[Senate Hearing 110-290]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-290
EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN THE PHILIPPINES: STRATEGIES TO END THE
VIOLENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-811 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JIM WEBB, Virginia DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JIM WEBB, Virginia CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Farrar, Jonathan D., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hilao-Enriquez, Marie, secretary general, Alliance for the
Advancement of People's Rights in the Philippines (KARAPATAN),
Quezon City, Philippines....................................... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
John, Eric G., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC....... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Response to question submitted by Senator Lugar.............. 57
Kumar, T., advocacy director for Asia and the Pacific, Amnesty
International, USA, Washington, DC............................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Martin, G. Eugene, executive director, Philippine Facilitation
Project, U.S. Institute of Peace, Washington, DC............... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska, opening statement 3
Pascua, Bishop Eliezer, general secretary, the United Church of
Christ in the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines............ 34
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Alston, Professor Phillip, Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Human
Rights Council on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions--Summary Report, Manila, February 21, 2007.......... 53
Gaa, Hon. Willy C., Philippine Ambassador to the United States,
prepared statement............................................. 51
Responses of Eric John and Jonathan Farrar to questions submitted
by Senator Norm Coleman........................................ 58
(iii)
EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN THE PHILIPPINES: STRATEGIES TO END THE
VIOLENCE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Webb, and Murkowski.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Senator
Barbara Boxer and I am the Chair of the Subcommittee on East
Asian and Pacific Affairs. I'm very pleased to be here,
chairing my first hearing. I know there are many people
interested in this.
I'm sure you know the rules of the committee are that we
want everyone to be respectful of all the witnesses and that
means that we don't have any yelling or screaming or clapping
or booing or hissing or cheering.
And I'm very, very pleased that we are having today's
hearing. It's very important. We're going to run a very tight
ship here. We're going to keep our witnesses to 5 minutes. And
when you're about there, I will tell you to summarize. And we
will, of course, place your entire statement in the record, and
we will accept--we may well send you some questions if time
runs out, because we need to stop at 5 to 4.
So we'll be getting a lot accomplished here in a relatively
short period of time. I do expect Senator Murkowski to join us
shortly. And when she does, I will turn to her at the
appropriate time for her opening statement, if she has one.
Well, I'm sure most of you know that today the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee meets to investigate reports of
extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, and examine
strategies to help end the violence there. The people of the
United States and the Philippines enjoy a very close
relationship and friendship that is deeply valued on both
sides. Our nations have a strong bond that's supported and
celebrated by 3 million Americans of Philippine ancestry that
live in the United States today. And I am proud to say that
more than 1 million Filipino-Americans have made California
their home.
I, myself, visited the Philippines while I was a member of
the House of Representatives. It was just after Marcos was
overthrown and Cory Aquino became the leader. It was a very
exciting time. It was 1986. So I, myself, feel very strong ties
to the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the people of the
Philippines and of all their family members that I represent in
California.
During World War II, 100,000 soldiers from the Philippine
Commonwealth Army fought along side United States and allied
forces in the Pacific. Today United States military forces are
working with the Philippine Armed Forces to combat Abu Sayyaf,
an Islamist terrorist organization responsible for many acts of
violence, including the beheading of one of my constituents in
2001.
Maintaining strong bilateral ties is very important to both
our nations. And it's in that spirit that we address
extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. And before I forget
to do it, I want to place into the record the statement
submitted by the Philippine Ambassador to the United States,
Willy Gaa. So, we will place that in the record.
Over the past 6 years, hundreds of such killings have taken
place throughout the Philippines. Those targeted have included
journalists, religious leaders, political figures, human rights
activists, and union leaders. For too long the Government of
the Philippines has not taken sufficient action, in my opinion,
to address extrajudicial killings and bring those responsible
to justice.
Last August, pressure from international human rights
groups, foreign governments, and political leaders forced the
government of President Arroyo to launch an investigation into
the killings that was headed by retired Supreme Court Justice,
Jose Melo. The Melo Commission Report, which was made public
last month, found that the killings of activists appear to be
part of, ``an orchestrated plan,'' and that the Philippine
National Police has made little progress in investigating or
prosecuting cases.
Last month, after a 10-day fact-finding mission to the
Philippines, Phillip Alston, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on
Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions, released a
statement in which he said the Philippine Armed Forces were,
``In a state of almost total denial,'' on the need to address,
``the significant number of killings which have been
convincingly attributed to them.'' And that a ``culture of
impunity'' exists between the Philippine Justice System. In
response, the Philippine Government has issued statements
vowing to solve the killings. But, it remains to be seen if
these words will be followed by real and tangible actions.
I am pleased that the U.S. Ambassador in Manila, Kristie
Kenney, has offered the support of the United States to stop
these murders and bring those guilty to justice.
Today, we welcome to the committee two members of the U.S.
State Department to share additional details about the United
States offer of assistance, and the response of the Philippine
Government.
Mr. Eric John is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. And Mr. Jonathan Farrar is
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
We will also be joined by a distinguished second panel of
nongovernmental witnesses to discuss this issue. We will hear
from Mr. T. Kumar, who's the advocacy director for Amnesty
International. In August 2006, Amnesty International released a
report on the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, which
included a series of important recommendations to end the
violence, and guarantee justice for the victims.
Mr. G. Eugene Martin, executive director of the Philippine
Facilitation Project at the U.S. Institute of Peace is a former
Foreign Service officer who served twice in the Philippines.
First, as a political military officer and later as Deputy
Chief of Mission. Mr. Martin will share his thoughts on the
root causes of violence in the Philippines and prospects for a
peaceful settlement.
Finally, we are joined by two witnesses from the
Philippines, Bishop Eliezer--if I mangle this name, please
forgive me--Pascua, is that right? Pascua, is the general
secretary of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines.
More than a dozen workers from his church have been killed in
violence since 2001.
Ms. Marie Hilao-Enriquez, is the general secretary of
KARAPATAN, a human rights organization in the Philippines which
estimates that more than 800 people have lost their lives to
extrajudicial violence since 2001. And we know that there's
debate about this number, but we will look into it, try to get
to the bottom of it.
Now I want to turn to my really dear friend, ranking member
of this subcommittee, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the former
chairman, has extensive expertise in the region. I do look
forward to working with you, Senator, during the 110th
Congress, and I turn to you now for your opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM
ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I do not
have a detailed statement this afternoon. I'm looking forward
to the testimony of the witnesses.
I appreciate your leadership on this issue and bringing it
before the subcommittee. I, too, look forward to working with
you on issues of concern within the region. We've had
opportunities in the past to have Mr. John before the
subcommittee; a great deal of expertise there to offer us.
But it is, it is a region--I think it's fair to say--that
if there are hotspots outside of the Middle East it is in this
region of East Asia and the Pacific. And the hearing that we
have this afternoon, I think, is just the beginning of many
where hopefully we will be able to shine that spotlight, not
only on the issue, but move proactively as a committee to make
a positive difference on this issue and many others.
And so, with that Madame Chairman, I'm eager to hear the
comments from the witnesses. I do apologize, I'm not going to
be able to stay for the whole thing, but look forward to
working with you on this issue and others.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely, and I will brief you after this
hearing, personally.
Mr. John, why don't you begin and we'll hold you to 5
minutes and then we'll put your whole statement in the record.
STATEMENT OF ERIC G. JOHN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EAST
ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. John. Thank you very much Senator Boxer, Senator
Murkowski. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. Let me
extend my congratulations to the new members of the committee,
and I look forward to working with the committee in the future.
I'm also glad to have the opportunity to appear before you
today with my colleague, Mr. Farrar from the Bureau of
Democracy, Rights, and Labor.
Before addressing the main topic of this hearing, I would
like to say a few words about United States-Philippine
relations. As you know, the United States has a long and warm
relationship with the Philippines dating back more than a
century. The Philippines is a vibrant democracy and one of five
treaty--United States treaty allies in the Asia Pacific. Our
soldiers fought heroically side by side in World War II and are
working together today to combat international terrorism.
The United States is the Philippines largest investor,
trading partner, and provider of foreign assistance. Our
relations are undergirded by significant people-to-people
connections in the form of more than 3 million Filipinos in the
United States and more than 100,000 American citizens living in
the Philippines.
Today our Philippine allies are enjoying solid economic
growth, working on a peace agreement with Muslim separatists in
Mindanao and achieving unprecedented success against al-Qaeda-
linked terrorists responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
innocent civilians and the gruesome murders of American
citizens.
One negative factor in this otherwise positive picture is
the increase in reports of extrajudicial killings, the subject
of this hearing. Unfortunately, political violence is not a new
phenomenon in the Philippines. Extrajudicial killings committed
by the security forces, the terrorists, New People's Army, or
others were common during the Marcos dictatorship and have
continued--albeit with less frequency--since that time.
However, over the last couple years we have seen a troubling
increase in the reports of these killings.
As friends and allies, we are concerned about such
killings--whoever is responsible--but particularly about
allegations that members of the Security Forces have been
involved. There's a range of numbers of victims, as you noted,
but let me state unequivocally that even one such killing is
too many.
We take this problem seriously and are committed to helping
our Philippine allies in bringing those responsible to justice.
We are encouraged that President Arroyo has taken several steps
to address this problem, including establishment of a police
task force, called Task Force Usig, to investigate the
killings, as well as a commission under leadership of Justice
Melo.
The Melo Commission has examined the problem and made
recommendations on which the Government acted promptly--has
promptly acted. The Philippine Government has also invited the
U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston to inquire into the issue. In
our judgment, these actions represent more than previous
Philippine administrations have taken to address the problem.
Concerning the report of Professor Alston, I would note
that his report cites the Philippine Government's recognition
of the gravity of the problem. It expresses concern about the
views of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, AFP, regarding
the problem, and states that the various measures ordered by
President Arroyo in response to the Melo Commission Report
constitute important first steps, but much remains to be done.
The Melo Commission Report does conclude that
circumstantial evidence links some elements of the military to
the killings, but given the lack of witnesses there is
insufficient evidence to support successful prosecutions or
convictions. The Commission's recommendations include: Creation
of an independent civilian investigative agency, training for
prosecutors, creation of special courts to handle these cases,
enhancement of the witness protection program, increasing
investigative capabilities of the police, and orientation and
training for the security forces.
Moreover, the AFP has directed new human rights training.
The Department of Justice has strengthened and expanded their--
strengthened and expanded the witness protection program, and
the Philippine Supreme Court has established vessel courts to
handle the cases.
Now, the steps that the United States Government is taking
include an ongoing and dynamic dialog with Philippine officials
at all levels of governments. Not only on the urgent need to
address the immediate problem, but also more broadly on issues
of human rights, rule of law, and law enforcement. United
States Embassy officials vigorously reach out to Philippine
contacts in the military, the law enforcement community, the
judiciary, the human rights sector, and civil society, to make
these points and determine new ways the United States
Government could be additionally helpful.
Ambassador Kenney has repeatedly spoken publicly, as well
as at several military venues, against extrajudicial killings,
and in advocacy of ensuring that anyone responsible for such a
crime faces justice.
We'll soon begin a training program for 40 Philippine
investigators and prosecutors from the 10 areas of the country
with the most extrajudicial killings to improve their skills
and understanding. In addition to the immediate efforts, we
have provided longstanding support to the AFP and Philippine
National Police and Judiciary. And it has included human rights
training for those members. Our support of Philippine defense
reform, to strengthen professional and effective military, law
enforcement, and our development assistance does help the
Philippines judiciary for case management.
Senator Boxer. Just wrap it up at this point.
Mr. John. Sure. And I just want to assure you that we are
committed to working with the Philippine Government, supporting
them, and pushing for resolution of these cases, and an end to
the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric G. John, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC
Senator Boxer, Senator Murkowski, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the
situation in the Philippines. Let me extend my congratulations to the
new members of this committee; I look forward to working with all of
you. I am glad to have the opportunity to appear before you with my
colleague, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Jonathan Farrar from
the Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
As you know, the United States has a long and warm relationship
with the Philippines dating back more than a hundred years. The
Philippines is a vibrant democracy, and one of five U.S. treaty allies
in the Asia-Pacific region. Our soldiers fought heroically side by side
in World War Two and are working side by side today to combat
international terrorism. The United States is the Philippines' largest
investor, trading partner, and provider of foreign assistance. Our
relations are undergirded by significant people-to-people connections
in the form of the more than 3 million Filipinos resident in the United
States and the more than 100,000 American citizens living in the
Philippines.
Today, our Philippine allies are enjoying solid economic growth,
working on a peace agreement with Muslim separatists in Mindanao,
looking to bolster their democracy via congressional elections in May,
and achieving unprecedented success against al-Qaeda-linked terrorists
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians and the
gruesome murders of American citizens.
One negative factor in this otherwise positive picture is the
increase in reports of extrajudicial killings, the subject of this
hearing. Unfortunately, political violence is not a new phenomenon in
the Philippines. The so-called ``Huk Rebellion'' in the 1940s and 1950s
resulted in thousands of deaths. The Communist New People's Army (NPA),
a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, has been seeking the
violent overthrow of the government since 1968 and continues to sow
violence and terror in the country.
Extrajudicial killings, committed by the security forces, the NPA,
or others, were common during the Marcos dictatorship, and have
continued, albeit with less frequency, since that time. Over the past 1
to 2 years, however, we have seen a troubling increase in reports of
extrajudicial killings.
As friends and allies, we are concerned about such killings,
whoever is responsible, but particularly about allegations that members
of the security forces have been involved. There is disagreement about
the numbers of victims, but of course even one such killing is too
many.
We take this problem seriously and are committed to helping our
Philippine allies in bringing those responsible to justice. We are
encouraged by the steps that the Philippine Government has taken to
date, indeed, we judge that no Philippine administration has done as
much substantively and institutionally as what this one has done over
the past year, but we will continue to make clear that more progress is
essential and that we stand ready to be of assistance to Philippine
authorities.
Addressing extrajudicial killings in a serious, effective way and
ensuring that Philippine authorities bring those responsible to justice
is important to our relationship and, of course, to the Philippines'
own democratic development.
We are encouraged that President Arroyo has taken several steps to
address this problem, including establishing a police task force,
called Task Force Usig (``to prosecute''), to investigate the killings
and to file charges against the murderers, as well as a commission
under the leadership of former Philippine Supreme Court Justice Melo.
The Melo Commission has examined this problem and made policy
recommendations, on which the government has promptly acted. The
Philippine Government also invited U.N. Special Rapporteur on
Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Killings Professor Philip Alston
to inquire into the issue.
Concerning the report of U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston, I would
note that in his report he cites the Philippine Government's
recognition of the gravity of the problem, expresses concern about the
views of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) regarding the
problem, and states that the various measures ordered by President
Arroyo in response to the Melo Commission report constitute important
first steps, but much remains to be done.
The Melo Commission report, which was recently released to the
public, concludes that circumstantial evidence links ``some elements''
of the military to the killings, but given the lack of witnesses there
is insufficient evidence to support successful prosecutions or
convictions; there is no official or sanctioned policy by the military
or its civilian superiors to resort to illegal liquidations; there is
no definitive accounting of the actual number of killings, but ``even
one is too many''; the killing of journalists is mostly attributable to
reprisals from politicians, warlords, or business interests, rather
than agents of the government; and prosecutions have been more
successful when there is a greater willingness of witnesses to testify.
The report also states that President Arroyo's resolve to stop these
killings has been made clear, both in public statements and through
actions such as the creation of Task Force Usig and the Melo Commission
itself.
The Commission's recommendations include: Creation of an
independent civilian investigative agency with authority to execute
warrants and make arrests; training for prosecutors; creation of
special courts to handle these cases; enhancement of the witness
protection program; increasing the investigative capabilities of the
police; and orientation and training for security forces.
Following the issuance of the Melo Commission report, the
Philippine Government took several important steps. The AFP has issued
a new directive reiterating the principle of command responsibility and
established its own Human Rights Office to investigate--along with the
Philippine Commission on Human Rights--cases in which involvement by
military elements is alleged. The Philippine Department of Justice
strengthened and expanded the government's witness protection program.
At President Arroyo's request, the Philippine Supreme Court has
established special courts to handle these cases. President Arroyo also
instructed the Philippine Department of Justice and the Presidential
Human Rights Committee to prioritize cases for trials by these special
courts. In a statement, President Arroyo said that ``cases that are
strong enough to be brought to court should be prosecuted effectively
and immediately to instill confidence in the process we have put in
place,'' while emphasizing that ``due process is the watchword as we
bring these killers to justice.''
We believe that the Melo report is a useful assessment of scope of
the problem facing the Philippines and measures that can be taken to
address it. Our Ambassador in Manila, Kristie Kenney, has stated that
the Government of the Philippines has issued ``a serious action plan
and we would be glad to provide assistance in helping them implement
it.'' She met with the members of the Melo Commission on March 5 to
discuss their next steps and to explore ways the U.S. Government could
be additionally helpful.
