Know Your Rights 5: Detention

* Inilathala ng Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG)
* Isinalin sa Filipino ng Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Know Your Rights 5-1

KUNG IKAW AY NA-ARESTO NA, ITO ANG IYONG MGA KARAPATAN:

* Manatiling tikom ang bibig, at asistihan ng abogado na may kakayanan na iyong pinili kapag ikaw ay isinalang na sa interrogation.

* Hindi isailalim sa torture, manhandling, intimidation, solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, panloloko, o pangako ng gantimpala o kaluwagan sa anumang paraan (droga, hypnosis, atbp.) na maaring makapanghina ng loob o malayang pag-iisip mo.

* Bigyan ng access sa daglian at sapat na tulong medikal.

* Iharap sa inquest sa lalong madaling panahon at hindi lalagpas sa:
– 12 oras matapos kang ma-aresto dahil sa paglabag sa batas na may parusang hindi mabigat (light offense);
– 18 oras matapos kang ma-aresto dahil sa paglabag sa batas na may parusang medyo mabigat (less grave offense);
– 36 oras matapos kang ma-aresto dahil sa paglabag sa batas na may parusang mabigat (grave offense).

Know Your Rights 5-2
Bago magsimula at pagkatapos ng interogasyon, ito ang iyong mga karapatan:

* Ipaalam sa iyo na may karapatan kang humiling na sumailalim sa physical examination ng isang mahusay na doktor na iyong pinili.

* Kung hindi mo kayang magbayad sa serbisyo ng isang doktor, bigyan ng access sa isang mahusay at walang kinikilingang doktor na gagampan sa physical examination mo (mas mainam na babae ang doktor kung ikaw ay isang babae).

Know Your Rights 5-3

Sa isang inquest proceeding na isasagawa ng isang civilian prosecutor, dapat suriin kung ligal o hindi ang iyong pagka-aresto. Ang prosecutor, maaring:

(a) Mag-utos na palayain ka (kahit mayroon o wala pang full-blown investigation na naisagawa);

(b) Ipagtibay na ligal ang iyong pagka-aresto at ihanda ang kaukulang complaint o impormasyon na isasampa sa trial court. Madalas na tinatanong ng prosecutor ang na-aresto kung nais niyang magkaroon ng preliminary investigation, at kaugnay nito, kung siya ay pipirma ng waiver o pagpapaubaya ng kanyang mga karapatan. Huwag pumirma sa waiver nang hindi batid o nasabihan ng posibleng epekto o kahihinatnan nito. Kapag pumirma sa waiver — at ito ang madalas nangyayari — maaring mananatili ka sa detention center, habang naghihintay ng preliminary investigation. Kapag pumirma sa waiver, maaring mangahulugan din na ipinapaubaya mo na rin ang karapatan mong magsampa ng kaso laban sa mga umaresto sa iyo.

Know Your Rights 5-4

Isang inquest proceeding ang dapat isagawa ng isang sibilyan na prosecutor upang masuri kung ligal ang naganap na pagka-aresto sa iyo.

Kapag nagpasya ang prosecutor na iligal o labag sa batas ang pagka-aresto sa iyo, dapat niyang irekomenda sa City o Provincial Prosecutor na palayain ka. Gayunman, ang pagpapalaya sa iyo ay maaring idaan sa isang regular na preliminary investigation.

Kapag napagtibay ng prosecutor na legal ang iyong pagka-aresto, tatanungin ka niya kung nais mong sumailalim sa isang preliminary investigation. Kapag sumang-ayon ka, tatanungin ka niya kung sang-ayong kang pumirma ng waiver ayon sa Article 125 ng Revised Penal Code, at sa tulong ng isang abogado, o kung walang abogado, ng isang responsableng tao na iyong pinili. Ang pagpirma mo ng waiver ay nangangahulugan din na sumasang-ayon ka na manatili sa kulungan habang isinasagawa ang iyong preliminary investigation.

Know Your Rights 5-5

Kung ayaw mog dumaan sa preliminary investigation o tumutol na pumirma ng waiver, isasagawa ng prosecutor ang inquest sa pamamagitan ng pagsuri ng mga sworn statement/affidavit ng complainant at witnesses, at ng iba pang ebidensiyang isinumite ng complainant. Kung sa pagpapasya ng prosecutor ay may probable cause laban sa iyo, ihahanda niya ang karampatang complaint o impormasyon laban sa iyo at i-rerekomenda niya sa City o Provincial Prosecutor na isumite ang kaso sa korte.

Know Your Rights 5-6

Masasabing may probable cause kung batay sa mga ebidensiyang isinumite sa inquest prosecutor ay kapani-paniwalang may krimeng naganap at ikaw ay posibleng may kinalaman o kasalanan dito.
Kung kasapi ng pulisya at military ang nagtatanong at nag-iimbestiga sa iyo, ang mga karapatan mo ay:

– Manatiling tikom ang bibig.

– Magkaroon ng mahusay at walang kinikilingang abogado, at mas mainam pa, na ikaw mismo ang pumili.

– Bigyan ng abogado, kung hindi mo kayang kumuha ng sarili mong abogado.

