abo-lishing the death penalty.” l

MORE BUDGET NEEDED: Dilapited schools (above), farm-to-market roads(below) Photo by TRACY PABICO

Photo by RHODA VIAJAR

SOURCES:

UN News Centre. GeneralAssembly committee backs globalmoratorium on death penalty,http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24679&Cr=g e n e r a l & C r 1 = a s s e m b l y .November 15, 2007

UNGA DPI News and MediaDivision. Ten Amendments toDraft Proposing Moratorium onUse of Death Penalty Rejected byRecorded Votes in ThirdCommittee, http://www.un.org/N e w s / P r e s s / d o c s / 2 0 07 /gashc3905.doc.htm. November14, 2007

UNGA DPI News and MediaDivision. Two-Day DeliberationsEnd with Contentious ResolutionCalling for Moratorium on Use ofDeath Penalty Approved by ThirdCommittee After Vote, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3906.doc.htm.November 15, 2007

UNGA DPI News and MediaDivision. General AssemblyAdopts Landmark Text Calling forMoratorium on Death Penalty,http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10678.doc.htm.December 18, 2007

http://www.amnesty.org

The Philippine Human RightsInformation Center is a memberof the Anti-Death Penalty AsiaNetwork (ADPAN) and waspart of Amnesty International’slobbying delegation to theUnited Nations GeneralAssembly which took place inOctober 2007 at the UN in NewYork City.

European Union states, morethan a dozen Latin Americancountries, and eight Africanstates jointly introduced theresolution.

The resolution has been acollective effort of countries thathave abolished the deathpenalty.

But opponents of theresolution only pointed to EUas the driving force. Theyclaimed that the resolution wasan imposition of Western valuesby the EU.

EU States have abolished thedeath penalty and is consideredas a continent free of the deathpenalty. EU has been supportiveof global campaigns and localinitiatives aimed at abolishingthe death penalty. Thus, asupport for the resolution is butrelevant and necessary.

Two previous attempts tohave the General Assemblyadopt a moratorium on thedeath penalty in 1994 and 1999failed.

This time, human rightsorganizations such asthe Amnesty Interna-tional (AI), the World

Coalition Against theDeath Penalty and

regional networks likethe Anti-Death Penalty

Asia Network (ADPAN)lobbied relentlessly for the

adoption of the UNGAresolution.

Towards universal abolitionThe resolution did not

abolish the death penalty.However, the call for amoratorium establishes aframework of abolishing thedeath penalty. The resolutionis a powerful tool for humanrights activists to organizeactions that will compelgovernments to review andreport its implementation.

According to AmnestyInternational, a total of 133countries, from all regions of theworld, have abolished the deathpenalty in law or practice andonly 25 countries carried outexecutions in 2006. 91% of allknown executions took place insix countries: China, Iran, Iraq,Pakistan, Sudan and the USA.


IN A DECISION widelycriticised by local andinternational advocates of

breastfeeding, the SupremeCourt on October 9, 2007 votedto strike down three portions ofthe Health Department’sAdministrative Order 2006-00012 or the revisedimplementing rules andregulations of Executive Order51, popularly known as the“Milk Code.”

In nullifying the Milk Code’sprohibition on infant formulaadvertisements, the high courtruled that the Department ofHealth (DOH) can only regulateand not completely ban theadvertising and promotion ofbreastmilk substitutes forchildren up to two years of age.

Despite the lifting of the ban,the DOH vowed that infantformula ads will “go throughstringent checks” by the Inter-Agency Committee that checksmilk ads before these are aired.

Health Undersecretary AlexPadilla said the IAC willdetermine the truthfulness ofthese ads and check for falsenutritional health claims thatmilk companies make on theirproducts.

The breastfeeding group

THE SUPREME Courtdecision comes at atime when public

health officials are voicingalarms over the decreasingnumber of mothers who arebreastfeeding their babies,coupled with the high infantmortality rate. The DOHnotes that exclusive breast-feeding rates during the firstfour to five months havedeclined, from 20% in 1998 to16% in 2003.

UNICEF reported that“the average duration ofexclusive breastfeeding in thePhilippines went down from1.4 months in 1998 to a mere

24 days in 2003 — a far cry fromthe recommended six months.”

The international standard isexclusive breastfeeding untilsix months and continuousbreastfeeding until two years.

This significant decline inbreastfeeding rates over the lastten years can be traced toaggressive promotion,advertising and marketing byinfant milk manufacturers,UNICEF notes.

According to Dr. NicholasAlipui, UNICEF’s representa-tive to the Philippines, “Infantformula has been glamorized tothe point that many mothers arenow convinced that it is superior

Declining breastfeeding rate notedto mother’s milk.” Alipui saidthat this is far from the truth.

In the Philippines, about82,000 children under 5 dieeach year, mainly because ofpoor nutrition. The WorldHealth Organization esti-mates that about 16,000 ofthese deaths are caused by“inappropriate feedingpractices, including the use ofinfant formula.” l

SOURCES:www.bulatlat.comwww.gmanews.tvwww.inquirer.netwww.medindia.net/newswww.msnbc.msn.com

Breast milk advocates lose Arugaan, through InesFernandez, criticized the SCdecision, saying it favored theprotection of infant formulasales rather than Filipinomothers and their babies. Theban on advertisements “wouldhave aligned the Philippineswith international standards oninfant formula milk,”Fernandez said.

Fernandez added that “eventhe Codex Alimentarius, theinternationally recognizedstandards and guidelines relatingto food production and safety, hasalready disallowed nutritionalhealth claims on formula milk.”The Codex Alimentarius wasestablished by the World HealthOrganizations and the UnitedNation’s Food and AgricultureOrganization.