The steps that we are taking include an ongoing and dynamic dialog
with Philippine officials at all levels of government on issues of
human rights, rule of law, and law enforcement. U.S. Embassy officials
vigorously reach out to Philippine contacts in the military, the law
enforcement community, the judiciary, the human rights sector, and
civil society to make these points and to determine new ways the U.S.
Government could be additionally helpful. In this dialog, we have
reiterated our concerns over extrajudicial killings and strongly urged
Philippine officials to take additional steps such as those recommended
by the Melo Commission. Ambassador Kenney has repeatedly spoken
publicly as well as at several military venues against extrajudicial
killings and in advocacy of ensuring that anyone responsible for such a
crime faces justice.
We will soon conduct a training program for 40 Philippine
investigators and prosecutors from the 10 areas of the country with the
most extrajudicial killings to improve their skills and understanding.
We are also looking into making additional grants to the Philippine
Commission on Human Rights to support its nationwide investigatory
efforts. We understand that the Philippine Government has reached out
to members of the European Union for assistance in implementing the
conclusions of the Melo report. I have reached out to representatives
of the European Union here in Washington to underscore our support for
the Philippine Government's request. I have also repeatedly addressed
this matter with the Philippine Ambassador to the United States.
In addition to these immediate efforts, the United States has
provided longstanding support for institutional reform within the AFP
and the Philippine National Police, as well as the Philippine
judiciary. This assistance has included human rights training for
Philippine security forces in country, as well as at the International
Law Enforcement Academy in Bangkok and at U.S. military and FBI
training academies.
In compliance with the Leahy amendment, we work closely with the
Philippine Commission on Human Rights to vet all Philippine military
and law enforcement officials who undergo U.S. training.
The United States is also a firm supporter of Philippine Defense
Reform, which aims to strengthen a professional and effective military
that respects and protects civil liberties and human rights. We do this
through ongoing training and exchange of ideas and information on
issues relating to human rights. Also under the Philippine Defense
Reform program, a U.S. expert has started working with the military's
Office of the Inspector General to improve its internal capabilities.
The AFP is doing superb work in battling al-Qaeda-linked
terrorists. The close U.S. relationship with the AFP is contributing to
its effectiveness, and has resulted in an important component that
emphasizes civil-military operations and human rights.
On the law enforcement side of the ledger, several U.S. agencies
work with their Philippine partners to provide training in case
management and investigative techniques. These programs routinely
include human rights training as an integral part of the curriculum. A
new U.S. Senior Law Enforcement Advisor and his staff are now stationed
at the Philippine police headquarters to assist in its internal
transformation program to make it a more transparent, accountable, and
effective institution and to provide better investigatory tools. U.S.
law enforcement agencies also provide technical assistance to the
Philippine Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation,
and Philippine Coast Guard in areas relating to national security and
border protection.
U.S. development assistance helps the Philippine Judiciary to
improve systems for case management, assists civil society groups to
participate in legal and judicial reform discussions, and provides
training for Philippine judges and lawyers on the new code of conduct
developed by the Supreme Court.
Beyond our discussions with Philippine officials and our training
efforts, we are in close contact with civil society groups and human
rights organizations in the Philippines, and we document our views on
human rights in the Philippines in the annual State Department Country
Report on Human Rights Practices. I would note that the Country Report
is taken seriously in Manila and that the Philippine Government's
spokesman called it, ``constructive criticism from a time-honored
ally.'' Our efforts are aimed at strengthening the rule of law,
professionalizing law enforcement and judicial authorities, and
empowering civil society, so these institutions can play a more
effective and professional role in investigating and prosecuting such
crimes.
To conclude, we take the problem of extrajudicial killings in the
Philippines seriously and are committed to helping our Philippine
allies as they bring those responsible to justice. We are encouraged by
the steps that the Philippine Government has taken to date, but we will
continue to make clear that more progress is essential and that we
stand ready to be of additional assistance to Philippine authorities.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. John.
Yes, sir, Mr. Farrar.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN D. FARRAR, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Farrar. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman and
Senator Murkowski, for holding the hearing today on
extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.
The hearing's well timed to examine the findings of the
recently released Melo and Alston reports. And last week,
Secretary Rice released the Department of State's country
reports on human rights practices for 2006, which is prepared
by my bureau, working with our embassies overseas, and our
colleagues in Washington.
This year's theme of the reports is ``Defend the
Defenders'' of human rights, a theme very appropriate for
today's hearing. The report highlights two initiatives
announced by the Secretary in December, the guiding principals
on NGOs, and the Human Rights Defenders Fund.
The NGO principles were developed in consultation with our
own NGOs in the United States. They will guide our assessment
of the actions of other governments. We hope they will rally
worldwide support, including in democracies such as the
Philippines, for embattled NGOs by serving as a resource for
governments, international organizations, civil society, and
journalists.
Our Human Rights Defenders Fund will quickly disperse small
grants to help human rights defenders facing extraordinary
needs as a result of government repression. I'd like to be very
clear. There is no tension and no contradiction between
improving the protection of human rights, and assisting the
Government of the Philippines to combat terrorist threats.
As the President said in January in his State of the Union
Address, what every terrorist fears most is human freedom.
Societies where government, where men and women make their own
choices, answer to their own conscious, and live by their
hopes, instead of their resentments.
Our 2006 report on the Philippines noted a number of
arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings, apparently by
elements of the security services. And political killings,
including killings of journalists, by a variety of actors.
Although sources differ on the numbers, the rise in suspect
extrajudicial killings since 2001 is undisputed. Many killings
went unresolved and unpunished contributing to a climate of
impunity. We commend President Arroyo for creating both Task
Force Usig to investigate specific cases, and the Melo
Commission to make policy and legal reform recommendations.
These are important initial steps.
The Melo Commission describes evidence of abuses by
security services, and failure by some NGOs to cooperate with
the Commission. Our NGO principles speak to the
responsibilities of both governments and NGOs. We are pleased
that the Arroyo administration decided to make the Melo
Commission finding public, and is taking steps to implement
Commission recommendations.
Deputy Assistant Secretary John has described steps our
Embassy in Manila has taken to address these human rights
concerns. It is important that we continue to work with the
Government of the Philippines to make sure the initiatives they
have pledged to undertake are implemented effectively. We know
from experience in other countries that implementation is
crucial, and often times difficult, and requires a long-term
commitment.
Our bureau meets regularly with a wide spectrum of NGOs,
American and Philippine, active on these issues. For example, I
met recently with Ms. Joanne Carney, an NGO activist who, at
the time, was serving as a distinguished fellow at Colby
College. Ms. Carney came to Colby following threats on her life
and on her NGO, the Cordillera People's Alliance.
We are committed to using our bureau's human rights and
democracy fund to monitor and promote human rights in the
Philippines. Our fund works through open competition, in which
we solicit proposals from U.S.-based NGOs to implement
innovative projects worldwide. We're using this fund now, to
strengthen the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, and also
to improve the Madrasah system, by educating leaders of schools
in the southern Philippines.
I'd like to correct something from the written testimony we
submitted, which said there was a HRDF grant awaiting
congressional approval to work with Philippine media to improve
reporting on human rights, and to create a national association
of human rights journalists. I learned this morning that the
notification has not been delivered yet. So let me just say
that we're excited about the project and hope you'll review it
favorably, once it's received.
Finally, I can assure we will look for opportunities to
include the Philippines in some of our upcoming fiscal year
2007 requests for grant proposals.
In conclusion, the Melo Commission stated well, that you
can not build democracy or combat terrorism through abuse of
human rights. As Secretary Rice noted in her comments last week
on our human rights reports, liberty and human rights require
state institutions that function transparently and accountably.
A vibrant civil society, an independent judiciary legislature,
a free media, and security forces that can uphold the rule of
law, and protect the population from violence and extremism.
We look forward to working with Congress on these issues,
both in the Philippines and elsewhere. I'd be pleased to take
you questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Farrar, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of
State, Washington, DC
Madame Chairman Boxer, Senator Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing to focus on the
problem of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. This hearing is
well-timed to examine the findings of the recently released Melo and
Alston Reports, and Secretary Rice's March 6 release of the Department
of State ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006.''
This year's theme of the 2006 Country Reports is ``Defend the
Defenders'' of human rights, a theme very appropriate to today's
hearing. The reports highlighted two initiatives announced by the
Secretary last December: The ``Guiding Principles on Non-Governmental
Organizations'' and the Human Rights Defenders Fund.
The 10 guiding principles on NGOs' concern the treatment by
governments of nongovernmental organizations under the relevant
international conventions. These core principles were developed in
consultation with our own NGOs, and will guide our approach to, and our
assessment of, the actions of other governments. The principles
complement lengthier, more detailed U.N. and other international
documents addressing human rights defenders. We hope they will rally
worldwide support for embattled NGOs by serving as a resource for
governments, international organizations, civil society groups, and
journalists. We will look to democracies like the Philippines to
embrace these NGO principles.
The Human Rights Defenders Fund will be administered by our bureau
and will quickly disburse small grants to help human rights defenders
facing extraordinary needs as a result of government repression. This
funding could, for example, cover legal defense, medical costs, or the
pressing needs of activists' families.
As Secretary Rice said on March 6: ``Liberty and human rights
require state institutions that function transparently and accountably,
a vibrant civil society, an independent judiciary and legislature, a
free media, and security forces that can uphold the rule of law and
protect the population from violence and extremism.''
Let me be clear: There is no tension, and no contradiction, between
improving the protection of human rights in the Philippines and
assisting the Government of the Philippines to combat terrorist
threats.
Turning specifically to the human rights situation in the
Philippines, in our 2006 Country Reports we noted a number of
arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings apparently by elements
of the security services, and political killings, including killings of
journalists, by a variety of actors. Despite intensified government
efforts during the year to investigate and prosecute these cases, many
of these killings went unsolved and unpunished, contributing to a
climate of impunity. Although various sources differ on the numbers,
the rise in suspect extrajudicial killings since 2001 is undisputed.
The report notes that members of the security services committed
acts of physical and psychological abuse on suspects and detainees,
including instances of torture. Arbitrary or warrantless arrests and
detentions were common. Trials were delayed and procedures were
prolonged. Prisoners awaiting trial and those already convicted were
often held under primitive conditions. Corruption remains a problem in
the criminal justice system, including police, prosecutorial, and
judicial organs. Human rights activists were often subject to
harassment by local security forces.
Deputy Assistant Secretary John has described a number of steps the
Government of the Philippines has taken to address the serious problem
of extrajudicial killings. We commend President Gloria Arroyo for
creating Task Force Usig to investigate specific cases, and the Melo
Commission to make policy and legal reform recommendations. These are
important initial steps to address this serious issue.
The Melo Commission Report describes evidence of abuses by security
services, and failure by some NGOs to cooperate responsibly with the
Commission. Our NGO principles speak to the responsibilities of both
governments and NGOs. We were pleased that the Arroyo administration
decided to make the Melo Commission findings public and is taking steps
to implement commission recommendations. We also note that President
Arroyo invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or
Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Phillip Alston, to conduct a 10-day fact-
finding mission in February.
Deputy Assistant Secretary John has described a number of steps our
Embassy in Manila has taken to address these human rights concerns. It
is important that we continue to work with the Government of the
Philippines to make sure that the initiatives they have pledged to
undertake are implemented effectively. We know from experience in other
countries that implementation is crucial and often-times difficult, and
requires a long-term commitment.
Our bureau meets regularly with a wide spectrum of NGOs, American
and Philippine, active on these issues. We also meet with
representatives of the Philippine Government to address our concerns. I
met recently with the Philippine Ambassador, Ambassador Willy Gaa, and
his country team during our preparations for the Country Reports, and
prior to the release of the Melo Commission Report. In this meeting, we
urged progress in the investigation and prosecution of cases by Task
Force Usig, and prompt release of the then-pending Melo Commission
Report. We will continue to follow up.
Last fall our Bureau met with representatives of the U.S. Episcopal
Church Peace and Justice Ministries and the Episcopal Asian-American
Ministries to hear their concerns about the October murder of Bishop
Alberto Ramento, a prominent Philippine national church leader and
human rights activist. At the time of Ramento's death, Brian Campbell,
a U.S. human rights labor activist and attorney, wrote that, ``Bishop
Ramento was a staunch human rights advocate who worked tirelessly to
support impoverished workers and farmers since the time of the Marcos
dictatorship.'' On December 6, Mr. Campbell was denied entry to the
Philippines under the rationale of tighter security imposed prior to
the recent ASEAN summit. At the time of his denied entry, Mr. Campbell
told us that he saw his name on a ``black list,'' along with a number
of other international human rights workers, which Philippine
immigration officials used to deny his admission into the country. In
my meeting with Ambassador Gaa, we expressed our concern over the
treatment of Mr. Campbell and the use of such a list.
In addition to the initiatives described by Deputy Assistant
Secretary John, we are using the Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF)
to support efforts to monitor and promote human rights and democracy,
including in the Philippines. DRL administers open grant competitions
for HRDF funds in which we solicit proposals from U.S.-based NGOs to
implement innovative democracy and human rights projects worldwide.
In the Philippines our programs will help to build capacity within
the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and local human rights NGOs
in the promotion of human rights, civic education, and responsible
independent media. Right now, we are using HRDF to advance human rights
protection in the Philippines through the institutionalization and
expansion of the Martus software project. This project is designed to
help the Philippine Commission on Human Rights enhance the quality of
human rights information it generates by supporting the integration of
the Martus software within its organizational systems. In addition, it
will expand and enhance usage and the network of Martus users,
particularly in Muslim Mindanao where human rights violations are a
serious concern. We expect the project to be sustainable over the long
term through local ownership of the product and results. This project
serves as a model to provide IT assistance to human rights
organizations in countries in which freedom of information is
suppressed and human rights are abused.
Another HRDF grant is improving the Madrasah system by educating
leaders of schools in the southern Philippines. This assistance
supports secular functions for Muslim schools--some of which are in
remote areas where there are no public schools available. It also works
to create awareness among Madrasah school leaders regarding U.S.
educational systems and curricula.
We have another HRDF grant awaiting congressional approval that
will help Filipino media reduce sensationalist reporting, highlight the
human cost of on-going political, economic, and violent conflict and
encourage reconciliation and reasoned debate. This project will
contribute to democracy and human rights by working to make the media a
more constructive and responsible force for social and political
cohesion, and will create a national association of human rights
journalists.
I can assure you that we will look for opportunities to include the
Philippines in some of our upcoming HRDF Requests for Grant Proposals.
The Melo Commission Report concluded its findings by stating that
you cannot build democracy or combat terrorism through abuse of human
rights. The State Department will continue to help the Philippines--a
free and democratic republic with an elected President, an elected
bicameral legislature, and a multiparty system--to address the serious
problem of extrajudicial killings. We look forward to working with
Congress on these issues, both in the Philippines and elsewhere.
I would ask that the Philippine section of the Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices for 2006 be entered into the record of this
hearing, and would be pleased to take your questions.
[Editor's note.-- The ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for
2006'' can be accessed on the State Department Web site.]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. I've asked Senator
Murkowski to please begin the questioning because she has such
a tight schedule.
So, Senator, go right ahead.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, I appreciate the
accommodation.
And thank you gentlemen for your responses, or your
testimony, here this afternoon.
Both of you have mentioned President Arroyo. How is he
viewed in, as it relates to the extrajudicial killings? Is it
viewed that he is doing all that----
Senator Boxer. She's a she.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Excuse me, is it, yes.
She's a she. I'm so used to the President's being a he.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. I know, exactly.
Senator Murkowski. The Philippines are ahead of us here.
But in terms of how she is viewed in this effort, is it enough?
Mr. John, do you want to go first?
Mr. John. Well, in the sense that you still have
extrajudicial killings, I don't think you can call it enough.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you've mentioned the task force--
--
Mr. John. Right. I think that----
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. They have in--brought
together.
Mr. John. I think she has marched out in the right way over
the last several months with the--if you look at the last 6
months or so, the last 3 months or so, you do have, first of
all, clear direction and statements against extrajudicial
killings from the top, from the President, and a commitment to
halt them and setting up the, as we noted, the structures that
you need to halt that. You know, in that sense, I think it's
off, she's off to a good start. I, until, you know, these
numbers come drastically down, though, I don't think we can
determine if it's enough.
Senator Murkowski. People don't just want a task force,
they want to see action.
Mr. John. Right.
Senator Murkowski. They want to see a change.
Mr. John. Follow through is going to be very critical here.
Senator Murkowski. So in terms of, where the blame is being
laid and assessed, you've mentioned--you, Mr. John--mentioned
security forces. Is it more directed toward the military and
the police, and less against the administration then? I'm just
trying to understand where, from the public perspective, the
focus needs to be in terms of where changes are needed.