– Humiling na sumailalim ka sa physical examination ng isang mahusay at independent na doktor na iyong pinili, at kung hindi mo kayang magbayad ng doktor, bigyan ng isang mahusay at independent na doktor na mgasasagawa ng physical examination sa iyo. (mas mainam na babae ang doktor kung ikaw ay isang babae); at

– Ipaalam sa iyo na ito ang mga karapatan mo, at anuman ang iyong maging pahayag ay maaring magamit laban sa iyo sa korte.

Know Your Rights 5-7

Sa paglilitis ng krimen o criminal prosecutions, it ang mga karapatan mo:

– Huwag pilitin na tumestigo laban sa sarili mo.

– Manatiling tikom ang bibig at magkaroon ng abogado.

– Malaman kung ano ang uri at dahilan ng mga akusasyon laban sa iyo.

– Magkaroon ng mabilis, bukas, at patas na paglilitis.

– Magsampa ng apela kung ikaw ay ma-convict.

– Ituring na inosente hangga’t hindi napapatunayang nagkasala.

– Humarap at lumahok ka ayt iyong abogado sa pagdinig ng mga akusasyon.

– Matulungan ng mga proseso ng korte upang sapilitang lumahok ang mga witness at mailabas ang mga ebidensiya para maipagtanggol mo ang iyong sarirli,

– Personal na makita at ma-cross-examine ang mga witness laban sa iyo.

Know Your Rights 5-8

Kapag ikaw ay iniharap na sa hukom o judge, magsampa ng formal complaint kung ikaw ay pinagkaitan ng abogado, sapilitang pina-amin, pinagbuhatan ng kamay, tinorture, o tinakot.

Mapalaya sa bisa ng makatwirang halaga ng piyansa, maliban lang kung ikaw ay nahaharap sa kasong may parusang kamatayan, reclusion perpetua o panghabangbuhay na pagkakakulong, at matibay ang ebidensiya na ikaw ay guilty.

– Kahit man lumaya ka matapos magbayad ng piyansa, maari mo pa ring kwestiyunin kung ligal ang naging pag-aresto sa iyo, o kung ligal ang warrant of arrest laban sa iyo, basta naipahayag mo ang iyong mga pagtutol na ito bago ang iyong arraignment o ang pagbasa ng kaso sa korte laban sa iyo.

Know Your Rights 5-9

Lahat ng mga officer at kasapi nila sa pulisya at militar na may tungkulin sa pag-aresto, pagkulong, pag-imbita, at pag-imbestiga ng mga suspek sa anumang krimen ay dapat na sumunod sa mga itinakdang intiakdang procedures, guidelines, at duties, nila, mula sa iyong pagka-aresto at habang inuusig sa detention center. Itinakda ng Korte Suprema ang mga patakarang ito sa kasong People v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 122485, 1 February 1999).

Know Your Rights 5-10

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo sa wika na batid at naiintindihan mo ang dahilan ng iyong pagka-aresto. Dapat ipakita sa iyo ang iyong warrant of arrest. Lahat ng abiso, impormasyon, at pahayag nila sa iyo ay dapat nasa wika na batid at naiintidihan mo.

– Dapat mabigyan ka ng warning na may karapatan kang maging tikom ang bibig, at anumang sabihin mo ay maaring magamit na ebidensiya laban sa iyo.

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo na may karapatan kang matulungan sa lahat ng pagkakataon ng mahusay at walang kinikilingan na abogado na ikaw mismo ang pumili.

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo na kung wala kang abogado o hindi mo kayang magbayad ng abogado, bibigyan ka ng abogado; maari ring kumuha ng abogado para sa iyo ang korte, kung nais mo o ng iyong kinatawan na magsumite ng petisyon para rito.

– Kahit man meron o wala kang abogado, dapat ipaalam sa iyo na walang anumang imbestigasyon na maaring maganap sa loob ng detention center, liban na lang kung kasama mo ang iyong abogado o pumirma ka na ng waiver ng iyong mga karapatan.

Know Your Rights 5-11

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo na may karapatan ka, sa lahat ng pagkakataon, na makausap sa pinakamabilis na paraan (telepono, text, radyo, sulat, o messenger) ang iyong abogado, miyembro ng pamilya, doktor, pari o ministro na pinili mo o ng iyong pamilya; dapat ipaalam sa iyo na may karapatan kang tumanggap ng bisita at makausap ang anumang accredited na national o international non-government organizations.

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo na may karapatan kang ipaubaya o i-waive ang anumang karapatan mo sa boluntaryo, malinaw, at matalinong paraan, at naiintindihan mo ang maaring kahinatnan o epekto ng iyong waiver.

Know Your Rights 5-12

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo na kung pipirma ka ng waiver para magkaroon ng abogado, ito ay dapat maisulat sa harap ng iyong abogado; kung hindi, dapat ipaalam sa iyo na walang bisa o void ang waiver mo, kahit na ipilit mo pa at nagdesisyon kang magbigay ng statement o pahayag.