Instead of seeking a motionfor reconsideration, the DOHsaid it would work withCongress in revising the MilkCode and support the passingof new laws on breastfeeding.

The Pharmaceutical andHealthcare Association of thePhilippines (PHAP) stood aspetitioner in the case.

Among its members aremedical giants Abbot Labora-tories, Wyeth Philippines, MeadJohnson, AstraZeneca Pharma-ceuticals, Bayer Philippines,Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline andMercury Drug corporation.

The stakes are certainly highfor infant milk companies. ThePhilippines is one of the mostlucrative markets for babyformula products. A 2006 reportfrom AC Nielsen shows thatmore than $100 million arespent annually to advertisemilk, an amount that is almosthalf the DOH annual budget.According to industryestimates, some P3.1 billion ofinfant milk is importedannually by the Philippines, andit is sold at seven times theimport cost, or P21.5 billion.

PHAP lawyer FelicitasArroyo argued that the multina-tional milk companies wouldstand to lose P10 billion (US$222million) if the RIRR wereimmediately implemented, andthat this would force thecompanies to reduce their in-country workforces. l

HR DiGEST

DEPRIVED OF MOTHER’S MILK: Aggressive promotion of infant formulashas imperilled the well-being of Filipino babies. Photo by TRACY PABICO


TRiViA:HRn THE RIGHT WORDS

WE MUST recognize the role of human rights in eradicating hungerand poverty, and the connection between development, humanrights and security.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s messageon World Food Day 2007

n IN THIS QUARTER

WORLD FOOD Day iscommemorated every 16th ofOctober, the day the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO)was founded. Since its firstobservation in 1981, WFD aimsto increase awareness of theproblem of hunger, foodinsecurity, malnutrition andfamine that plague more than850 million people all over theworld.

In 2007, the World Food Daybanners the theme: The Right toFood. According to internationallaw, the right to food “is the rightof every person to have regularaccess to sufficient, nutritionallyadequate and culturallyacceptable food for an active,healthy life. It is the right to feedoneself in dignity, rather than theright to be fed.” Through thisyear’s observance of WFD,governments are reminded thatthe Right to Food is not just aneconomic, moral or politicalimperative – it is a legalobligation. Calling attention tothe Right to Food demonstratesincreasing recognition by theinternational community of theimportant role of human rightsin eradicating hunger and

poverty, and hastening anddeepening the sustainabledevelopment process.

In the Philippines, the WorldFood Day commemoration ishighlighted by the SocialWeather Stations (SWS) surveythat shows “hunger has risen toits record high status since (mid)1998 with 21.5% of familiesliving with hunger.”

Sources:http://www.fao.orghttp://www.whiteband.org

LABADA REPUBLIC

F A C T S A N D F I G U R E S

Life expectancy at birth (years) 66 70

FOOD SECURITY STATISTICS

Population (in millions) 69.9 78.6 90.5

1995-1997 2008 (Projected)2001-2003

Proportion ofundernourishment (%) 26 22 19

1990-1992 2001-20031995-1997FOOD DEPRIVATION

Number ofundernourished (millions) 16.2 15.4 15.2

Poverty Threshold(in Philippine Pesos) 12,309 15,057

POVERTY20062003

Poverty Incidence(% of population) 30.0 32.9

Magnitude of Poor(in million) 23.8 27.6

Food 2.6 3.1 2.6 Population 2.4 2.2 2.0

FOOD AND POPULATION GROWTH (AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE (%))1995-1997

to 2001-20031990-1992

to 1995-19971979-1981

to 1990-1992

Wasting, less than -2 s.d (%) 6.5Stunting, less than - 2 s.d (%) 32.1Overweight, more than + 2 s.d (%) 1.0

CHILD NUTRITIONAL STATUS (1998)

HEALTH20031990

Sources: NSCB; FAOStat, Food andAgriculture Organization of theUnited Nations

Under-five mortality rate(per 1,000 live births) 63 36

Infant mortality rate (0-1 year)(per 1,000 live births) 45 27


SINCE APRIL 2004, the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)has been accepting interns from local and international institutions anduniversities. This Internship Program is open to college students, researchers or

professionals who are interested in doing internship work in an NGO like PhilRights,especially those who want to expand their experience in human rights work. Interns areassigned to one of PhilRights’ four institutional programs: information, research, training,and monitoring/documentation.

Contributors must provide the following details:

The Editor, Human Rights Forumc/o Philippine Human Rights Information Center(PhilRights)53-B Maliksi St., Brgy. Pinyahan, 1100 Quezon CityTel. nos. +(632) 433-1714 and +(632) 436-5686E-mail: [email protected]

Name, Organizational Affiliation (if applicable), Address,Telephone or Mobile Number, E-mail

........................................................................................................

IN DEFENDING human rights and human dignity,silence is not golden.So speak up. Write down your thoughts.Your ideas are valuable.Contribute to the Human Rights Forum.Send us Letters to the Editor, literary contributions,analytical essays, feature stories, in English orFilipino.You may also send us photos and images.

Please submit your contributions through thefollowing contact details:

ANNOUNCEMENT

For details, please contact Mr. Pepito D. Frias, PhilRights Training Associate,at 433-1714 and 436-5686.

Write foryour rights

PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTSINFORMATION CENTER (PHILRIGHTS)53-B Maliksi St. Barangay Pinyahan1100 Quezon City

BUSINESS MAIL ENTEREDAS 3RD CLASS (PM)Permit No.: PM-07-03-NCR

human rights forum 1 -...

Documents