Mr. John. Right. Well, I think in the sense that you have
security forces involved in these extrajudicial killings, the
chain of command is very important. And the chain of command
for the security forces leads to the President of the Republic
of the Philippines. That doesn't mean that they're operating
under orders, but as the ultimate authority in the chain of
command, she has to take the steps to stop any involvement by
members of security forces.
Senator Murkowski. Where are we seeing the most number of
killings. You mentioned 10 areas--there were 10 areas that you
were focusing on. Is this a situation where if we are
successful in stopping the killings in one area, that they will
just migrate to another section of the country?
Mr. John. I'm not sure precisely, to be honest, where
those--where the 10 areas are located on the map. I do know
that it's--it's not necessarily coincident with Mindanao, for
example.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. John. That's a separate issue. These are largely
related to NPA, the New People's Army, Communist Party of the
Philippines, NPACPP, and leftist parties associated with those,
with the NPACPP. Those are, I believe, spread throughout the
country. And I'm not sure that you get into the situation where
you squeeze one area and it moves to another area. But, you
know, we can investigate and get back to you on that.
Senator Murkowski. And then a question to you, Mr. Farrar.
You've mentioned the assistance, and the grants that you will
be utilizing, and an effort with the education, as well as
reporting of human rights abuses. Are--as far as the U.S.
foreign assistance through the international military education
training, the foreign military funds, these types of funds.
How--how successful have we been in using these funds in the
area of training, and to work on the reporting?
Mr. Farrar. Sure. The specific project I mentioned has to
do with us training Filipino journalists in the area of human
rights abuses and reporting. And also to set up a National
Association of Human Rights Journalists to both
professionalize, and allow them to better communicate among one
another.
The IMET program is an important part, separate part from
our bureau, and human rights education is an important part of
that program.
Do you have something to add?
Mr. John. I think the IMET training is, I think, a
component, or strongly related to the Philippine Defense
Reform, the PDR, which, a large component of which is human
rights training, both in the Philippines and in the United
States.
Senator Murkowski. Madame Chairman, thank you for your
indulgence in letting me go first. I appreciate, again, and
I'll look forward to a followup with you as to the rest of the
testimony today.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Senator.
These are questions for both of you, and either one of you
can handle them or each can comment as you wish.
The State Department's 2006 country report on human rights
practices in the Philippines paints a grim picture of the
situation there. The report states--this is our State
Department--that many of last year's extrajudicial killings,
``went unsolved and unpunished, contributing to a climate of
impunity.'' The report also states that, ``members of the
security services committed acts of physical and psychological
abuse on suspects and detainees, and there were instances of
torture.''
Now in response to the continued violence, I understand the
State Department, through U.S. Ambassador Kristie Kenney,
recently offered assistance in stopping the violence. Yet there
have been conflicting reports as to whether or not the
Philippine Government accepted the offer. Now, I guess, Mr.
John, I'm going to address this to you, because you basically
painted a fairly rosy picture about this. So I guess I need to
know--have the Philippines accepted our offers, and how have
they responded? And have they accepted our offers in whole or
in part?
Mr. John. Yes; the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Secretary
Romulo, has accepted offers of U.S. assistance in this. I think
if--I hope that I wasn't painting a rosy picture about the
situation in the Philippines, but rather our offers of
assistance. I think that the Melo----
Senator Boxer. Well, you made a rosy scenario about, the
fact that--it sounded to me like you were telling me that the
Government has embraced everything we have offered. Is that
true? Have they embraced everything? Have the rejected
anything? Have they said, ``Wonderful, we'll take all the help,
and we're going to have transparency and accountability.''
Mr. John. They have accepted what we've offered. That's
correct.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. John. And what we've put forward, we're going to move
forward with. Yes.
Senator Boxer. All right. According to the CRS--that's the
Congressional Research Service--the Philippines, a major non-
NATO ally of the United States, has received the most dramatic
increase in United States foreign assistance in the East Asia
Pacific region, particularly for foreign military financing.
Now you pointed out, as I did, that the Philippines are a
very important ally to us, a very important partner to us in
the war against terror. That's for sure.
But, I guess what I want to know from you is: Is there a
better way to address the issue of extrajudicial killings in
relation to this military financing? Because people are coming
to me and saying, you know, ``We're spending American dollars
to train the military forces and yet, we're not sure who's
doing these extrajudicial killings.'' Are we going to be
attacked, as we were many years ago, in El Salvador and other
places, for training a military that then turns out to be
perpetrating crimes against its own people? So have you thought
about suggesting that we tie some strings to this military
training money?
Mr. John. I think we, you know, certainly have something
that one would have to consider, but our approach is that tying
legislation to the assistance money would be counterproductive.
I think, first, on the dramatic increase in----
Senator Boxer. Well, before you slide through that one.
[Laughter.]
I don't accept that, without a challenge. Because if we are
training the military there with our hard-earned tax dollars,
I've got a million Filipino-Americans in my State, many of whom
are concerned about this. They want this to be fixed.
So, why wouldn't we since we are concerned that maybe the
military is involved in this--and that has not been discounted
yet or proven, I think it's pretty much up in the air--but
there's suspicion of this. Why wouldn't we want to say to the
government, you know, we need to put some strings on this?
Either you step up to the plate and resolve this, or these
funds just aren't going to come. Because aren't we concerned
that our money, in the name of America, could be used to kill
innocent people?
Mr. John. Yeah; absolutely.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I hope you'll, you know, take that
back to the boss.
Mr. John. Yes; we agree. And I, if I could just, I'll leave
it at that, yes. I agree that we do not want to train the Armed
Forces of the Philippines that, in any way, would lead to their
involvement in extrajudicial killings.
Senator Boxer. Well, I'm really glad to hear that because
the Alston concluded, ``The increase in political killings in
recent years is attributable, at least in part, to the AFP.''
That's the Armed Forces of the Philippines, counterinsurgency
strategy. So, I guess I was wrong when I said, we don't know. I
mean, if we believe the Alston Report, they said that.
So I think it's really important that we not have blood on
our hands in this country. And that, in fact, we are very
cautious, and that we--since the government has admitted
there's a problem and you feel good about their response so
far--the transparency and the results, we really need to have
that.
OK, let's see. Mr. John, in your opening statement you
called the Philippines a ``vibrant democracy.'' And when I went
there in 1986, the excitement that lay ahead was just amazing.
I mean, I just remember being on the street there standing in
front of the Marcos Palace, he was gone, and Cory Aquino had
taken over. And just remembering the religious groups that
helped in that whole thing to bring about, you know, democracy
there. So it's important that we have a vibrant democracy now.
Do you know the group, the Political and Economic Risk
Consultancy? Are you familiar with them?
Mr. John. No, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Are you?
Mr. Farrar. No.
Senator Boxer. This is a group that ranks corruption in
various nations. So, I'll send you their report. They rank the
Philippines as the most corrupt nation in Asia. And so, do you
think it's possible to be a vibrant democracy when corruption
is so rampant?
Mr. John. I would draw a line between a vibrant democracy
and good clean government. And I think that the goal is, that
you have a vibrant democracy that leads to good clean
government.
Senator Boxer. When you say you draw a line, what do you
mean? You don't see them as being connected?
Mr. John. They are, I'm sorry, there is, that you don't
have--with a vibrant democracy, you don't immediately----
Senator Boxer. You can have corruption.
Mr. John [continuing]. Have good clean government.
Senator Boxer. Well, what's your position on the corruption
in the Philippines?
Mr. John. Corruption is bad, and our Millennium--I think
the Philippines would be the first to acknowledge that they
have a problem with corruption. We've got Millennium Challenge
account money directed to fighting corruption in the
Philippines.
Senator Boxer. OK. Because, I wonder if corruption's a
factor in the failure of the Philippine justice system to bring
extrajudicial killers to justice, do you think it could be a
factor?
Mr. John. Yes. I think a corrupt judiciary, opaque
judiciary could hinder bringing EJKs, and bringing the
perpetrators of extrajudicial killings to justice. But, if I
could just make another point about----
Senator Boxer. Please, go ahead; yeah.
Mr. John [continuing]. Democracy, with your permission.
Senator Boxer. Sure.
Mr. John. I think, you know, one thing that is, about the
vibrant democracy in the Philippines that has helped, that will
help resolve extrajudicial killings is that, for example, with
these, the Spader Reports that started off with Amnesty
International last August. There's been significant media
attention in the Philippines to the problem of extrajudicial
killings. And I think that it's going to be, what's going to
help resolve this is domestic political pressure. The
Philippines, and Filipinos themselves bringing domestic
political pressure on President Arroyo.
We'll support that, but I think in that sense you do see a
connection between a vibrant democracy, and steps taken to
resolve a very important issue to the Philippine citizens by
the President.
Senator Boxer. Well, I think we have some really great
opportunities here to link our aid to their facing this
problem. We've identified the military assistance. We also, you
mentioned it, have the Millennium Challenge grants, and it
seems to me that's another way to leverage transparency and
progress on these killings and on corruption in general.
I would ask, maybe Mr. Farrar or Mr. John: Does the State
Department have an estimate of the number of extrajudicial
killings in the Philippines?
Mr. Farrar. We don't have our own number. If you look at
the human rights report, it sights a variety of sources which
range significantly. But we would agree with----
Senator Boxer. A variety of sources, or a variety of
numbers?
Mr. Farrar. Sources which all have different numbers. And
we would agree with Mr. Alston when he says that there are a
variety of numbers, but what's important is that there's
agreement that the trend, that the number is on the rise.
Senator Boxer. OK, then since you mentioned Mr. Alston, I
have my last question. I'm sure you're very happy that it's my
last question.
Mr. Alston, the Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Human Rights
Council, said that, ``The response of the Philippine Government
to the crisis of extrajudicial executions varies
dramatically.'' He said there's been a welcome acknowledgement
of the seriousness of the problem at the very top--which is
consistent with what you said, Mr. John--``at the executive
level the messages have been very mixed and often
unsatisfactory.'' This is Mr. Alston. ``And at the operational
level, the allegations have too often been met with the
response of incredulity mixed with offense.'' How can we ensure
that extrajudicial killings are condemned by all levels of the
Philippine Government? I would ask either of you to comment?
Mr. Farrar. Sure, as Eric mentioned before, the commitment
from President Arroyo is a good start and it's a good public
commitment, and certain actions have flowed from that already,
including the directive by the Armed Forces to reinforce the
chain of command. But what's important is, I mentioned in my
opening statement, is implementation and follow-through. And I
can tell you from experience in other countries and other
regions of the world that that's the toughest stage--is
implementation. And so it's something they have to work on, and
we have to help them on, and keep the focus. And hearings, such
as today's, are a good way to get attention on the problem.
Senator Boxer. Yeah; I mean, I really think, because we
have such a close relationship, as we must, and as we should, I
think we have a lot more leverage than perhaps we've been
using. And that is one of the points to this hearing.
You know, sometimes I think we tend to say we don't want to
criticize our friends, but frankly what I learned growing up
is--if you really care about someone, you ought to tell them,
if you think they're going off course somewhere. If you don't
care about them, just let them go down the wrong road. And so,
I hope you'll take that message back.
I know, I really thank you for your service to your country
for taking your job so seriously.
We're going to call up the next panel. And I hope you can
stay to hear that panel. We'll be finished at around 4 o'clock.
So if you could stay it would be very, very good, at least one
of you. Because I think what you're going to hear is going to
be very important. If you can do that.
So, we'll call up the second panel now. Senator Webb has
told me he doesn't have an opening statement, but he's
interested in hearing the next panel.
So, Mr. Kumar, advocacy director, we're going to try to get
you moving, move, move, faster, good. Mr. T. Kumar, advocacy
director for Asia and the Pacific, Amnesty International USA in
Washington here. Mr. Eugene Martin, executive director,
Philippine Facilitation Project, U.S. Institute of Peace,
Washington. Bishop Eliezer Pascua, general secretary of the
United Church of Christ in the Philippines. And you've come to
us from the Philippines, and we're very grateful. And Ms. Marie
Hilao-Enriquez, general secretary of KARAPATAN, also coming to
us from the Philippines. We are very grateful that you have
come all this way.
So why don't we start--yes; I will turn it over to Senator
Webb, who has something he'd like to add.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Madame Chair.
I don't really have a formal opening statement, but I would
first like to congratulate you on holding these hearings, and
also to say that it's an enormous pleasure to be serving on
this subcommittee. I've spent a great deal of my life in and
out of Asia, East Asia, and I have a very strong affection for
the people of the Philippines, and for the special bond that
our country has with the people of the Philippines. And I've
been able to travel a good deal in the Philippines over the
years.
I made a very useful visit there when I was Secretary of
the Navy a number of years ago. I've been there as a
journalist. I've been there as a tourist. I have a number of
friends in the Philippines, and in the government. And I think
this particular issue is one that we should be looking at, in
the way that you're looking at it. And I'm pleased to be here.
I just didn't want to sit up here without having said
anything and I'm very interested in hearing the testimony of
this panel.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much. And I am proud
to have you on this subcommittee. It's enriching the
subcommittee, tremendously.
Let's start with Mr. T. Kumar, advocacy director for Asia
and the Pacific, from Amnesty International. Again, we'll give
you 5 minutes so we have enough time for questions. Go ahead
Mr. Kumar.
STATEMENT OF T. KUMAR, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR ASIA AND THE
PACIFIC, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, USA, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Kumar. Thank you very much, Madame Chair and Senator
Webb. Amnesty International is extremely pleased to be here to
testify on the situation of extreme significance to us.
You touched on a couple of issues during the first panel
discussion, so I don't want to go over that. I would like to
touch on basic issues. First is, Amnesty International has
documented that hundreds have been killed, politically
assassinated, by suspected vigilante groups who may have been
linked to the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Who are the targets? The targets are pretty much political
leaders and social activists who have been directly connected,
or indirectly connected, to the Communist Party of the
Philippines. So, what we are seeing today is even the political
leaders, Members of Congress and others, are being targeted,
because they may be sharing the same political views or social
views of the Communist Party--namely environmental issues,
fighting for the indigenous rights, fighting for human rights,
and fighting for other marginalized communities like poor and
the landless.
So, what we are seeing today is when a group of people in a
country, they are fighting for the weakest and the
marginalized, they get killed in the name of fighting terror.
That is what is happening there. And the unfortunate thing that
we are seeing in the Philippines is that the garment of
Philippines--the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the
police, find it difficult to distinguish between the political
activists, as well as the Communist Party of the Philippines.
My time is running out. I want to quickly go into one
issue. Amnesty International strongly believes that these
killings are not unconnected. That is, there is a connect,
there is a pattern that is being done behind these killings,
and we strongly believe that it is linked to certain elements
in the Armed Forces.
We are really worried about the Philippine Government's
actions. President Arroyo waited for 4 years to nominate this
Melo Commission. She suddenly woke up after everyone started
shouting. So, 4 years she was completely silent. One disturbing
element is, that is one Major General Palparan, whom we have
identified as one of the main players, was involved in all of
these assassinations, directly or indirectly. When he retired,
President Arroyo basically congratulated him and said he is an
asset to counterinsurgency operations. That's an extremely
negative and damaging statement that President Arroyo made. So,
as the committee, please take this into account.
My final point is the Philippine Government is using war
and terror as an excuse to eliminate political opponents. That
is what we are seeing here. There are two armed opposition
groups in the Philippines now, two major. One is the Communist
Party of the Philippines. The second is the Moro Islamic
National Front.
The United States Government has designated only the
Communist Party of the Philippines as a terrorist organization,
and they did not designate the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
We want to know why you have these two standards? That's the
message that you should ask the government, why you have two
standards? I know Eugene will have an answer, but I want you to
ask the administration. There are two armed groups, and only
one is being designated.
Finally, the United States is giving training to the Armed
Forces of the Philippines on counterterrorism on these two
fronts. One is to fight the Moro Islamic Militants, and the
last to fight the Communists.
We want to know what type of training you are giving to
these troops that are fighting Communist groups? The reason why
we're asking is, these Communists, in the name of fighting
communism, are the one all these killings are taking place.
Before finishing my time I want to highlight one issue that
is directly connected to the Iraq war. We heard--it's not
confirmed yet--that this Major General Palparan is the one who
led the Philippine contingent to fight the war in Iraq. The
Philippines sent a couple of hundred, I don't know how many, up
to a thousand troops there. Now they have been withdrawn. If
that is true, it is disturbing.
Here, this person has been implicated by everyone, and here
he was implicated in political killings, and the United States
is allowing these type of leaders--military leaders--to come
and fight the Iraq war, and what message you are giving to the
Iraqis? And what type of actions these troops are taking
against the Iraqis there?
That is the question you have to ask in an overall context.
Thank you very much, and I know I have only 30 seconds. I
would be waiting for questions to answer. Thank you very much,
Madame, for inviting us.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kumar follows:]
Prepared Statement of T. Kumar, Advocacy Director for Asia and the
Pacific, Amnesty International, USA, Washington, DC
Thank you Madam Chair and distinguished members of this committee.
Amnesty is pleased to testify at this important hearing.