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo na maari kang magdesisyon sa anumang paraan at sa anumang yugto ng proseso na ayaw mo nang matanong pa, at sa puntong ito ay dapat matigil ang interrogation kung ito ay nagaganap na, o dapat wala nang interrogation na maganap pa.

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo sa kabila ng iyong initial waiver na manatiling tikom ang bibig, magkaroon ng abogado, o anupamang karapatan mo, maari mo pa ring gamitin ang mga karapatang ito sa anumang yugto ng proseso, kahit na nagbigay ka na ng ilang statement o pahayag.

– Dapat ipaalam sa iyo na anumang statement o ebidensiya na nakuha sa paraang labag sa mga procedures o guidelines na ito — na nagpapatibay o tumatanggi sa mga paratang sa iyo — ay hindi katanggap-tanggap na ebidensiya sa korte.

Know Your Rights 5-13

(a) Karaniwang gawi ng mga investigating officer ang pagbigay sa taong na-aresto ng isang confession na nakasulat na at kailangan na lang pirmahan. May pagkakataon na ang suspek ay tinatakot na pumirma na kahit hindi pa nito nababasa ang nakasulat sa confession. At dahil bawal na sa ilalim ng Konstitusyon ang mga confession na nakuha sa suspek na walang abogadong kasama, maaaring may abogado nang isinasama ang mga imbestigador sa kanilang pag-alok ng confession sa mga suspek. Manatiling buo ang loob pero magalang. Manindigan na gusto mong kumuha ng sariling abogado at sabihan ang imbestigador na nais mong makita ang iyong abogado. Dahil batid na nila na alam mo ang iyong mga karapatan, mas maiiwasan na ikaw ay maharap sa sakuna o sapilitiang paaminin sa anumang akusasyon sa iyo, habang nakakulong.

Know Your Rights 5-14

(b) Kung hindi ipinaalam sa iyo na may karapatan kang manahimik, magkaroon at pumili ng mahusay at walang kinikilingang abogado, ang arresting officer o empleyado o investigating officer na hindi nagpabatid sa iyo ng mga karapatang ito, maari siyang maparusahan ng multa o pagkakulong o ng parehong parusa .

(k) Kung hindi ipinaalam sa iyo na maari kang magkaroon at pumili ng abogado na mahusay at walang kinikilingan ng sinumang arresting officer, emploeyado or investihgating officer, maari siyang maparusahan ng multa o pagkakulong o ng parehong parusa.

(d) Sinuman ang magpipigil o magbabawal sa iyong abogado, miyembro ng pamilya, doktor, o ministro ng simbahan na bumisita at makipag-usap sa iyo, eksaminin at gamutin ka, o bigyan ka ng spiritual service, anumang oras sa araw, o kung may dagling pangangailangan, anumang oras sa gabi, ay maaring maharap sa parusang multa at pagkakulong.

IF YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN ARRESTED, THESE ARE YOUR RIGHTS:

* To remain silent and to be assisted by a competent lawyer of your choice when questioned or interrogated.
* Not to be subjected to torture, manhandling, solitary confinement, incommunicado detention, intimidation, deceit, promises of reward or leniency of or any means (drugs, hypnosis, etc.) that vitiate or weaken your free will.

*To immediate access to proper and adequate medical treatment.

* To be brought for inquest as soon as possible but not later than:
– 12 hours after arrest for a light offense
– 18 hours after arrest for a less grave offense
– 36 hours after arrest for a grave offense

*Before and after interrogation, to the following rights:
• To be informed of your right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of your own choice;
• If you cannot afford the services of a doctor, to be provided by the Government with a competent and independent doctor to conduct the physical examination (preferably a female doctor if you are female);

The legality of your arrest must be determined in an inquest proceeding conducted by a civilian prosecutor.

If the inquest prosecutor finds that your arrest was unlawful, he or she must recommend to the City or Provincial Prosecutor that you be released. Your release, however, may be subject to a regular preliminary investigation.

If the prosecutor finds that your arrest was lawful, he or she will ask if you desire to avail of a preliminary investigation and if so, will make you execute a waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code with the assistance of a lawyer, or if none is available, a responsible person of your choice. Signing the waiver means that you agree to remain in detention while your preliminary investigation is ongoing.

If you do not opt for a preliminary investigation or refuse to execute the waiver, the inquest prosecutor will proceed with the inquest by examining the sworn statements/affidavits of the complainant and witnesses and other supporting evidence submitted by the complainant. If the prosecutor finds that probable cause exists, he or she will prepare the corresponding complaint or information against you and recommend to the City or Provincial Prosecutor that it be filed in court.

Probable cause exists when the evidence submitted to the inquest prosecutor engenders a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that you are probably guilty of committing it.

* If you are questioned or investigated by the police or military, you have the following rights, among others:

– To remain silent;

– To have competent and independent counsel, preferably of your own choice;

– To be provided with counsel if you cannot afford one;

– To demand a physical examination by an independent and competent doctor of your own choice (or if you cannot afford the services of a doctor, to be provided by the Government with a competent and independent doctor to conduct the physical examination, preferably a female doctor if you are female); and

– To be informed of these rights, and to be told that anything you say may be used against you in court.

* In all criminal prosecutions, you have the following rights:

– Not to be compelled to testify against yourself;
– To remain silent and to counsel;
– To be informed of the nature and causes of the accusation against you;
– To have a speedy, public, and impartial trial;
– To appeal any conviction;
– To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
– To be present and heard by yourself and counsel;
– To avail yourself of court processes to secure the compulsory attendance of witnesses and the presentation of evidence in your defense; and
– To meet the witnesses face-to-face and to cross-examine them.

* When you are brought before the Judge, to make a formal complaint if you have been denied counsel, forced to confess, or manhandled, tortured or intimidated.

* To be released on reasonable bail, unless you are charged with a crime punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment and the evidence of your guilt is strong.

– Release on bail does not bar you from challenging the validity of your arrest nor the legality of the warrant of arrest, provided you raise these challenges before being arraigned.

* All arresting, detaining, inviting, investigating officers and their companions must follow and observe the following procedures, guidelines, and duties, at the time of your arrest and again during your custodial investigation. These guidelines, procedures, and duties were laid down by the Supreme Court in People v. Mahinay (G.R. No. 122485, 1 February 1999):

– You must be informed in a language known and understood by you of the reason for your arrest, and you must be shown the warrant of arrest. All other warnings, information or communication must also be in a language known to and understood by you.

– You must be warned that you have the right to remain silent and that any statement you make may be used as evidence against you.

– You must be informed that you have the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer of your own choice.

_ You must be informed that if you have no lawyer or you cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for you; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person on your behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition by you or by one acting on your behalf.

– Whether or not you have a lawyer, you must be informed that no custodial investigation in any forum shall be conducted except in the presence of your lawyer or unless you have validly waived any of your rights.

– You must be informed that you have the right, at any time, to communicate or confer by the most expedient means (telephone, text message, radio, letter, or messenger) with your lawyer, any member of your family, any medical doctor, priest or minister you choose or one chosen by your immediate family or lawyer; you must also be informed that you have the right, at any time, to be visited by and to confer with duly accredited national or international non-government organizations.

– You must be informed that you have the right to waive any of your rights provided you do so voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently, and you understand the consequences of your waiver.

– If you waive your right to a lawyer, you must be informed you must waive your right in writing in the presence of your lawyer, otherwise you must be warned that your waiver is void even if you insist on your waiver and you choose to speak.

– You must be informed that you may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that you do not wish to be questioned and that once you make such indication, you may not be interrogated, if the interrogation has not yet begun, or the interrogation must cease if it has already begun.

– You must be informed that your initial waiver of your right to remain silent, your right to counsel, or any of your rights, does not bar you from invoking your rights at any time during the process, regardless of whether you have answered some questions or volunteered some statements.

– You must also be informed that any statement or evidence obtained in violation of any of the above procedures or guidelines, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, is inadmissible in evidence.

(a) A common practice of investigating officers is to present a person arrested with a confession already drawn up and ready for signature, then to intimidate the suspect into signing the statement without reading it. And since uncounselled confessions have been disallowed under the Constitution, the investigating officers may have lawyers to assist you during the confession. Remain firm, but respectful. Insist that you would like to get your own lawyer, and ask for the opportunity to get in touch with your lawyer. Since they now know that you know your rights, the chances that you will be manhandled or coerced into confessing are reduced.

(b) If you have not been informed of your rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel of your choice, the arresting officer or employee or the investigating officer who fails to inform you of your rights is liable to suffer a fine or penalty of imprisonment, or both.

(c) If the arresting officer or employee or the investigating officer or anyone acting upon their orders or in their place fails to provide you with competent and independent counsel if you cannot afford the services of your own counsel, s/he is liable to suffer a fine or a penalty of imprisonment, or both.

(d) Whoever obstructs, prevents, or prohibits your lawyer, any member of your family, any medical doctor or religious minister from visiting and conferring privately with you, or from examining and treating you, or from ministering to your spiritual needs, at any hour of day, or, in urgent cases, of the night, is liable to suffer the penalty of imprisonment and a fine.

UNODC slams ‘extrajudicial killings’ in PH

Human Rights

Statement by the UNODC Executive Director on the situation in the Philippines

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) remains greatly concerned by the reports of extrajudicial killing of suspected drug dealers and users in the Philippines. I join the United Nations Secretary-General in condemning the apparent endorsement of extrajudicial killing, which is illegal and a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Such responses contravene the provisions of the international drug control conventions, do not serve the cause of justice, and will not help to ensure that “all people can live in health, dignity and peace, with security and prosperity”, as agreed by governments in the outcome document approved at the UN General Assembly special session on the world drug problem.

UNODC supports balanced, people-centred, evidence- and rights-based approaches to drug control, rooted in the agreed international conventions and standards.

UNODC stands ready to further engage with the Philippines and all countries to bring drug traffickers to justice with the appropriate legal safeguards in line with international standards and norms, and promote prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration approaches based in evidence, science, public health and human rights.