For several years political killings in the Philippines have been
of serious concern to Amnesty International which has issued reports,
urgent actions and news releases to highlight the gravity of the
situation. We also met with Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
President of the Republic of the Philippines, on September 14, 2006, to
raise these concerns.
It is disturbing to note that, even though hundreds have been
killed so far, to date there has not been a single conviction. The
political killings are continuing in the Philippines, and even
yesterday a witness to the U.N. envoy was gunned down. Amnesty
International is concerned that the Government's declaration of ``all-
out war'' on communism paves the way for further increases in killings.
SUMMARY
The number of attacks on leftist activists and community workers
rose sharply during the last couple of years. Most of the attacks were
carried out by unidentified assailants on motorcycles, at times wearing
face masks, who were often described as ``vigilantes'' or hired killers
allegedly linked to Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). In some
cases, those attacked had reportedly been under surveillance by people
linked to the security forces or had received death threats.
Those most at risk include members of legal leftist political
parties, including Bayan Muna (People First) and Anakpawis (Toiling
Masses), other human rights and community activists, priests, church
workers, and lawyers regarded by the authorities as sympathetic to the
broader Communist movement.
Increased killings in particular provinces during President
Arroyo's administration were reportedly linked to the public labeling
of leftist groups as National People's Army's ``front organizations''
by the local AFP Commanders.
A climate of impunity shielding the perpetrators of such killings
deepened as ineffective investigations failed to lead to the
prosecution of those responsible. In many cases witnesses were
reportedly too frightened to testify.
Most of the victims were not even members of armed groups, even
though they may have sympathised with their ideology. It is a matter of
importance for everyone in the Philippines that individuals should be
able to affiliate with the political party or group of their choice and
not be subject to politically motivated violence as a result.
Who is responsible?
The methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats,
patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security
forces, the leftist profile of the victims, and a climate of impunity
that has shielded the perpetrators from prosecution, has led Amnesty
International to conclude that the attacks are not an unconnected
series of criminal murders but constitute a politically motivated
pattern of killings. The organization remains gravely concerned that
members of the security forces may have been directly involved in the
killings, or else have tolerated, acquiesced to, or been complicit in
them.
Philip Alston, the U.N. expert on extrajudicial executions, stated
in his initial findings that: ``The Armed Forces of the Philippines
remains in a state of almost total denial of its need to respond
effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings
which have been convincingly attributed to them.''
Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan
One of the well-known military officers whose name is often cited
in the context of political killings is Major General Palparn. He has
made public statements linking leftist political parties with National
People's Army. In a television interview in August 2002, then-Colonel
Palparan labeled Bayan Muna an ``NPA front.'' He also publicly accused
Karapatan and the women's organization, Gabriela, of being NPA
recruiters.
Major General Palparan in particular emerged as the focus of
accusations by leftist groups that the military was responsible for
sharply increased numbers of killings of leftist activists in regions
where he was given command.
He also described the congressional party-list members as directing
of ``providing the day-to-day policies of the (rebel) movement.''
He warned of necessary and tolerable ``collateral damage'' in the
anti-insurgency campaign, and, referring to vigilante killings by anti-
Communist elements outside the AFP, stated that the military alone
should not be blamed. Subsequently, labeling leftist party-list leader
as ``enemies of the state,'' he also called for reinstitution of the
Anti-Subversion Act to make membership of the CPP a criminal offense
once again.
An asset?
Major General Palparn retired on 11 September 2005. Following his
retirement he was lauded by the President who called him an asset to
the counterinsurgency. This is despite all the accusations against him.
He was going to be appointed as the Deputy National Security Advisor,
but the appointment did not go through due to public protest. He has
recently been encouraged to run for Congress.
He was significantly mentioned in the Melo report whose authors
interviewed him in regards to comments he has made about political
killings. He has also been implicated behind some of the killings.
Amnesty International is concerned that there may be several more
senior officers like Major General Palparn in the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. We urge the U.S. administration of be vigilant in
identifying these officers to satisfy Leahey Law requirements.
Philippines Government's response
After almost 4 years of rising numbers of political killings--and
after intense pressure from the international human rights
organizations and the United Nations--the Government of the Philippines
took some steps to ``understand'' the problem, by appointing ``Melo
Commission.'' It is a mystery why the Government of the Philippines
failed to address this disturbing trend of political killings for all
these years; despite the fact that hundreds were killed for political
reasons.
On August 21, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced the
establishment of a special Commission of Inquiry, headed by former
Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo, to investigate the killings and to
make recommendations for remedial action, including appropriate
prosecutions and legislative proposals.
Pledging to ``break this cycle of violence once and for all,''
President Arroyo stated, ``I have directed [the Melo Commission] to
leave no stone unturned in their pursuit of justice . . . the victims
and their families deserve justice to be served.''
After initial hesitation to release the report; the Government of
the Philippines released the ``Melo Report'' on February 22, 2007.
Responding to the Melo Commission report, the Government has announced
a six-point action plan, the implementation of which will be crucial to
ending the killings. A lack of accountability for such political
killings remains a critical challenge: To date there has not been one
conviction, despite the hundreds of killings, primarily of legal
leftist activists, over the past 6 years.
In May, the authorities set up a special police investigative task
force called Usig to coordinate investigations into suspected political
killings. However, only a limited number of people were arrested and
few cases were filed in court by the end of 2006. For example, of 114
killings recorded since 2001 by Task Force Usig, the police have
arrested suspects in only three cases. No one was held accountable for
cases before 2001.
United States policy
The United States has a special relationship with the Philippines,
including U.S. forces stationed in the Philippines to train the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP). The United States also offers millions
of dollars of aid and other military assistance and has designated the
Philippines as a major non-NATO ally.
Given this close relationship the United States enjoys with the
Philippines it is disappointing to note that the administration's
actions have been muted and that the administration has failed the
Philippine people by not publicly condemning the Philippine Government
publicly over the last 4 years while the political killings increased.
Not being vocal on this issue sends a wrong message to the Government
of the Philippines. We urge the administration to publicly condemn the
political killings and urge the creation of specific benchmarks for the
Philippines Government to end these killings. We urge the
administration to keep this issue as a matter of priority in all of its
interactions with the Government of the Philippines.
In September 2006, it was reported in the media that military
assistance, in the form of training, would be increased to help with
the Philippines' war on terror and to combat the Communist insurgency.
Since the political killings in the Philippines are happening in the
context of Communist insurgency, it is vital that the United States
Government report to the appropriate congressional committees the type
of military assistance it is giving to the Government of the
Philippines in its fight against the community insurgency.
What should be done?
Amnesty International believes that urgent steps are needed to
remedy this situation, not least because the threat of further killings
has intensified due to political developments during 2006. These
include President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's declaration of a week-long
State of Emergency in late February and the continuing collapse of the
peace process. Prospect for revival of peace negotiations dwindled
further amid intensification of counterinsurgency operations, the
direct transfer of names and addresses of NDF negotiators and others
listed in a former safe-conduct agreement to an arrest warrant, and an
announcement in June of the release of substantial additional funds to
allow the armed forces to ``crush'' the Communist insurgency in certain
areas within 2 years.
During and after the Emergency, justified as a response to an
alleged coup conspiracy involving an array of actors from the extreme
left to the extreme right of the political spectrum, senior officials
repeatedly claimed that the major threat to national security came from
the CPP-NPA. They publicly linked the legal leftist political
opposition directly with Communist armed groups, in effect implying
that there was no distinction between them. Such public labeling, in
conjunction with the arrest and attempted arrest of leftist
congressional representatives on charges of ``rebellion,'' raised
concerns that the risk of further killings of leftist activists was
intensifying.
Such concerns proved well-founded. As senior officials and military
officers labeled members of the legal left ``enemies of the state,''
and failed to condemn the killings consistently at all levels of
government, fears grew that elements within the armed forces might
interpret this as a tacit signal that political killings were a
legitimate part of the anti-insurgency campaign. At least 51 political
killings took place in the first half of 2006, compared to the 66
killings recorded by Amnesty International in the whole of 2005.
While welcoming President Arroyo's condemnation of political
killings in her State of the Nation Address to Congress in July 2006,
her earlier reported instructions to Cabinet officials to put an end to
further killings, and the establishment of a special police
investigative task force, Amnesty International believes further
determined steps are essential. The organization calls on the
Government of the Philippines to implement Amnesty International's 14-
Point Program for the Prevention of Extrajudicial Executions.
As an integral part of this program, the authorities should
urgently reiterate a clear, unequivocal message to all members of the
police, military, and other security forces that involvement in, or
acquiescence to, such unlawful killings will never be tolerated. All
such cases must be fully and promptly investigated and all those
responsible, whether linked to the armed forces or not, brought to
justice. Only in this manner can public confidence in the impartial and
effective administration of justice be restored and a peace process,
with respect for human rights by all sides at its heart, be revived.
Political killings: An intensifying pattern
Between the late 1980s and 2000-2001, as the scale and intensity of
the National People's Army's (NPA) insurgency declined gradually, the
number of alleged NPA rebels killed in direct armed clashes or
``encounters'' similarly decreased. However over the last 6 years this
trend appeared to alter. In, addition, especially since 2003, the
number of fatal attacks by unidentified armed men on members of legal
leftist political organizations accused by the government of being
``front'' organizations of the CPP-NPA, including Bayan Muna,
Anakpawis, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN--New Patriotic Alliance)
and others, has undergone a marked increase.
Amnesty International believes that these successive killings are
marked by common features. These include the political affiliations of
the victims; the methodology of attacks; an apparent climate of
impunity which, in practice, has shielded those responsible from
prosecution; and repeated reports that military or other state agents
have been directly involved in the attacks, or else have acquiesced or
been complicit in them.
The organization believes that the pattern of killings, sustained
over at least the past 5 years, amount to far more than the rise and
fall of a normal crime rate cycle as suggested by some police officers.
Communist ``fronts'': The resurgence of ``red-labeling''
Human rights violations against suspected ``sympathizers'' of the
CPP-NPA have long been a feature of anti-insurgency operations in the
Philippines. From the 1970s to the early 1990s the practice of ``red-
labeling,'' the public labeling of leftist critics of the government as
``subversives'' or members of Communist ``front organizations,'' was
seen by Amnesty International, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines
and other human rights groups as directly linked to the high levels of
extrajudicial executions, ``disappearances,'' arbitrary arrests, and
torture of members of legal political groups and nongovernmental
organizations. Peasants, trade unionists, church, social and human
rights activists were portrayed in this manner as ``legitimate''
targets within the broader counterinsurgency campaign. Many were also
placed, without opportunity for rebuttal, on AFP ``Orders of Battle''
(lists of people wanted by the security forces for alleged subversion)
and, often receiving death threats from AFP and police personnel,
paramilitaries, or unofficial vigilante groups, were at particular risk
of serious human rights violations.
Concern over a resurgence of such labeling--and an apparent link to
a parallel rise in the number of political killings--has increased
during President Arroyo's administration as provincial military
commanders made public statements linking legal leftist parties
directly with the CPP-NPA. One of the most prominent among these
commanders remains Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan. In a television interview
in August 2002 then-Colonel Palparan labeled Bayan Muna an ``NPA
front.'' He also publicly accused Karapatan and the women's
organization, Gabriela, of being ``NPA recruiters.''
Similarly in September 2002, an army commander in Cebu denied
Karapatan human rights workers permission to visit a man detained on
suspicion of being an NPA rebel. The commander is reported to have
said, ``There is the possibility that we will shoot them (Karapatan
members), depending on their action, because they are our enemies.'' In
a separate radio interview, he is also reported to have described
Karapatan as ``an enemy which hasn't done anything but support the NPA
and find ways of destroying the government.''
The perception that a group of officers within the AFP recognized
no distinction between the NPA and legal leftist parties, and rejected
the legitimacy of leftist progressive groups' participation in
democratic political processes, was also reflected in the circulation
in 2005 of AFP treatises on the CPP-NPA ``revolutionary struggle'' and
what the AFP regarded as necessary resultant counterinsurgency
strategies. The treatises outlined the ``complementary, interrelated,
and interactive'' nature of the armed, the legal community and
parliamentary struggles, and described the targeted infiltration and
the CPP-NPA ``capture'' of particular sectoral communities (including
peasants, urban poor, and indigenous people) to exploit pressing social
issues such as land reform and the impact of mining and other
controversial development projects. Referring also to alleged
penetration of local government units by party-list groups and the
manipulation of government local development programs, the treatises
listed alleged ``front'' nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and called
for a coordinated AFP campaign to ``neutralize'' CPP-NPA programs
within vulnerable sectors and communities.
Major General Palparan in particular emerged as the focus of
accusations by leftist groups that the military was responsible for
sharply increased numbers of killings of leftist activists in regions
where he was given command, including Samar and, currently, Central
Luzon. In February 2006, Major General Palparan publicly reiterated
that the government must confront the insurgency at all levels,
reducing their support systems, including NGO's infiltrated or
controlled by the CPP that provide the ``materials, the shelter'' for
the NPA. He also described the congressional party-list members as
directing or ``providing the day-to-day policies of the [rebel]
movement.'' He warned of necessary and tolerable ``collateral damage''
in the anti-insurgency campaign, and, referring to vigilante killings
by anti-Communist elements outside the AFP, stated that the military
``alone'' should not be blamed. Subsequently, labeling leftist party-
list leaders as ``enemies of the state,'' he also called for
reinstitution of the Anti-Subversion Act to again make membership of
the CPP a criminal offense.
Though reassured by President Arroyo's public condemnation of
political killings in July 2006, the absence of consistent
denunciation, at all levels of government, of any form of official
involvement in political killings contributed to persistent concerns
that such counterinsurgency strategies would consolidate, in practice,
into an implicit policy of toleration of such political killings. Such
concerns had deepened as senior government officials, including
prominent members of the Cabinet Oversight Committee on Internal
Security (COC-IS), publicly endorsed such counterinsurgency strategies,
and in addition, robustly defended the arrest or threatened arrest of
party-list congressional representatives for rebellion. In March 2006
National Security Adviser Noberto Gonzales declared that the government
was beginning a crackdown on all known ``Communist fronts'' in society,
and would achieve its goal of destroying the CPP-NPA by the year 2010.
The backqround of the victims and location of attacks
The majority of the victims of political killings have been unarmed
civilians, members of the legal political left, primarily Bayan Muna,
Anakpawis and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN--New Patriotic
Alliance), but including activists from a range of leftist sectoral or
community organizations. Those killed have also included members of
leftist groups who have split from the CPP, including the Kilusan para
sa Pambansang Demokraysa (KPD--Movement for National Democracy). Both
men and women have been targeted, with the victims including community
organizers, church workers and priests, human rights activists, trade
union and peasant leaders, journalists, indigenous peoples activists,
elected local officials and political activists.
Attacks have occurred nationwide, though human rights and other
organizations have noted periodic, marked increases in particular
regions, notably Mindoro Oriental, Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon
(including Bulacan, Pampanga, Bataan, and Nueva Ecija provinces).
According to local human rights groups, these regional fluctuations
were allegedly linked to the assignment of Major General Palparan as
commanding officer in these regions. Major General Palparan has denied
any involvement in such killings.
Methodology of attacks and suspected perpetrators
The predominant method of attack has been shootings by unidentified
assailants, mostly riding tandem on a motorcycle, who often obscure
their identity with ``bonnet'' face masks or helmets. At times the
assailants are supported by other men on motorcycles nearby or use
unmarked vans. Many attacks were described as having been carried out
in a ``professional'' manner, with the killers striking in broad
daylight in public places, firing a limited number of shots targeted at
the head or trunk of the body of the targeted person, before escaping
unimpeded.
According to reports, a significant number of attacks have been
proceeded by warnings or death threats, and by patterns of surveillance
by alleged security force personnel which reportedly led up to targeted
attacks in or near the victims' homes or offices, or while they
undertook routine journeys. Following the killing of at least three
activists in northern Luzon 2005, leaders from the Cordillera Peoples
Alliance (CPA) and Bayan Muna-Cordillera, reported that they had been
informed by sources within the AFP that they had been included on a
military list as targets for attack. They described subsequent
intensive surveillance or ``casing'' operations conducted by suspected
military intelligence personnel, including being followed, vehicles
carrying men (at times covering their faces) stationed outside their
office or driving repeatedly by, and apparent attempts to break into
their offices or cars.
In other cases, well-established AFP counterinsurgency techniques
appeared to be linked to subsequent attacks. The practice of
``zoning,'' whereby the military target a village or district believed
to be influenced by the CPP-NPA, order the inhabitants to assemble to
listen to lectures, at times using former insurgents now being used as
military ``assets,'' about the Communist threat so as to encourage
informants and identify alleged Communist supporters within the
community, reportedly leads to the public labeling of legal-left
activists, or their inclusion on military ``orders of battle.''