Duterte’s war: CHR mounts probeof 103 drug killings and counting

By Karol Ilagan
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

ON TOP of Bayani Arago’s desk at the Commission on Human Rights National Capital Region (CHR NCR) is a pile of clippings now about an inch thick. The news reports, which Arago began collecting last July 1, tell stories of various police encounters that almost always end up with the same outcome: a drug suspect dead.

“Ito ang mabigat (This is tough),” he says. “Every day, I look at newspapers, and that’s all I see. On Saturdays and Sundays, that’s what I read. So many are getting killed and the only thing I see are killings.”

The bodies are piling up as an apparent result of President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, and Arago, officer-in-charge of CHR NCR’s Protection and Monitoring Division, has made it his duty to keep track of the dead.

So far, he has identified at least 33 incidents related to the campaign that will be investigated motu propio or on the commission’s own initiative. In addition, CHR NCR has assigned priority to its investigation of six complaints filed by the surviving kin of those who had been killed.

The Commission on Human Rights, an independent office created by the Constitution, is the national human rights institution of the Philippines.

Since its formation in 1987, the CHR has investigated human-rights violations involving civil and political rights. It had investigated the 2007 enforced disappearance of activist Jonas Burgos. In 2009, it looked into the summary killings associated with the Davao Death Squad linked to then Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. More recently, CHR launched one of the first human-rights investigations into the accountability of companies for the adverse impacts of climate change.

A multitude of cases involving crime and security, and women and children has kept the Commission constantly occupied. But the unusually high number of drug deaths since Duterte assumed the presidency three weeks ago is now making CHR work double – perhaps even triple – time to accomplish its tasks.

At CHR NCR, for instance, investigators typically work in teams specific to cases like rubout, torture, and unlawful arrest. These days, majority of the office’s 20 investigators are looking into the extrajudicial killings spawned by Duterte’s war against drugs.

Swamped with work

“Actually, our investigators are now almost working 24/7,” says CHR Commissioner Leah Armamento. “They cannot finish their reports quickly because there’s so much to do.”

Across the country, many of CHR’s regional offices have also shifted their attention on possible human-rights violations in the course of the new administration’s anti-drug campaign. In addition, CHR has formed a national task force specific to extrajudicial killings, which it expects to rise in number.

But apart from issuing statements and making recommendations, there may be little that CHR can do to ensure that justice is being served and the rights of the suspects respected. Already burdened with all sorts of handicaps, including limited resources, it had even managed to irritate Duterte himself early on, prompting him to call CHR Chairman Jose Luis Martin ‘Chito’ Gascon an “idiot.”

In his June 30 inaugural speech, President Duterte also pointedly asked Congress and CHR “to allow us a level of governance that is consistent to our mandate.” He said that as a lawyer and a former prosecutor, he knows the limits of his authority as president and what is legal and what is not.

Maim, not kill

The way Duterte’s war on drugs has unfolded, however, has raised questions on whether due process and fair trial are accorded suspected drug criminals, among other things. Armamento for one says that police officials are supposed to follow standard procedures such as reading a suspect his or her Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent, right to counsel, and the right to be informed. Likewise, in the event that a suspect poses threat, officers are instructed to maim or render him or her defenseless – but still breathing.

“Hindi mo siya tinatamaan sa ulo, which is fatal, o sa puso (You don’t shoot them in the head or chest, which is fatal),” says Armamento, “You don’t kill them because you have to surrender them to the court and then serve justice.”

What’s alarming for the CHR commissioner is that the police appear to be acting like “eager beavers,” wanting to prove to Duterte that they can comply with his directive to rid the streets of criminals.

“None in our legal system allows killing,” she says.

5 regions, 103 cases

The CHR Task Force created to investigate cases of extrajudicial killings is still collecting data from all the regions. But as of July 25, the regional offices of CHR in NCR, Region I (Ilocos Region), Region II (Cagayan Valley), Cordillera Administrative Region, and Region XII (Soccsksargen) are already investigating or reviewing at least 103 such cases.

The total includes 39 cases in NCR; 27 cases in Region I; 15 cases in Region II; 13 cases in the Cordillera Administrative Region; and nine cases in Region XII.

These numbers include cases where the suspect was killed in a police operation, or by an unidentified assailant.

Of the six regional CHR offices PCIJ called on July 22 and July 25, only NCR had a good number of walk-in complainants. CAR, Region I, Region II, Region IV, and Region XII are mostly, if not only, working on motu propio cases or cases that CHR has decided to pursue on its own.

Whether or not there is a complaint, the CHR is constitutionally mandated to “investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.” Obviously, though, having a formal complaint helps in building a case. Without someone who has direct knowledge about the case, an investigator would have to start from scratch to get details about the case, as well as leads and pieces of evidence.

Indigents mostly

In Region XII, CHR Officer in Charge Erlan Deluvio says they do not typically receive walk-ins because families of most rights victims are indigents. They wouldn’t have the money to spare for travel to visit their office, he says. All the nine cases CHR Region XII is investigating that are connected to the current administration’s war on drugs are motu propio.

Most of the 13 similar cases under CHR CAR are also motu propio investigations. According to CHR CAR Officer in Charge Romel Daguimol, people in Cordillera are not so inclined to pursue cases because it’s not in their culture to make complaints.

For Director Jacqueline dela Peña of CHR Region IV, personal complaints also depend on how determined the surviving kin is to seek redress from government. She says it depends on the character of the individual, as well as the support he or she gets from the community.

Dela Peña says, however, that they may not receive walk-in complaints arising from the recent spate of killings of drug suspects until after the families of the dead have taken time to grieve.

Deluvio of CHR Region XII says they reach out to the victims’ families and motivate them to participate in the process. Not all would cooperate, however. Some who might consider pursuing a case also change their minds because, Deluvio says, they are also easily intimidated by opposing parties.

Limited resources

It doesn’t also help when law enforcement is uncooperative. Police reports are part and parcel of any investigation, but CHR investigators find it hard to get such records in cases involving the police themselves. This would then mean CHR would have to do more spadework, but like most government offices, this is a body operating on limited resources.

The good news is that starting in 2015, CHR has been getting funds more than what it proposes in the annual budget. For the year 2016, it sought a budget of P428.5 million, and then received P460 million.

Still, among the nation’s five constitutional agencies, CHR has the smallest number of staff. In 2015, it had positions open for 680 but only 526 were filled.

“Kung noon nga, kulang na, lalo na ngayon (The resources were already not enough before, but the lack is even more so now),” Deluvio of CHR Region XII says. CHR Region XII itself has only seven active investigators and two vehicles. An investigator could be working on 12 cases at least at a time, and carpooling has become the norm whenever fieldwork is called for.

In Region IV, where the number of drug-related killings is on the high side, the CHR regional office also has only seven investigators. These investigators cover Laguna, Batangas, Quezon, and the whole of MIMAROPA.

No CHR charter

CHR Region IV Director Dela Peña says they are trying their best to respond to needs, but the influx of cases really makes the job harder. She says the passage of the CHR’s charter, which could pave the way for more resources and personnel, is crucial.

The proposed CHR charter aims to strengthen the Commission’s investigative powers and expand its quasi-judicial powers that include preventive and legal measures such as the issuance of an injuction order, order to transfer persons, and restraining order. But in the last several years, attempts to form this charter have failed in Congress.

Armamento says the drug-related killings has spurred CHR in coordinating with various law groups to help it in any way they can. Among these law groups are the Free Legal Assistance Group, Mabini, and the Philippine Association of Law Schools. CHR has also reached out to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Apart from additional funding, Armamento says the president can also help by stressing the importance of respect for law, human rights, and that no extrajudicial killing should take place during police operations.

“That will help a lot because police officers being part of the executive branch will always obey the president,” she says.

Davao Death Squad

It is still too early to say what will become of CHR’s efforts to respond to the rise of killings of drug suspects. But the results of its investigation into the summary killings in Davao City some seven years ago could be some indication on what could happen next.

The CHR investigation in 2009 had been prompted by a growing concern, inside and outside the country, over the numerous dead bodies turning up across Davao City that time.

The Commission found “a systematic failure on the part of the local officials to conduct any meaningful investigation into said killings, thereby violating the State’s obligation to protect the rights of its citizens.” CHR thus recommended the Office of the Ombudsman to investigate “the possible administrative and criminal liability of Mayor Duterte for his inaction in the face of evidence of numerous killings committed in Davao City and his toleration of the commission of those offenses.”

In March 2012, the Ombudsman found 21 police officers — but not Duterte — guilty of simple neglect of duty. The officers faced penalties ranging from one-month suspension to a fine equal to a month’s salary.

In May 2016, the sole witness in the Department of Justice’s subsequent investigation into the Davao Death Squad left the government’s witness protection program, putting a halt into the probe. In the same month, Duterte won the presidency. — With additional reporting by Davinci Maru, PCIJ, July 2016

Duterte’s war: Big kill of small fry, puny drugs haul, defies PNP rules

BANGKAY SA BANGKETA… kasi nga drug pusher ako.

This is the sad refrain in a sardonic poem that a young Filipina wrote and read in a video she posted last week on her Facebook page. It does not matter, she averred, that the so-called drug pushers falling by the dozens of late had not been read their rights or tried in court. Or even, that they had been killed by those who are supposed to protect them and enforce the law. Perhaps, she wrote, those who kill are drug pushers, too.

Indeed, a pall of death has cloaked the nation in mixed glee, grief, confusion, and anxiety in the first three weeks alone of the war on drugs of President Rodrigo R. Duterte, who will deliver his first state of the nation address today.

But who will be killed next is not quite clear as yet. In the meantime, the question of why the poor and puny pushers are dying in high numbers compared to just a handful of their rich counterparts, the drug lords, and their supposed coddlers in the police has been either inadequately answered or ignored.

By the data of the police — until now the singular source of information of the news media about the war on drugs — about 10 bodies have been showing up by the road and in the slums every day, or a total of 213 killed in Duterte’s first 21 days in office alone. The casualty toll includes 209 civilians and only four policemen that the police had tagged as alleged drug pushers.