Once named, the threat of subsequent assassination attacks by
unidentified men is markedly increased. In this manner Tarlac City
Councillor Attorney Abelardo Ladera shot on the highway in central
Luzon in 2005, had reportedly been named in a news briefing as an NPA
contact in the region, while Jose ``Pepe'' Manegdeg, shot dead in
Ilocos Sur in November 2005, had been labeled by the AFP as a NPA
supporter and had received death threats.
Ineffective investigations and a climate of impunity
Prosecution and punishment break the cycle of crime and impunity.
It protects the public from the culprits repeating their crimes and it
helps to deter others from committing similar crimes by raising the
real threat that they too, may be caught and punished.
Failure to investigate political killings effectively and to
prosecute the perpetrators risks perpetuating a cycle of human rights
violations, not least by sending a message of de facto state tolerance
for such practices. If military or other officials, or others linked to
them, believe that they are, in practice, immune from prosecution for
such crimes they will be more likely to repeat them. Such a climate of
impunity undermines public confidence in the administration of justice,
eroding the rule of law and respect for human rights.
In the Philippines while the authorities routinely launch police
investigations into political and other killings, and in May 2006
established a special unit--Task Force Usig--to better coordinate
investigations into political killings at a national level, Amnesty
International is concerned at persistent reports that the majority of
investigations do not meet international standards as set forth in the
U.N. Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-
Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, as supplemented by U.N. Manual
Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and
Summary Executions. Amnesty International is further concerned that
these investigations have reportedly not led to the conviction of any
of the perpetrators of the hundreds of killings of leftist activists
since 2001.
An international fact-finding mission of lawyers and judges, who
visited the Philippines in June 2006 in response to reported
extrajudicial executions of members of the legal profession within the
context of a pattern of political killings, found that in the cases of
15 lawyers and 10 judges killed since 2001 none of the perpetrators
have been convicted. The Secretary of the Interior and Local
Government, responsible for the police, also informed the mission that
Task Force Usig had recorded a total of 114 party-list members killed
since 2001. Out of this total, 27 cases had been filed in court and the
remaining 86 are still under investigation. Out of the 27 cases filed
in court, the PNP has arrested suspects in only three cases. No
convictions have been reported.
Difficulty in investigating?
In explaining the difficulties in investigating such cases, senior
police officers described how forensic capability and technology was
not yet sufficiently developed, so that it cannot stand alone as
evidence in the absence of eyewitnesses. In May 2006, a police director
working with Task Force Usig had also acknowledged that the refusal of
witnesses to come forward is a major obstacle in PNP efforts to
investigate and to collect evidence sufficient to support the filing of
criminal charges. The police also blamed witnesses for their
unwillingness to cooperate, stating that it ``unnecessarily'' caused
undue delays in the prosecution of such cases. While acknowledging that
witnesses are fearful of reprisals, one officer suggested this was due
not to government institutions, but to a ``general fear'' of revenge by
the NPA. However the lawyers and families of the victims questioned by
the international fact-finding mission confirmed that they mistrusted
and feared the police and that in one case, the witnesses to a killing
had told the victim's family that they had been instructed to sign a
statement different from the one they had given police.
Families of the victims have repeatedly complained of protracted
and inconclusive police investigations which are reported to be
indefinitely ``stalled'' due to an ``absence of leads,'' or to have
been ``solved'' if the investigating officers have filed an initial
police investigation report with the prosecutor--which subsequently may
not lead to the prosecutor filing charges and applying for a warrant of
arrest. In conjunction with lack of confidence in the impartiality of
the police, fear of reprisals, and a lack of an effective witness
protection program, most investigations remain ineffective and fail to
lead to the identification, arrest, trial, and conviction of the
perpetrators.
Based on the requirement of principle 9 of the U.N. Principles on
the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary
and Summary Executions which states that ``there shall be thorough,
prompt, and impartial investigations,'' Amnesty International believes
that urgent steps are needed to ensure investigations are indeed
effective. In order to exercise due diligence in the protection of the
right to life and to combat the current pattern of political killings,
police and other investigative units must be independent and impartial,
be adequately resourced and have the necessary criminal detection,
forensic, and other investigative skills.
Ineffective investigations, which fail to lead to prosecutions and
convictions, have played a role in sustaining a broader climate of
impunity that has been allowed to persist since the Presidency of
Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986). The vast majority of soldiers,
paramilitaries, and police responsible for endemic human rights
violations during the Marcos years have never been prosecuted and most
of their victims have received neither justice nor redress. Although
President Marcos' successor, President Corazon Aquino (1986-1992),
promulgated a new constitution, restored democratic institutions, and
instituted mechanisms for the protection of human rights, an entrenched
public belief that a climate of impunity protected security forces
personnel responsible for past and continuing patterns of grave human
violations remained intact. President Aquino's administration,
attempting to manage a political transition from the former martial law
regime and facing direct challenges from repeated coup attempts by
right-wing military rebels, considered it necessary to maintain the
support of loyal military leaders. To this end there was no government
pressure for systematic investigation and prosecution of security
personnel accused of perpetrating human violations under martial law
and in the context of past and renewed counterinsurgency operations.
Impunity
Amnesty International and other international and national human
rights groups repeatedly expressed grave concern that the continuing
paucity of prosecutions and convictions of state perpetrators of human
rights violations, including extrajudicial executions,
``disappearances'' and torture, risked entrenching a de facto climate
of impunity that emboldened security personnel to commit further
violations in the context of anti-insurgency operations. A bleak
picture of persistent failures in the administration of justice was
highlighted by the fact that of the 1,509 cases of alleged human rights
violations filed by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights before
the courts between 1987 and 1990, only 11 cases resulted in sanctions
against the perpetrators.
Amnesty International is concerned that flaws within the
administration of justice that have long underpinned a de facto climate
of impunity--including ineffective investigations, reluctance of
witnesses to come forward for fear of reprisals, and an apparent lack
of political will to ensure the prosecution of suspects, continues to
endure. These flaws were sharply illustrated by a pattern of killings
of street children and other suspected criminals by unidentified
``vigilantes'' in Davao City (Mindanao) and Cebu City (Visayas) in
recent years. In Davao City at least 390 ``criminals,'' mostly alleged
drugs pushers, solvent abusers, or petty thieves, and including street
children and youth gang members, have reportedly been shot dead in the
city since 2001. The majority of attacks were carried out by
unidentified men on motorcycles, and local human rights groups
expressed alarm at reports that local police were directly responsible,
or else had colluded with private ``vigilante'' gangs in carrying out
such killings in an effort to combat criminality and ``clean up'' the
city's streets. These concerns intensified as the city's mayor appeared
to condone the killings, while denying any direct official
responsibility. Police investigations have failed to lead to the
identification and arrest of those responsible and Amnesty
International is not aware of a single prosecution that has led to the
conviction of any of the perpetrators.
National and international journalist groups have also expressed
concern at the high number of unsolved killings of journalists in the
Philippines. At least 64 journalists are reported to have been killed
since 1986 as a result of their work, with at least 10 in 2005 and 9 in
the first 7 months of 2006. Prosecution and conviction of those
responsible remain rare. The conviction in November 2005 of a former
police officer responsible for the murder in 2002 of Edgar Damalerio, a
radio journalist in Pagadian (Mindanao), is reported to be only the
third such conviction since 1986. During the investigation and
subsequent trial, Edgar Damalerio's family were repeatedly threatened
and one witness was killed. The court rejected as false evidence given
by the accused associates, including police officers.
Failures to prosecute and convict security personnel suspected of
carrying out or being complicit in grave human rights violations
continues to fuel the perception that a climate of impunity is
shielding such officers from being held to account. Prominent, well-
publicized examples include the failure to bring suspects to trial in
the case of the reported extrajudicial execution by police of 11
alleged members of the Kuratong Baleleng bank robbery gang in a Manila
street in 1995, and the failure to hold anyone accountable for the
alleged torture by police in 1996 of six men accused of the murder of
Rolando Abadilla, a former Marcos-era police intelligence officer.
In this context, public trust in the integrity and effectiveness of
the criminal justice system as a whole remains at a low ebb. Amid
periodic allegations of corruption by some public officers, confidence
that the right of victims of human rights violations to justice and
redress will be respected continues to be undermined by persistent
reports of ineffective, protracted investigations by police, public
prosecutors, or the Office of the Ombudsman; by lengthy delays in the
course of criminal trials; and by the perception that those with wealth
or political connections are able to improperly exert influence over
the investigative agencies or the courts.
Victims of human rights violations and their families, particularly
those from poor or marginalized communities, often consider that they
face overwhelming obstacles in accessing justice--particularly when the
alleged perpetrators are military or police personnel. As noted above
and reflected in the case studies in this report, a major obstacle in
combating impunity in the Philippines is the reluctance of witnesses to
come forward. Serious intimidation of witnesses has long been a feature
of cases involving attempts to investigate and prosecute cases of human
rights violations taking place within the context of the
counterinsurgency campaign. Death threats and other intimidation of
witnesses, at times accompanied by offers of financial compensation or
other inducements, have frequently led to ``amicable'' settlements out
of court.
In addition, many victims and their relatives from poorer
communities are unable to sustain the protracted financial and
emotional strain of pursuing a complaint or a criminal case, especially
when required to travel to distant investigative offices or courts for
hearings that may be subject to repeated last-minute delays,
administratively ``shelved'' or transferred to a different tribunal.
Amid such pressures complainants and key witnesses or relatives of the
victims are liable to refuse to involve themselves in police
investigations, or to withdraw from further participation in court
proceedings or investigations conducted by the Philippine Commission on
Human Rights or Office of the Ombudsman, thus restricting the ability
of prosecutors and the courts to secure convictions.
Witness protection
Amnesty International believes that effective protection of
witnesses and the relatives of the victims must be a priority element
within PNP investigation efforts. A number of groups including the
Asian Human Rights Commission have campaigned to ensure that witness
protection programs in the Philippines are robust and effective.
Amnesty International shares their serious concerns that the
implementation of the relevant legislation, the Witness Protection,
Security and Benefit Act (RA 6981), fails, in practice, to ensure the
safety of witnesses. Under the act, the Department of Justice is
empowered to deliver a program of protection to witnesses to grave
felonies, including secure housing facilities, relocation or change of
personnel identity, and assistance in obtaining a means of livelihood.
The law also provides that the court or investigating authority shall
assure a speedy trial, where a witness admitted into the program shall
testify, and shall endeavor to finish the proceeding within 3 months
for the filing of the case. However as noted by the Ateneo Human Rights
Centre, the reality is that most cases take far longer than 3 months
not least because of postponements, usually requested by the accused,
and the length of time that the Supreme Court takes in deciding change
of venue petitions for the protection of witnesses. Most witnesses are
reported to lack confidence in the program, and fear that, given
prolonged delays in criminal proceedings, it will not be able to offer
protection to them or their families which may be needed to extend over
years.
Duty of the State
As described earlier, article 6 of the ICCPR, which provides for
the right to life, further states that ``No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his life.'' In order to effectively combat patterns of
politically motivated extrajudicial executions and other unlawful
killings in the Philippines, the government has a clear duty to
consistently condemn and prohibit all such killings, to ensure each is
thoroughly and independently investigated, to bring suspected
perpetrators to justice and to ensure reparations to victims.
As stated in 2005 by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary killings these duties lie on the authorities in
relation to killings by nonstate actors, when they act with the
knowledge or acquiescence of the authorities and as a result are not
subject to effective investigation, prosecution, or punishment. In
addition the Special Rapporteur state that crimes, including murder,
carried out by individuals can also give rise to state responsibility
in instances where the State has failed to take all appropriate
measures to deter, prevent, and punish the perpetrators as well as
address any attitudes or conditions in society which encourage or
facilitate such crimes. ``In most situations, isolated killing of
individuals will constitute a simple crime and not give rise to any
governmental responsibility. But once a pattern becomes clear in which
the response of the Government is clearly inadequate, its
responsibility under international human rights law becomes applicable.
Through its inaction the Government confers a degree of impunity upon
the killers.''
An essential part, of due diligence of the part of the state, and a
crucial component in the battle against impunity, is the conduct of
effective investigations which lead to prosecution and punishment of
perpetrators of extrajudicial killings. The U.N. Human Rights
Committee, responsible for monitoring compliance of state signatories
with obligations under the ICCPR, identified this as among its
principal subjects of concern after considering the periodic reports of
the Philippines in October 2003. Amnesty International shares this
conviction and urges the government to address the problem of adequate
investigations and prosecutions in the Philippines. This is
particularly urgent in relation to the continuing pattern of political
killings.
CONCLUSIONS
Unearthing the evidence establishing responsibility for the current
pattern of political killings will take political will. It will require
political determination and persistent practical efforts to undo the
legacy of impunity, which has the potential to undermine efforts to
hold perpetrators of political killings accountable and is aided by the
assumption that such killings are to some degree an acceptable by-
product of continuing armed conflict.
It will take sustained efforts to unravel the chronology of events
that led each attack, to establish the facts constituting every
political killing and to establish whether there was an official chain
of command underlying both the crime and its coverup. Effective, robust
measures are necessary to protect those who come forward to assist the
case.
Unless these steps are taken, the corrosive impact of political
killings will continue and hopes for a just and lasting peace, as
outlined in the government's 2004-2010 Peace Plan will remain
unrealized.
The struggle for respect for human rights, fought with high cost
from the time of President Marcos and reflected in the 1986
Constitution and the Philippines' ratification of international human
rights treaties, is facing a serious challenge. Within the context of
``all-out-war'' against Communist insurgents the rising incidence of
political killings risks a retaliatory spiral of killings by armed
groups. The need is pressing for both sides of the conflict, supported
by all sectors of civil society, to assert and commit to renewed
respect for human rights.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Government of the Philippines
(1) Not to treat this as a public relations problem; but to take
serious steps to find out who was behind these systematic killings and
to make public those findings.
(2) Fully implement the Melo Commission recommendations.
(3) Accept offer of assistance from the U.N. and other countries.
(4) Allow international observers to monitor investigations and
trials.
(5) Ensure that the administration speak with one voice on
condemning these killings.
(6) Ensure that the new antiterror law is not used to commit human
rights abuses.
(7) Announce a comprehensive strategy to stop political killings
and to bring those involved to justice.
(8) Amnesty International's 14-Point Program for the Prevention of
Extrajudicial Executions, based on the U.N. Principles on the Effective
Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary
Executions, provides a framework within which the pattern of political
killings can be stopped. The organization urges the Government of the
Philippines to implement the program in full.
Given reports of continuing political killings, Amnesty
International has made a number of recommendations, addressed to the
government, international organizations, civil society organizations
and the armed groups. A summary of key recommendations include:
A. Reassert Respect for Human Rights
(1) Official Condemnation: Consistently and at every level of
government condemn all political killings.
(2) Chain of Command Control: Prohibit orders from superior
officers or public authorities authorizing, inciting or tacitly
encouraging other persons to carry out unlawful killings, even through
silence or failing to take action to investigate, and ensure that those
in command exercise appropriate and effective control over those within
their command.
(3) Action Against ``Death Squads'' and Vigilantes: Prohibit and
disband any ``death squads,'' private armies, vigilantes, criminal
gangs, and paramilitary forces operating outside the chain of command
but with official support or acquiescence.
B. Guarantee the Administration of Justice
(1) Investigation: Ensure that all complaints and reports of
political killings are investigated promptly, impartially,
independently, thoroughly, and effectively. An independent and
impartial body should exercise oversight to ensure investigations are
conducted by the police and other investigative agencies in accordance
with international standards.
(2) Prosecution: Ensure that those responsible for political
killings are brought to justice in accordance with international
standards of fairness.
(3) Protection Against Death Threats and Other Intimidation: Take
action to fully implement the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit
Act (RA 6981) in order to ensure safe, reliable, and durable mechanisms
guaranteeing the participation in the legal process of witnesses to
political killings.
C. The Peace Process: Ensure Compliance With the Human Rights Agreement
(1) All sides of the armed conflict should recommit to and ensure
compliance with the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human
Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL).
(2) Respect for human rights the ground should be enhanced by
taking steps to ensure the operation of the Joint Monitoring Committee
of the CARHRIHL.
D. Action by Other Human Rights Institutions
National: The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law
Enforcement should conduct prompt, impartial, and effective
investigations of all reported political killings which should, as
appropriate, lead promptly to recommendations to the Department of
Justice to file criminal charges against those found responsible.
To the United States Government
(1) The Leahy Law must be vigorously implemented. The U.S. Embassy
must be proactive in identifying members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, who may be involved in political killings.
(2) The United States should give a strong and clear message to the
Government of the Philippines that United States-Philippines relations
will suffer if the current trend in political killings continues and if
Philippine authorities fail to bring past abusers to justice.
(3) Report to appropriate congressional committees about the
reported assistance given to the Government of the Philippines in
fighting Communist insurgency.
(4) Insist on specific benchmarks from the Government of the
Philippines to address political killings.
(5) Offer technical and other assistance to help solve the cases.