Combatting drugs has always been a major police activity over the last seven years. Then and now, however, the PNP’s reports on the supposed “achievements” of the campaign have risen and fallen, across regions of the country.

By official PNP reports, Duterte’s war on drugs has netted much bigger numbers of those killed and arrested in its initial rollout period but also smaller seizures of drugs, by value and volume.

By all indications, however, Duterte’s war has assumed a random, free-for-all, brook-no-limits in law and due process, a kill-at-will campaign against mostly small-time drug suspects. This is happening despite the explicit rules of the 200-page Philippine National Police Handbook PNPM-Do-Ds-3-2-13 or Revised PNP Manual on Operational Procedures published in December 2013.

Cookie Diokno of the Free Legal Assistance Group of human rights lawyers says the big difference in the war on drugs then and now is this: Duterte’s war has flipped the “burden of proof” principle in the statutes inside out. In other words, says Diokno, “you are now presumed guilty, until proven innocent.”

Compared with data on the PNP’s anti-drug campaign in the 78 months from January 2010 to June 2016, Duterte’s three-week-old war has upped the numbers of alleged drug users and pushers killed and arrested multiple-fold.

The downside is Duterte’s war is unfolding with negligible documentation of the conduct of police operations and the death of suspects. In a majority of cases, the suspects were killed purportedly because they “resisted arrest” or tried to snatch the guns of and engaged arresting officers in a firefight.

Data from PNP’s Anti-Illegal Drugs Group (AIDG) in the 78 months before Duterte came to power, showed much lower numbers of casualties and arrests made, but also bigger values and volumes of drugs seized, compared to that recorded in the new government’s three-week war.

The 213 drug suspects killed under Duterte’s war from Jully 1 to 21, 2016 (an average of 10 persons a day) is a macabre figure compared to the 256 persons “killed in action” in the 78-month period or 2,336 days from January 2010 to June 2016 (an average of about one person every 10 days).

In the 78 months before Duterte, the PNP had conducted a total of 96,530 anti-drug operations, of which 46 percent were buy-bust operations; 28.4 percent “in flagrante” (the suspects were caught in the act); 16.1 percent via search warrant; 4.6 percent as checkpoint operations; 2.5 percent as “saturation drive”; 1.7 percent as “marijuana eradication” operations; 0.6 percent as “warrant of arrest”; and 0.1 percent as “interdiction.”

The PNP’s reports on Oplan Tokhang, though, do not offer data on how many of the various types of operations against illegal drugs have been conducted with mission orders, and which of these have been covered by search warrants or warrants of arrest. Many data fields in the PNP’s reports on the war on drugs prior to the Duterte administration do not appear anymore in its recent reports.

Yet another story should also raise grave concern among citizens. What drugs and substances, indeed, should be considered illegal?

Of the various types of drugs that the police had confiscated, over-the-counter substances and laboratory chemicals with legitimate but controlled uses have been enrolled, too. These include marijuana resin oil, rugby, Cytotec, ketamine, “Sulfuric,” sodium hydroxide, acetone, chloroform, palladium chloride, hydrochloric acid, Pseudoephedrine and Diazepam.

While most of the seized substances and drugs can only be bought in the black market, some items like hydrochloric acid (also known as muriatic acid), rugby, and acetone are easily available in sari-sari stores and hardware stores and are not on the list of illegal substances. Chemicals like chloroform and toluene are being used in research and industrial laboratories.— PCIJ, July 2016

Steer clear of bad Aquino policies, environment groups urge Duterte

By Karol Ilagan

Conference

UNITED FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. Students and environmental activists held placards with calls for change in environment policies addressed to President Rodrigo R. Duterte. Photo by Karol Ilagan/PCIJ

FRANCES Quimpo’s recollection of the country’s worst tragedies under a parade of Philippine presidents past reveals a singular pattern — death, devastation, and a dearth of lessons learned.

More than 200 people died when mounds of garbage at the Payatas dumpsite in Quezon City collapsed. Triggered by a typhoon, the landslide took place six months before Joseph Estrada’s ouster from Malacañang in January 2001.

During Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s nine-year presidency, a string of typhoons — Frank, Ondoy, and Pepeng, to name a few — flooded many parts of the country, taking hundreds of lives and damaging billions worth of properties. It was also under Arroyo when the government’s flagship mining project in Rapu-Rapu, Albay spewed out cyanide into the sea, causing massive fish kills.

Quimpo, executive director of the Center for Environmental Concerns-Philippines (CEC), said these disasters should have served Arroyo’s successor, Benigno S. Aquino III, important lessons. The political and economic policies that previous governments had pushed, she said, had put the environment at risk, and aggravated the impact of natural hazards in what was by then the climate-vulnerable state of the Philippines.

But in the next six years as president, Aquino saw the issuance of executive orders, which according to environmental advocates, did little to address the problems they were meant to solve. On top of these new policies are old laws that are either problematic to begin with or not enforced properly.

Frances Quimpo

A TRAIL OF DISASTERS. CEC Executive Director Frances Quimpo gives a rundown of calamities that had visited the nation since former President Joseph Estrada’s term.Photo by Karol Ilagan/PCIJ

Gathered at a forum Monday afternoon, environmental groups thus urged President Rodrigo R. Duterte to steer clear of the programs and policies of his predecessors that run counter to the protection of communities and natural resources.

Presenting CEC’s annual “State of the Philippine Environment” report, Owen Migraso, CEC coordinator for the Eastern Visayas Yolanda Recovery Program, said the Aquino government issued Industrial Forest Management Agreements in Northern Mindanao, Davao Region, and CARAGA, which were all recently hit by disasters. Multiple mining tenements have also been located on Luzon island, which hosts the greatest concentration of unique mammals.

Migraso cited Aquino’s Executive Order No. 23 on logging, Executive Order No. 26 or the National Greening Program, and Executive Order No. 79 on mining as problematic. These orders, he said, have turned forests and other resources into commodities at the expense of the lives and livelihood of poor and vulnerable communities.

The forum, co-organized by the CEC, Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE), and Eco-Challenge for Change coalition, also served as a venue to discuss the environmental challenges that the groups want Duterte to address.

Secretary Gina Lopez of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was invited to speak at the forum but she failed to show up.

Clemente Bautista, Kalikasan PNE’s national coordinator, said that so far, their groups have not seen any actions from Duterte that would run against their environmental agenda; they have not also heard, however, of any pronouncements or seen any significant moves that would signal changes in the Aquino administration’s policies.
Clemente Bautista

IS CHANGE COMING? Kalikasan PNE National Coordinator Clemente Bautista posed this question to forum attendees on July 18. Photo by Karol Ilagan/PCIJ

A week before Duterte took his oath of office last June 30, the “Eco-Challenge for Change”, a coalition of environmental groups, including CEC and Kalikasan PNE, presented its 14-point agenda for the president to act on.

Signed by 41 groups, the coalition’s list of demands includes stopping illegal large-scale mining in environmentally critical areas and imposing a moratorium on the new construction and expansion of coal-fired power plants.

“Ang nakikita namin ngayon ay ang mahigpit na implementation ng mga environmental guidelines, pag-pepenalize ng mga violating private entities, at mga pangako na magkakaroon ng mabuting komunikasyon sa pagitan ng mga komunidad at mga organizations na tulad namin,” Bautista said. (What we are seeing now is strict implementation of environmental guidelines, penalizing of violating private entities, and promises that there will be good communication systems between communities and organizations like ours).

Since Lopez assumed leadership of DENR, work in at least four mining operations has been suspended. The department has likewise conducted an audit of mining activities.

Bautista said the coalition should be able to give a more thorough assessment of the Duterte administration after 100 days. “Sa ngayon, binibigyan namin sila ng puwang para patunayan ang kanilang tindig para sa kalikasan,” he said. (For now, we are giving them the chance to prove their stand for the environment)

While Duterte has shown a track record favoring environmental protection, the groups are also well aware of the former mayor’s support for the construction of a coal power plant and the establishment of palm oil plantations in Davao City.

On Monday, Duterte said he would not honor the Paris climate agreement, laying blame on developed countries for their bigger role in climate change. Signed by 178 countries, the historic deal is an effort to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by reducing carbon emissions.

Bautista said Duterte was right to demand greater responsibility from developed countries but that they hope, too, that the president would not support the expansion of coal-fired power plants as this would be counter-productive.

“Our renewable and indigenous energy resources such as hydro, geothermal, solar, and natural gas are more than enough to provide our energy needs now and in the future,” he said in a statement.

Environmental sociologist Patria Gwen M.L. Borcena, meanwhile, said DENR needs a “reform team” composed of members from civil society and the academe who will occupy key positions and help Secretary Lopez.

This, Borcena said, is another lesson that should be learned from the previous administration. To be fair, she said an environment agenda was included in Aquino’s “A Social Contract with the Filipino People” and later as one chapter in the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan. This, she said, was the first time for the country’s development plan to have an entire chapter devoted to environment and natural resources.

Borcena said the execution of these plans did not run well in large measure because DENR did not have a reform team. Former DENR Secretary Ramon Paje and his leadership team, she said, came from the bureaucracy.

Prior to his appointment in 2010, Paje was DENR undersecretary for field operations and executive director of the Minerals Development Council under the Office of the President.

Moreover, Borcena said DENR would benefit from promoting “participatory environmental governance at all levels,” which was absent during Paje’s term. This setup could help ensure a partnership between civil society organizations and DENR.

“It shouldn’t just be token partnership. It should be institutionalized,” she said.

Borcena is a co-convenor of the Citizens’ Environment Network. She was also involved in Aquino’s presidential campaign and later joined the Inter-Agency Technical Working Group that crafted the environment chapter in the Philippine Development Plan.

At the forum’s close, CEC’s Quimpo noted that environmental issues could not be separated from political and economic policies. Efforts such as tree-planting and coastal cleanups should go hand in hand with fixing problems at the policy level, she added.

Quimpo said the president has so far made pro-people policy pronouncements but the challenge is delivering results. “Let us use these to ensure that change will come by pressing the Duterte government to walk the talk.” < strong>– PCIJ, July 2016