Thank you for inviting Amnesty International to this important
hearing.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin, executive
director, Philippine Facilitation Project, U.S. Institute of
Peace here in Washington.
STATEMENT OF G. EUGENE MARTIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PHILIPPINE
FACILITATION PROJECT, U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Martin. Madame Chairman, Senator Webb, thank you very
much for giving me the opportunity to talk this afternoon about
some of my experiences in the Philippines. My remarks, however,
do not reflect the views of the United States Institute of
Peace, which does not advocate specific policy positions.
I have been working at the Institute of Peace for nearly 4
years to end violent conflict in one of the most violent parts
of the country, in the Island of Mindanao. We try to further
the peace process between the government and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front. I believe the work of the Institute of Peace
provides a model for addressing extrajudicial killings.
Institute efforts to counter public prejudice and
discrimination against the Muslim minority, through education
and advocacy can be replicated in mitigating public apathy over
the killings.
USIP's experience in training military officers in conflict
management and negotiation skills can heighten military
discipline, and civilian control over security forces.
Institute programs to enhance the rule of law complement State
Department and USAID efforts to strengthen judicial
institutions. By working with the U.S. agencies the Institute
can contribute to the alleviation of the present violence.
I believe, Madame Chairman, that the violence is caused by
two underlying causes: A weak political system and the legacy
of the Marcos dictatorship. You mentioned being in the
Philippines in 1986. I was there a year later, and you're
absolutely right, it was a totally different view. The often
corrupt and ineffective justice system forces people to resolve
disputes through direct and extra-legal, and often violent,
means. Elite families tend to hold political power and economic
power through threats or violence. Elections tend to be
corrupt, candidates are often targets of harassment, and voters
are threatened with retribution for supporting opposition.
Marcos martial law politicized many institutions, including
the military and the police. Violence against anyone perceived
to be opposed to government policies was tolerated, if not
authorized. Extra-legal arrests, disappearances and killings--
known as salvaging--were condoned and used by the military and
the regime. Many opponents allied themselves with the National
Democratic Front, and the Moro Islamic and National Liberation
Fronts, to provide protection and to fight against Marcos
martial law. The alienation generated by martial law violence
between civil society elements suspicious of government
policies, and security personnel, who see a Communist hand
behind every civil society protest, continues today.
I believe the present rash of violence and killings is a
result of political instability and weakness. President Arroyo
has expressed a determination to solve the problem and resolve
the killings. However, I question her capability to take the
necessary steps to end the killings on her own. She depends
upon military and provincial elites to remain in office,
promoting military officers who support her and allowing
political supporters considerable latitude. Her challenge to
the Armed Forces to eliminate, in 2 years, a decades-old
Communist NPA insurgency has given some in the AFP a green
light to take any action against the NPA and their civil
society-front organizations.
I do mention, however, that the Communist insurgency is a
serious threat to the Philippine Government, and to democracy.
They are not serious, unlike--as Mr. Kumar said--the MILF,
which is ready to reach an agreement with the government. I
don't believe the CCP--OCCP is. As the last remaining Maoist
insurgency, they use violence and abuse their legal democratic
space, to advance their power. Their goals are to destabilize
and weaken the government, gain power through coalitions, and
eventually replace the democratic system with an ideological
Communist dictatorship.
I'm not optimistic about the short-term chances of stopping
the killings. The National Election Campaigns are underway,
chances of an upsurge in campaign-related violence is possible.
Leftists candidates will be particular targets. National
Security Advisor Gonzalez stated that such candidates will not
be allowed to win seats in the election. His view will, in a
sense, give potential hunting licenses to the military and
local officials who agree with him.
Many observers feel the new law, an antiterrorism law, will
increase military operations against civilian opponents.
Security Advisor Gonzalez has already stated the NPA will be
labeled a terrorist organization. I believe Ambassador Kenney
was right in expressing her concern over the killings, and I
think there are ways of linking our economic and military
assistance to try to resolve some of these problems.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
Prepared Statement of G. Eugene Martin, Executive Director, Philippine
Facilitation Project, U.S. Institute of Peace, Washington, DC
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing on the
tragic extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. Having lived in the
Philippines for 6 years and now working to facilitate the peace process
in Mindanao between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front (MILF), I am well aware of the many political, economic, and
social issues underlying these violent acts.
The Philippine Facilitation Project of the Institute of Peace is an
excellent model for active U.S. engagement in conflict situations. At
the request of the State Department, the Institute has been working for
nearly 4 years to end conflict between the central government in Manila
and the Islamic Moro people of Mindanao. The centuries-long conflict
has made the southern Philippines one of the most violent areas of the
country. The Institute is actively exploring with negotiators from the
Philippine Government and the MILF alternatives for resolving the long
conflict. As an independent, nonpartisan Federal institution, the USIP
is able to promote U.S. interests unofficially. Our work gives us
insights into the causes of violence in society, not only in Mindanao
but nationwide. That said, my remarks represent my opinion based upon
my experience and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United
States Institute of Peace, which does not advocate specific policy
positions.
ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE
I believe there are two underlying causes of the violence. First,
weak political and social institutions, particularly a corrupt and
ineffective justice system, prompt citizens to resolve conflicts on
their own. When one cannot obtain justice through the police or courts,
alternative means are found. This can be through direct personal
action, drawing upon family or clan support, or arranging for criminal
or revolutionary organizations to settle matters.
In Philippine society, family is primary. Nearly any action can be
justified if it is to support the family. Kinship ties extend well
beyond the nuclear family, into clans and tribal or community groups.
Identities often are based on familial or, being an island nation,
geographical relationships rather than broader nationalism. In Mindanao
much of the violence is caused by clan conflicts, known as ``rido,''
which can continue for generations. Absent access to, or confidence in,
justice through legal mechanisms and institutions, the aggrieved party
often takes direct action against the perceived offender to obtain
satisfaction.
The fractious nature of society leads to weak political
institutions. Elite families who hold political and economic power in
much of the country often seek to maintain their power in any way
possible. Elections tend to be corrupt, candidates running against
incumbents are often the targets of harassment if not violence, and
voters are threatened with retribution for opposition to power holders.
Prime targets also for threats and violence, including killings, are
media or civil society investigators into political and economic
corruption.
The second underlying cause of violence is the legacy of the Marcos
dictatorship. Martial law politicized the institutions of government
and violence against anyone perceived to be opposed to government
policies was tolerated if not authorized. Soldiers, police, judges, and
prosecutors became perpetrators of violent actions against broad
segments of the population. Extralegal arrest, detention,
incarceration, disappearances, and killings (known as salvaging) were
condoned and used to advance the regime's power and reduce political
opposition.
Many of those who opposed the Marcos regime responded in similar
fashion. Lacking legal of safe alternatives, many allied themselves
with revolutionary organizations for protection and influence. These
included the National Democratic Front (NDF) of the Communist Party of
the Philippine (CPP) and, in Muslim areas, the Moro National Liberation
Front and subsequently the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. While many if
not most of those who affiliated with the NDF during martial law years
were not Communist, the NDF provided the only available support network
against Marcos. Marcos' militarized response to the historical struggle
of the Moros against Manila's colonial policies enhanced the appeal of
those who advocated armed violence to counter military and militia
pogroms against Muslim civilians. The violence of the Marcos regime
abetted the Communist insurgency and Moro decisions that safety was
possible only through independence from the Philippines rather than by
working within the political system.
CURRENT SITUATION IN THE PHILIPPINES
I believe the present rash of violence and killings is the result
of political instability and weakness. President Arroyo has expressed
her determination to address and resolve the killings. She established
the Independent Commission to Address Media and Activist Killings,
headed by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Melo. She also
welcomed the investigation of Professor Philip Alston, the Special
Rapporteur of the U.N. Human Rights Council. However, I question her
capability to take the necessary steps to end the killings. She has
been politically weak since her controversial election in 2004,
depending upon support from military and provincial leaders to counter
impeachment measures by her opponents in Congress. She has promoted
military officers who support her and placed retired military and
police officers in high-level civilian offices. Her challenge to the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to eliminate the decades old
Communist New Peoples Army (NPA) insurgency within 2 years has given
the AFP a green light to take any action it wishes against the NPA and
their allies. Faced with a persistent low-level NPA insurgency, the
military resorts to stretching counterinsurgency strategies to branding
leftist organizations as enemies of the state that can be intimidated
or eliminated by any means.
The Communist insurgency is a serious threat to the Philippine
Government and democracy. The world's last remaining Maoist insurgency,
the NDF, uses violence and abuses democratic privileges to advance its
power. As a legal political movement, NDF leaders are elected to
Congress where they continue to oppose the administration and seek to
block or destabilize government policies. During election campaigns,
the NDF uses kidnappings, ``revolutionary'' taxes, threats, and
violence to support its candidates and harass opponents. The party's
political goals are to weaken the government, gain power through
coalitions, and eventually replace the democratic system with an
ideological Communist dictatorship.
One of the legacies of the Marcos regime is the continued
alienation of many civil society elements from the government and
especially the military. NGOs, religious bodies, academics, small
farmers, and indigenous peoples remain suspicious of government
officials and military personnel because of the oppression and violence
used against them during martial law. Many government officials,
particularly in the armed forces and police, reciprocate the mistrust,
seeing a Communist hand behind civil society protests against
administration policies and actions. Powerful elites influence local
police or military commanders to use force against farmers' complaints
over land grabs or workers' demonstrations over working conditions.
Murders of activist farmers and labor leaders in rural provinces are
covered up. Journalists investigating the crimes become targets.
Similarly, prosecutors and judges are intimidated. Tragically, the
result is further alienation from and resistance to the government.
The killings have become a major issue within the Philippines, yet
there is little public outrage despite the release of the Melo
Commission report and the initial criticisms of the Special Rapporteur
of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Public perceptions are influenced by
military and official attributions that most of the killings are
internal CPP-NPA purges. Most civil society reaction has been from
leftist oriented NGOs rather than mainstream organizations, further
limiting public concern.
SHORT-TERM PROSPECTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
While we all hope the killings will stop immediately, I am not
optimistic in the short run. I am confident, however, that through
conscientious efforts by Philippine political and civil society
leaders, as well as international partners such as the United States,
this cycle of violence can be halted.
My pessimism over short-term remedial action by the government is
based upon the following:
--It is election time again. Campaigning for national elections on May
14 is well underway. Little if any serious effort will be exerted
to investigate killings of political significance. In fact, as
contesting parties struggle to win by any means, there will likely
be an upsurge of campaign related violence.
--Candidates from left-wing political parties will be particular
targets. National Security Advisor Norberto Gonzales stated on
March 8 that such candidates must not be allowed to win seats in
the Congress. The Gonzales view that party-list candidates ``are
under the direct influence of the Communist Party'' gives a
potential hunting license to military and local officials who agree
with him.
--The new antiterrorism law, which President Arroyo signed on March 6,
gives new ``legal teeth'' to the government's war on terrorism. The
Arroyo administration describes the law, titled the ``Human
Security Act of 2007,'' as being ``very concerned on human
rights.'' Many observers fear the law may increase unfettered
military operations against opponents deemed to be terrorists.
National Security Advisor Gonzales has already stated that the NPA
will be labeled a terrorist organization when the new law is
promulgated. Legal leftist organizations and elected individuals
may be designated.
--The new Defense Secretary, Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr., is a retired
police officer. He succeeds a civilian. Senior Department of
National Defense officials are now mostly former military officers
rather than civilians. Secretary Ebdane likely will promote
military perceptions of security threats. U.N. Rapporteur Alston
stated ``the AFP is in a state of almost total denial . . . of its
need to respond effectively and authentically to the . . . killings
. . . attributed to them.''
The killings and the state of democracy in the Philippines have
implications for U.S. interests. Prolonged United States support for
the Marcos regime in order to save our military bases alienated many in
the Philippines. U.S. Ambassador Kenny has rightly expressed official
U.S. concern over the extrajudicial killings. However, other U.S.
interests--counterterrorism cooperation and training opportunities the
AFP provide U.S. forces--may limit pressure on the Arroyo
administration.
The U.S. Institute of Peace involvement in the Mindanao peace
process provides insights into many of these issues. It is readily
apparent that there are multiple, often uncoordinated, policymakers in
the Arroyo administration with diverse agendas. The President has
authorized her negotiators to propose a forward-looking self-
determination package to the MILF. Yet, military officers in central
Mindanao continue to support local political leaders who use their
militia as private armies to contest MILF influence. The Arroyo
administration avoids exercising national authority over local
political and economic interests opposed to a peace agreement with the
Moros so as to retain their support against administration opponents.
It expends little effort to counter biased or incorrect media reports
on Mindanao events.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The United States and other nations are not without influence to
help end the violence of extrajudicial killings. The Philippines is
sensitive to and dependent on the goodwill and support of its neighbors
and international donors. Some useful tools include:
Donor nations and international financial institutions
already have strong anticorruption requirements for economic
assistance. Linking assistance to forceful judicial reform and
independent investigations of the killings would enhance the
resolution of the cases.
Philippine desires to qualify for the Millennium Challenge
Corporation assistance gives the U.S. influence to demand
rigorous action against the killings.
The sizeable defense relationship the United States has with
the Philippines provides a mechanism to encourage civilian
control over the armed forces.
Forceful public U.S. official support for human rights
reforms and protections would counter some Filipino perceptions
that U.S. concern over the killings is tempered by our efforts
to counter terrorism.
MODEL FOR SUCCESS
The U.S. Institute of Peace has established a unique relationship
with key players in the peace process in Mindanao. Working with minimal
publicity, the Institute has made a significant contribution to the
progress in the talks over the past 4 years. The Institute has worked
closely with civil society to foster open debate to mitigate Filipino
public prejudice and discrimination against the Moro minority. Engaging
NGOs, church leaders, educators, and media representatives, the
Institute seeks to change public perceptions of the conflict and the
benefits a durable peace agreement would bring the nation. Similar
programs focused on highlighting a need to end the extrajudicial
killings and to bring perpetrators to justice could help strengthen
judicial institutions and public demands for resolution of the
killings.
The Institute's peace efforts supplement Embassy, USAID, and the
Pacific Command's counterterrorism and developmental programs and
priorities. Working independently but cooperatively with these official
U.S. agencies, the Institute addresses the political, religious,
historical, and social issues underlying the conflict. Parallel
programs dealing with judicial reform, civilian control over security
forces, and amelioration of the Communist insurgency could begin to
address the causes of the killings. Institute efforts to reduce intra-
Moro clan and tribal conflict through support for dialog and
cooperation among the next generation of Moro leaders could be
duplicated in other conflict situations, which now end in political
killings.
Regrettably, the State Department's support for the Institute's
facilitation project is ending just as the peace process is at a
critical juncture. Once the negotiators reach agreement on outstanding
issues, a politically contentious, long-term transition period to
implement the agreement will require close monitoring and engagement.
Granting the Moros self-determination will alter power relationships in
Mindanao. The potential for extralegal violence is real. Continued
Institute presence is critical to help both Muslim and Christian
communities through this difficult period. Without renewed funding,
however, the Institute's unique investment of trust and credibility
with key players will be lost prematurely.
The coordinated approach U.S. agencies, the Institute of Peace,
neighboring countries, and international donors have used to advance
the Mindanao peace process can be replicated to resolve the
extrajudicial killings. U.S. interests would be served and the
Philippines would benefit.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I welcome your questions and those of
your colleagues.
Senator Boxer. Thank you for that excellent testimony, both
of you.
And now, Bishop, we welcome you. We know it took some
courage. We really welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF BISHOP ELIEZER PASCUA, GENERAL SECRETARY, THE
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, QUEZON CITY,
PHILIPPINES
Bishop Pascua. Hello. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer,
Senator Webb. Good afternoon.
I'm Bishop Eliezer Pascua, general secretary of the United
Church of Christ in the Philippines. I was elected by our
Eighth Quadrennial General Assembly that was held in Mindanao
last May 2006. But, before my election, I was serving as
jurisdictional Bishop of the Southern Luzon jurisdiction--the
area where many of our church workers, pastors, and lay leaders
were killed.
I've come to the United States of America, first by the
invitation of our partner church, the Presbyterian Church
U.S.A., through the sacramento presbytery, particularly. And,
also being delegate to the Ecumenical Advocacy days just
concluded, and a delegate also of the ongoing International
Ecumenical Conference on Human Rights situation in the
Philippines, here in Washington DC.
I appear before this hearing as a witness to the fact that
political and extrajudicial killings are happening in the
Philippines. I think it is not superfluous to repeat, coming
from us, that extrajudicial killings have been happening in our
country. And included among numerous victims were church
people, priests, pastors, even bishops, and lay leaders,
working for the church. I am speaking from the ground, so to
speak, but let me inform this body that our general assembly--
in May of last year--which elected me to the position of
general secretary, passed a strongly worded resolution
condemning the ongoing, unabated political killings in the
country that were then--as far as we know--more than 600
victims already and 9 members and pastors of the UCCP. About 15
or so are coming from the whole of the churches.
But right during the course of our discussion, one of our
active lay leaders was also slain--Mr. Noli Capulong, who was
an active member of Calamba UCCP, 45 kilometers south of
Manila. He was a brother of Noli Capulong, Atty Emilio
Capulong, who was the principle author of this resolution.
Such an event made the general assembly discussion about
the resolution more intense, and therefore they passed an
action, or asked to hold, and call for a Peace and Human Rights
Summit in which we did last July where we called International
Ecumenical Partners and organizations aside from other church
partners.
I am speaking now from representing the voices of the
victims from the churches. Our pastors who are victimized
suffered just like many others. Most of them were killed in
broad daylight by two motorcycle-riding men. There were
supposed to have been many witnesses, but until now their cases
remain unsolved, just like the 836 fatalities or victims. Those
cases of those who were killed, until today, remain unsolved.
So, Madame Senator may I make this call as part of our
summary of calls. One, we ask this committee to ask the
Philippine Government to immediately stop the extrajudicial
killings, abductions, and other forms of human rights
violations. And that the revocation of all hit lists, which
target church people, and others, and label us as Communist
Front Organizations. No. 2, to ask the Philippine Government to
take effective measures to bring to justice members of its
Security Forces and their agents against whom there is credible
evidence of human rights violations. And No. 3, call upon the
Philippine Government to comply with its obligations under
international law, and rescind its national security policy
under its current counterinsurgency and counterterrorism
campaign, which has the effect of legitimizing and encouraging
the killing of innocent civilians. This includes making the
distinction between combatants and noncombatants, as well as
labeling, as falsely accusing critics of the Philippine
Government's policies, or those who advocate for human rights,
or being enemies of the state.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Bishop Pascua follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bishop Eliezer M. Pascua, General Secretary,
United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines
INTRODUCTION
I am Bishop Eliezer M. Pascua, General Secretary of the United
Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP). I was elected to this
office during our 8th Quadrennial Session of our General Assembly held
May 2006 in Digos City, Davao del Sur.
However, before my election as General Secretary, I was serving as
Jurisdictional Bishop assigned in Southern Luzon Jurisdiction for a
total of 14 years with only 2 years break (1990-98 then 2000-2006).
From 1998-2000 I served as administrative pastor of a local church in
College, Los Banos, Laguna. The Southern Luzon Jurisdiction covers the
UCCP churches in areas within three political regions, namely, National
Capital Region which is mainly Metro Manila area, southern Tagalog and
Bicol region.
I have come to the United States of America first, by the
invitation of the Presbyterian Church (USA) particularly through the
Presbytery of Sacramento in keeping with our church-to-church
partnership and their solidarity with us under the present predicament
we and the Filipino people are in, especially with respect to the human
rights situation, and second, by being a delegate to the Ecumenical
Advocacy Days and to the International and Ecumenical Conference on
Human Rights Situation in the Philippines which is taking place in
Washington, DC, March 12-14, 2007.
Now, I appear before the hearing of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
East Asian and Pacific Affairs as a witness to the fact that political
or extrajudicial killings are happening in the Philippines and included
among numerous victims were church people: Priests, pastors, even
bishop and lay leaders working for the church.
ATTACK AGAINST THE CHURCH
Let me inform this body that during our General Assembly in May
last year, which elected me to the office of General Secretary of the
UCCP, the delegates passed unanimously a strong resolution condemning
the extra judicial killings being done against human rights activists
and church people and calling the Office of President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo to put a stop to it. But coupled with that resolution was a
mandate that the UCCP hold a Human Rights and Peace Summit in
cooperation with partner churches and civil society groups and
ecumenical international bodies.
Let it be put on record that at the height of the deliberation on
such resolution by the General Assembly, Mr. Noli Capulong, an active
lay leader of UCCP-Calamba of the Northeastern Southern Tagalog
Conference and spokesperson of Southern Tagalog Environmental Action
Movement, was shot dead by two unidentified motorcycle-riding gunmen at
around 6 p.m. of May 27, 2006, in Calamba, Laguna (about 45 kms south
of Manila). Noli had long been under military surveillance for his
advocacy work for justice, peace, human rights, and environmental
concerns. And he happened to be the youngest brother of Atty. Emilio
Capulong who was the principal author of such resolution and also a
staunch defender of human rights himself.
All the more our demand for justice and call for the stopping of
political killings and other forms of human rights violations became
more intense. We just held the Peace and Human Rights Summit last July
21, 2006, in cooperation with the National Council of Churches in the
Philippines, the Ecumenical Bishops Forum and the Roman Catholic
Benedictine Sisters for Peace. It was participated in by many
representatives from various churches and organizations locally and
internationally where we invited also some living victims themselves
and/or relatives of the killed victims to share about their grim
experiences of human rights violations.
I am sharing this story to say that even this trip of mine to the
USA is part of that whole advocacy of our church to stop the killings,
end the violence, and work for and promote change to make current life
in the Philippines different from what it is now.
From the year 2001 to the present we came to know that there may
already be as high as 836 persons killed extralegally in the
Philippines. The victims actually came from all walks of life: Farmers,
fisherfolks, workers, indigenous people, Moro people, journalists,
lawyers, doctors, teachers, students, young persons, women, and even
children. I would like to make particular mention that church people
were also not spared.
Among the 836 or so who were killed, 26 were church people, clergy,
and lay persons. The church people killed came from the Philippine,
Independent Church, United Methodist Church, Born Again Christian
Church, United Church of Christ in the Philippines, and Roman Catholic
Church for many of the lay persons. Out of the 25 church martyrs, 15
belonged to the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. That is why
we are called the hardest hit among the churches.
With such an appalling death toll of extrajudicial killings in our
country at this time of the Arroyo administration, nobody could ever
claim that she/he is not afraid and is safe. I admit that I have that
fear rather now and later when I go back to the Philippines. How much
more with those who have always been there who were close or in
proximity with the victims within their household or even in their
community when they were assassinated. You can all imagine the chilling
effect among the people that this extralegal killings have been
causing.
Reportedly, almost all of these cases actually remain unsolved, and
that even those cases that the military or police ruled as either the
work of the antigovernment group or ordinary crimes that they claimed
solved, however, remained to be the result of unsatisfactory and
unbelievable police crime investigation work.
Example of this was the killing of Bishop Alberto Ramento last
October 3, 2006, right inside his convent in Tarlac City. Bishop
Ramento was receiving death threats already before he was killed. The
Philippine National Police (PNP) report said that Bishop Ramento was
stabbed to death by robbers. Simply because Bishop Ramento's cellular
phone and ring were discovered stolen after the incident, the PNP was
quick to dismiss the case as a simple case of robbery with homicide.
But people were in wonderment, particularly those who conducted a fact-
finding mission, that the crime scene investigation by the police was
perfunctorily and hastily finished in about 2 hours and, thereafter,
they did not cordon off the crime scene, thus, allowing everyone in.
Apparently no fingerprint was taken during the crime scene
investigation because the police report never came up with a
fingerprint finding. Except for the sworn statement of the church
caretaker, Archimedes Ferer, there was also no interview done on the
family and the people close to Bishop Ramento after the crime scene
investigation and before the PNP single-mindedly declared it just a few
hours after the crime scene investigation that it was a case of robbery
with homicide.
A few days after the tragic incident, the Philippine National
Police presented four men as suspects in the case. However, according
to observers, an analysis of their investigation would reveal
questionable results.
In most of the earlier cases of killings, however, the police and
military were hastily concluding that the crime was the work of the New
People's Army (NPA) or antigovernment groups since the assailants
usually were unidentified men riding in motorcycles and since no
witnesses are willing to testify so the cases just lied there unsolved.
Let me tell you that in virtually all cases of killings of the
church people, just like in the rest of the cases, the police and
military were always in complete denial of their accountability and
responsibility despite their having clear leads or evidence in most
cases that apparently point to them. I would like to cite the following
cases:
The killing of Rev. Edison Lapuz along with Mr. Alfredo Malinao on
May 12, 2005, in Sitio Motor, Barangay Crossing, San Isidro, Leyte (in
the major island group of Visayas). Reverend Lapuz was the Conference
Minister of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines-North
Eastern Leyte Conference, where Mr. Malinao was a village councilor.
They were killed pointblank by two motorcycle-riding men wearing bonnet
masks and helmets right just at the back of Reverend Lapuz' house when
they were whiling away some hours after having done the funeral for his
father-in-law that afternoon.
But the lead was more on the instances a few days before the
incident. Mr. Fortunato Lapuz, father of Edison, reported to the Fact
Finding team that Lieutenant Mangohon, the commanding officer of the
local military detachment visited their house several times. On May 1,
2005, Mr. Lapuz was asked whether he knew of Reverend Lapuz'
organizational involvements and whether he knew Benito Montecena,
Alberto Mauring, Benjamin Tumbiga, and Fernando Kiling, all members of
local small farmers group. Then he was told that Reverend Lapuz and the
said farmers were under surveillance by Lieutenant Mangohon's team. On
May 3, 2005, the same Lieutenant Mangohon returned with another person
and requested if they could look into the family album. Mrs. Lapuz who
was the only person at the house allowed them to do so. Lieutenant
Mangohon, being a soldier well identified as such by Reverend Lapuz'
parents is an indispensable person that must be included in the
investigation. But until now we don't know of any investigative action
that has been done on this Lieutenant Mangohon if only to find out the
real truth.
The assassination of Rev. Jemias Tinambacan and the frustrated
killing of his wife, Rev. Marilou Tinambacan is another good case to
have a lead for evidence. Reverends Jemias Tinambacan and Marilou are
both UCCP Pastors in Misamis Occidental and both are active members as
well of ecumenical organizations Ecumenical Center for Development
(KASIMBAYAN) and Promotion of Church Peoples' Response (PCPR). The
tragic incident took place on May 9, 2006, at about 5:30 p.m. along the
national highway in Barangay Mobod, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental
in Mindanao. Four armed men on board two motorcycles suddenly appeared
on the side of their van and began shooting them.
Reverend Jemias after being hit by those gunshots lost control of
the wheel of their van and crashed onto a tree. Reverend Jemias
sustained three gunshot wounds at his head while Reverend Marilou
luckily, however, was not hit as badly as she was able to hide beneath
the dashboard of the van. As the suspects continued firing at the
vehicle Reverend Marilou even saw and identified one of them as Orland
``Mamay'' Guimalan, a known military intelligence agent in their place.
Madame Senator and members of this subcommittee, friends, I can
cite many more of these cases of extrajudicial killings whose
perpetrators could have been identified and brought to the bar of
justice if the authorities and our government would make the force and
order of law to operate.
You may also have been asking in your mind at this point why these
church people are being killed. I tell you they were killed not merely
because of the church where they belong to, but more so because they
have been actively involved in doing their task as servants of God.
Their expression of faith is not confined within the four walls of the
church but extend among the people in their community. They were like
modern-day prophets whose commitment and service to God is seriously
being carried out in journey with the poor people in their struggle for
abundant life. And because of this, their names are being listed down
under the military's Order of Battle as presented in their CD entitled
``Knowing the Enemy.''
CONCLUDING REMARKS
But so long as our government and the police and military would
always look at the whole country and particularly the restless and
critical citizens as a battlefield for their counterinsurgency and war
on terror, political killings, enforced disappearances, and other forms
of human rights abuses shall not be abated.
And so long as the government and the military would continue to be
in complete denial of their responsibility of any degree to any of
these innocent lives that have been sacrificed unnecessarily there is
no way that we could force them to stop the killings. Their sense of
impunity had reached to a point like having the ``hardened heart of
Pharaoh'' in the Exodus story.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Enriquez.
STATEMENT OF MARIE HILAO-ENRIQUEZ, SECRETARY GENERAL OF
ALLIANCE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLE'S RIGHTS IN THE
PHILIPPINES (KARAPATAN), QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. Yes; good afternoon to this honorable
committee, and thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Thank you
very much, Senator Webb, for giving us this opportunity to
relate to you what's happening in our country.
I'm Marie Hilao-Enriquez, secretary general of the Human
Rights Organization called KARAPATAN, which documents and
investigates cases of human rights violations in my country. We
have 15 regional centers, and we put out annual reports on
human rights in the Philippines.
Today is the birthday of my sister, Liliosa Hilao, who was
killed in a detention center in Camp Crame 34 years ago during
the martial law period of President Marcos.
The killings, tortures, and horrors of those days of
martial law are now being brought back in by the Arroyo
administration. We have seen a worsening human rights situation
under President Arroyo's watch. From 2001 up to the present,
our group has documented 836 victims of extrajudicial killings,
196 victims of enforced disappearances, 355 victims of
frustrated killings. Military deployments are happening in the
rural areas identified by the military as priority areas for
counterinsurgency. Lately, we are alarmed that not only
military deployments are happening in the rural areas, but in
urban slum areas as well.
The victims of extrajudicial killings--as has been already
said--include lawyers, farmers, leaders of trade unions,
indigenous people, the Moro people, women, youth activists,
church people, and out of the 836 victims, 31 KARAPATAN workers
have been killed under the Arroyo administration.
In areas of counterinsurgency programs, cases of human
rights violations, like harassment of individuals, evacuations,
torture, and illegal arrests are also happening. In many of the
cases of extrajudicial killings, we found out the
responsibility or culpability of the military and police.
What are the reasons for these human rights violations
under Mrs. Arroyo's Presidency? The country has not experienced
any substantial changes, especially in our economic conditions.
People remain poor, and as the policies of globalization are
being implemented by this administration, people have become
restive and protests--which are constitutionally guaranteed
rights under our Constitution--are happening.
But the response of the government is like that of the
dreaded Marcos regime, one of repression. President Arroyo, has
resorted to a calibrated preemptive response, banning all
rallies in Metro Manila, and other parts of the country. She
has resorted to Executive Order 464, which stipulates that no
government official can testify in congressional or Senate
hearings, unless she has permission. She resorted to a national
State of Emergency last year in what we term as a ``foray of
Mrs. Arroyo''--of President Arroyo--into having martial law
powers. Lately, she has signed into law the Anti-terror, or
Human Security Act, which we think will pave the way for a more
martial law-like atmosphere in the Philippines.
She has resorted to an all-out war against the insurgents,
implementing a counterinsurgency program called Oplan Bantay
Laya, which purportedly is the endgame strategy to end the
insurgency. But, to us, this has remained the state policy
under the aegis of the U.S. Bush's War on Terror, and she has
given 1 billion pesos to this counterinsurgency program. This,
to us, is the cause of many of the extrajudicial killings,
because the military has resorted to labeling many of the
victims as ``Communists'' or ``terrorists'' under this Oplan
Bantay Laya.
A surveillance of, and harassments happen to these victims
before the killings, and perpetrators conceal their identities.
We call on the Senate subcommittee to please adopt the
documents that we submitted to this body as part and parcel of
my oral and written testimony before this honorable
subcommittee. My testimony adds to what Bishop Pascua has said.
We call on the Senate committee to conduct an
investigation, review and examination of the U.S. security
cooperation, and military assistance, and aid to the Philippine
Government, and ensure that it does not support the national
security policy that exacerbates the violations of human
rights, including the killing of church people and human rights
activists.
We call on you to review U.S. development assistance to the
Philippine Government, as well as trade and economic
arrangements, and look into whether such aid and investments
exacerbates, instead of reduce, social and economic inequities,
and aggravate--rather than stop--the prevalent violations of
human rights. It must be ensured that such appropriations and
investments are not, in any way, used to promote or contribute
to the perpetration of such violations. We ask your committee
to ensure----
Senator Boxer. You need to wrap up now.
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez [continuing]. Ensure that any future
U.S. military appropriations and economic and official
development assistance to the Philippine Government be
conditioned to a strict adherence to international laws and
standards of human rights and good governance.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hilao-Enriquez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marie Hilao-Enriquez, Secretary General of
Alliance for the Advancement of People's Rights in the Philippines
(KARAPATAN), Quezon City, Philippines
To the distinguished Senators of the subcommittee: First, let me
express my sincerest gratitude to Senator Barbara Boxer and the members
of the Subcommittee for East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, for conducting this hearing on the events
happening in the Philippines. The rest of the members of our delegation
share the same sentiment.
I am Marie Hilao-Enriquez, secretary general of the human rights
group in the Philippines, called KARAPATAN. My organization has been
documenting cases of human rights violations in the country since 1995.
Let me also say that I am one of the martial law survivors and my
parents as well as one of my sisters are among the named lead
plaintiffs in the historic class action suit against Marcos that we
filed in the U.S. Federal Court system in 1986. In 1992, the class
action suit won for the Filipino martial law victims a landmark ruling
holding Marcos guilty of crimes against humanity.
I have come before you, after several trips here in the United
States and other countries, in an effort to inform the Filipinos abroad
as well as citizens of the countries I visited of the alarming human
rights violations happening under the watch of the sitting President--
Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Let me put on record at the outset that complementary to the
following, I am hereby adopting and incorporating by way of reference
the Summary of Calls of the Ecumenical Voice on Peace and Human Rights
in the Philippines, ``Let the Stones Cry Out,'' an ecumenical report on
the human rights situation in the Philippines, released by the National
Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) March 2007, and the
compendium of selected documents accompanying the foregoing as part and
parcel of my oral and written testimony before your honorable
subcommittee.
When Mrs. Arroyo was catapulted to the Presidency in 2001, the
country's human rights situation has not improved but has gone for the
worst. Immediately upon assuming office, Mrs. Arroyo implemented the
same economic policies of past administrations that did not change the
conditions of the majority poor and ordinary Filipinos.
Her boasted ``sound economic fundamentals'' have sent more of our
fellow Filipinos out of the country seeking for jobs abroad, sometimes
even in countries where war is raging and their lives are placed at
great risk. The economic conditions of our people have worsened to a
point that the latest surveys would indicate that more Filipinos would
consider themselves poor and hungry.
Instead of promoting democracy and human rights consistent with the
spirit of a People Power uprising that catapulted her to power in 2001,
Mrs. Arroyo's administration has curtailed civil liberties, disregarded
human rights and international humanitarian laws, and launched attacks
on the people.
The infractions on civil liberties and human rights occur against
the background of a worsening political crisis of the Arroyo government
and increasing foreign military involvement by President George Bush's
administration.
Mrs. Arroyo is facing calls to vacate the executive office on
serious charges of massive electoral fraud and graft and corruption,
intense and vicious extrajudicial killings, political persecution and
serious affronts to civil liberties consistent with her constant agenda
for political survival.
Mrs. Arroyo has so far faced two impeachment complaints in the
Philippine Congress for violation of the 1987 Constitution, betrayal of
public trust, graft and corruption and human rights violations. Those
who dare criticize the Arroyo government publicly risk being labelled
as ``destabilizers'' or ``Communist sympathizers'' or even
``terrorists.''
Mrs. Arroyo and her allies recently enacted into law the
``antiterrorism bill'' (ATB), now called the Human Security Act of 2007
which will practically kill the constitutionally enshrined bill of
rights and, many Filipinos fear, could be used as a legal ground for
declaring martial law.
In the aftermath of the attacks in the United States on September
11, 2001, Mrs. Arroyo declared her support to the U.S. ``war on
terror.'' The Philippines began receiving increased U.S. military aid
and was named America's major ``non-NATO ally in Asia.''
Based on the June 2005 World Policy Institute Special Report, the
Philippines has a requested Foreign Military Funding (FMF) aid from the
U.S. Government of US$4.5 billion in 2006, a full $1 billion increase
from the FY 2001 level. The worrisome part of this aid, the same report
says, is that ``arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to
enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human
rights abuses in the process.'' The report also posits the fear that
giving arms to countries with active armed conflicts will exacerbate
the conflict.
An internal security plan, code named Oplan Bantay Laya (OBL or
Operation Freedom Watch), viewed as patterned after the Phoenix Program
in Vietnam in the 1960s, was created in early 2002. The OBL was
approved by Arroyo's Cabinet Oversight Committee for Internal Security
(COCIS) and became a blueprint of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
Although OBL purportedly aims to crush decisively the three-decade
old Communist rebellion, it highlights the ``neutralization'' of what
the Philippine authorities call ``front organizations,'' leaders and
members as ``enemies of the state.'' In effect, the new antiterrorist-
insurgent campaign makes no distinction between armed guerillas and
unarmed activists, making the latter fair targets of political
assassinations and abductions by suspected state-organized death
squads.
The executive policy that is merged with the aforementioned
military strategy had also taken the form of restrictions on civil and
political rights, specifically through the Calibrated Preemptive
Response (CPR) issued on September 21, 2005, the anniversary of Marcos'
martial law, and Presidential Proclamation 1017 that placed the
Philippines under a state of emergency on February 24, 2006, after
which arbitrary arrests and illegal detention particularly in the
cities became prevalent. Several arrests have been made including that
of Representative Crispin Beltran, a labor leader and representative in
the House of Representatives from the Anakpawis (toiling masses) party
list. Five other members of progressive party-list groups Bayan Muna
(people first), Gabriela (women's group) and Anakpawis were able to
protect their liberty but are now facing what they and their lawyers
say are illegal arrests on false charges.
In the 6 years of the Arroyo Presidency, democracy and human rights
continue to deteriorate in the Philippines. A total of 836 victims of
extrajudicial killings has been recorded and documented since 2001 when
she came to power. Three hundred fifty-seven more were documented to
have survived attacks on their lives. At least 196 other persons have
been documented to have been abducted and remain missing to this day.
Scores have been tortured while thousands have been displaced and
harassed, hundreds have experienced physical assault in the course of
military operations or while exercising their rights to assembly and
free speech. The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
(NUJP) recorded 47 journalists killed in the course of their work
during the same period.
The killings have victimized Filipinos coming from a wide range of
sectors--farmers, workers, indigenous peoples, Moro people, lawyers,
church people, human rights workers, youth activists, women and members
of progressive groups, especially the new parties that were able to
seat representatives in Congress. Twenty seven KARAPATAN human rights
workers and leaders were killed from 2001 up to the present.
The killings continue to be committed with impunity far surpassing
that of the Marcos dictatorship. As a survivor of Marcos' martial law,
I can say that the dictator was able to violate our rights because he
declared martial law. Under Mrs. Arroyo, a virtual martial atmosphere
is obtaining in the country without the formal declaration, under a
supposed democratic society. Gross and systematic violations of human
rights happen in the country now with such impunity that the victims
are left with no recourse or redress from the institutions in the
country.
A case in point is that of the case of my colleague, Eden
Marcellana, secretary general of KARAPATAN-Southern Tagalog and Eddie
Gumanoy, a farmer leader who was with her in an 11-member fact-finding
team.
From 19 to 21 April 2003, Marcellana, a staunch and vocal oppositor
to various military atrocities in Mindoro Island and elsewhere,
together with Eddie Gumanoy, chair of the peasant organization KASAMA-
TK, led a group of human rights volunteers in a Fact-Finding Mission
(FFM)--Quick Reaction/Response Team (QRT) in Mindoro Oriental,
Philippines, to verify and document reports of human rights violations
committed reportedly by then-Col. Jovito Palparan and elements of his
204th Infantry Brigade. On their way back from the mission, about a
mere 5.5 kilometers from the military camp, the vehicle which they were
riding in was stopped and commandeered by armed men. The dead bullet-
ridden bodies of Marcellana and Gumanoy were found near each other in
another town in the morning of 22 April 2003.
Due to widespread calls and public criticism, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo was for the first time forced to form a task force
from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to look into the subject
kidnappings and murders. The task force recommended the filing of
charges against a sergeant working directly under Col. Palparan and
several rebel returnees under the latter's control. In the meantime,
the sergeant was arrested for an unrelated charge of robbery but was
able to post bail at once.
But the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors recommended the dismissal of the
charges of arbitrary detention, murder, and robbery against the
respondents despite the independent, credible, and positive
identification by four survivors-witnesses and other overwhelming
evidence. The Chief State Prosecutor dismissed the case accordingly on
17 December 2004.
Prior to such dismissal, congressional investigations were held
before the House of Representatives and the Senate in May 2003. The
House Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights in its report
called for a further probe and the temporary relief of then-Colonel
Palparan while the investigation was ongoing. The Senate Committee on
Justice and Human Rights, after conducting an initial hearing,
suspended its inquiry due to the ongoing preliminary investigation
before the DOJ.
Almost contemporaneously, Colonel Palparan's promotion to brigadier
general and then to major general was eventually confirmed by the
congressional Commission on Appointments despite various oppositions
from different sectors. While the case was still pending preliminary
investigation before the DOJ, General Palparan was quietly sent to Iraq
in early 2004 to head the Philippine mission in the U.S. invasion and
occupation.
Separate hearings before the national Commission of Human Rights
(CHR) were also heard. But after submitting testimonial and documentary
evidence in support of their charge of human rights violations, the
victims and their heirs were compelled to withdraw from the CHR
hearings because they sincerely believed at that point and under the
circumstances then that they cannot get justice, that the hearing was
to be used to clear Colonel Palparan and remove obstacles to his
pending promotion to major general, and in view of another high profile
extrajudicial execution in Mindoro of an activist lawyer and of
Marcellana's successor. Nonetheless, the CHR issued a resolution
castigating Colonel Palparan for his responsibility and inaction for
various violations in his area of responsibility.
A separate complaint for violation of the Comprehensive Agreement
on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
(CARHIRHL) was filed before the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National
Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) on 4 June 2004. The JMC has
not yet acted on the complaint as the GRP has refused to convene with
its counterpart after having met previously only twice in April 2004.
The victims and their heirs filed a Petition for Review/Appeal of
the DOJ Panel dismissal on 22 February 2005 before the present Justice
Secretary.
While the said Petition for Review/Appeal remained unresolved
despite several efforts to follow it up or calls to resolve the same,
the victims and the heirs participated in two nongovernmental people's
tribunals to submit their testimonial and documentary evidence for the
killing, namely: The International People's Tribunal (IPT) of the
International Solidarity Mission (ISM) on August 2005 and the Citizen's
Congress for Truth and Accountability (CCTA) on November 2005. In the
IPT, General Palparan and his military were particularly adjudged
guilty of crimes against humanity and the extrajudicial killing of
Marcellana and Gumanoy, among others.
The victims and their heirs were also compelled to file a specific
complaint on 16 March 2006 before the United Nations Human Rights
Committee (UNHRC) in New York against the Philippine Government for
violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) under its Optional Protocol. The complaint remains outstanding.
In the meantime, there were reports that the sergeant implicated in
the case was also sent to Haiti as part of the Philippine mission to
the U.N. peacekeeping forces.
Earlier, on October 2003, representatives of the victims and the
heirs brought the case to the attention of the UNHRC in Geneva during
its 79th session. In that session, then acting Justice Secretary
Merceditas Gutierrez (now Ombudsman) openly claimed before the UNHRC
that the case had already been filed in court when in fact it was still
at the preliminary investigation before the DOJ at that time.
The present Justice Secretary eventually approved the dismissal of
the charges by the DOJ Panel and denied the Petition for Review/Appeal
of the victims and heirs only after almost 2 long and agonizing years
on 20 November 2006 through a minute perfunctory resolution. The
victims and the heirs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 7 December
2006 while the respondents filed their Comment on 22 December 2006. The
incident is still pending.
From the above, this case is emblematic of the search for justice
of human rights violations victims as it is clear that they and their
heirs have tried practically every available legal remedy to seek
justice not only before the domestic fora but even in the international
arena. It is also clear that the acts of different agencies and
branches of the Philippine Government have individually and
collectively engendered the impunity for this and other human rights
violations.
From 2005 until August 2006, several separate and independent
international peace and solidarity fact-finding missions were conducted
in the Philippines by eminent human rights advocates and organizations.
Members of these missions expressed dismay and alarm over the gross and
systematic violations of human rights after finding out for themselves
the magnitude of the violations and worse, the apparent failure of
government authorities to address the problem or at least rein in the
Philippine military, police, and paramilitary forces.
In August 2005, 86 delegates from 18 countries came to the
Philippines in an International Solidarity Mission (ISM) to look into
reported cases of human rights violations. Evidence gathered and
witnesses interviewed during the mission were presented before an
International People's Tribunal (IPT) on August 19, 2005. The tribunal
was presided by Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Irene Fernandez
(Malaysia), civil liberties lawyer Prof. Lennox Hinds (USA) and human
rights lawyer Hakan Karakus (Turkey) with a College of Jurors. Among
others, the IPT found the Arroyo government guilty of human rights
violations.
Alarmed by reports that lawyers and judges are also being killed or
threatened, an independent delegation of two judges and six lawyers
from The Netherlands and Belgium belonging to the Dutch Lawyers for
Lawyers Foundation, Dutch Lawyers Without Borders, joined by the
International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), came to the
Philippines for an International Fact Finding Mission on Attacks
against Filipino Lawyers and Judges and investigated the violence
committed against their Philippine colleagues in June 2006. Completing
their mission, the group concluded that many lawyers and judges in the
Philippines have been threatened and killed, especially since the
beginning of 2005 and a remarkable number of these lawyers and judges
have been involved in human rights-related cases confirming likewise
that some authorities tagged many of the victims as ``enemies of the
state'' that made them vulnerable to political assassinations.
In August 2006, the 68-member International Peasant Solidarity
Mission (IPSM), composed of 16 foreign participants from nongovernment
and people's organizations in the United States, Belgium, Canada, The
Netherlands, Japan, and Nepal, found that there were clear indications
of the military's culpability, in particular the notorious Maj. Gen.
Jovito Palparan, Jr., in most cases of extrajudicial killings of
leftist activists.
Furthermore, religious denominations from different countries also
voiced their alarm. The United Church of Australia, the third largest
Christian denomination in Australia, released a report in Canberra on
its inquiry into the deaths over the last 2 years of 14 clergy and
members of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines.
In August last year, the Hong Kong Christian Institute (HKCI)
likewise expressed its deep concern over the increasing number of
political killings and human rights violations in the Philippines and
urged the Arroyo government to take stronger action to address this
issue and prevent further killings from taking place. Similarly, the
Methodist Church in the United States as well as different groups from
Canada led by the British Columbia Committee for Human Rights in the
Philippines (BCCHRP) also voiced their concern.
Earlier, similar concerns were expressed by the World Council of
Churches, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines and the
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), among many other institutions.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union, an international assembly of
parliamentarians, as well as the International Association of People's
Lawyers (IAPL) and prominent lawyers' groups in the United States,
Europe and even Africa, have voiced the same alarm.
Even representatives from embassies of a number of countries have
also expressed their condemnation of the extrajudicial killings,
abductions, and enforced disappearances in the Philippines.
In a comprehensive report it released in August 2006, the London-
based Nobel Peace Prize winner, Amnesty International, stated in no
uncertain terms that ``the methodology of the attacks, including prior
death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked
to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate
of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from
prosecution, has led Amnesty International to conclude that the attacks
are not an unconnected series of criminal murders but constitute
apolitically motivated pattern of killings. The organization remains
gravely concerned that members of the security forces may have been
directly involved in the killings, or else have tolerated, acquiesced
to, or been complicit in them.''
Because of mounting and widespread criticisms on the extrajudicial
killings, the President was compelled to order the police to look into
these cases and solve them as soon as possible. Thus, the Philippine
National Police formed the Task Force Usig. However, the head of the
Task Force immediately announced that the perpetrators of the killings
are the Communists or the rebels themselves because of an ``internal
purge'' within the Communist movement.
Amidst even greater pressure on both the national and international
leaders, President Arroyo also formed the Melo Commission on August 21,
2006, which she said she empowered to make independent investigations
into the killings. This was declared amidst calls for an independent
investigative body that would look into these cases. But human rights
organizations, as well as victims' relatives, simply did not have trust
in this commission and thus did not participate in its hearings. The
President did not consult the victims or the human rights organizations
on the composition of the commission, the members of which she
handpicked and thus, was perceived as not the independent body that
will look into the cases.
In September 2006, the President went to Europe and facing
international protest actions, invited European nationals to go to the
country to look into these killings as the European Union called on her
to resolve the cases.
Criticisms continued to hound the Arroyo administration as the
killings of leaders and key members of progressive people's
organizations went on. Because of pressure, the administration was
forced to formally invite the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,
Summary of Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Phillip Alston, to visit the
Philippines in February of this year.
After a 10-day visit and a series of meetings between nongovernment
organizations, government offices as well as witnesses and relatives of
victims, Mr. Alston said that, ``The AFP (Armed Forces of the
Philippines) remains in a state of almost total denial (as its official
response to the Melo Report amply demonstrates) of its need to respond
effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings
which have been convincing attributed to them. The President needs to
persuade the military that its reputation and effectiveness will be
considerably enhanced, rather than undermined, by acknowledging the
facts and taking genuine steps to investigate. When the Chief of the
AFP contents himself with telephoning Major General Palparan three
times in order to satisfy himself that the persistent and extensive
allegations against the general were entirely unfounded, rather than
launching a thorough internal investigation, it is clear that there is
still a very long way to go.''
He further went on to say, ``The increase in extrajudicial
executions in recent years is attributable, at least in part, to a
shift in counterinsurgency strategy that occurred in some areas,
reflecting the considerable regional variation in the strategies
employed, especially with respect to the civilian population. In some
areas, an appeal to hearts and minds is combined with an attempt to
vilify left-leaning organizations and to intimidate leaders of such
organizations. In some instances, such intimidation escalates into
extrajudicial execution. This is a grave and serious problem . . .''
Mr. Alston's visit also paved the way for the public release of the
report of the Melo Commission, which was initially not made public by
the government despite public clamor from different camps. However,
after a scathing statement from the U.N. Special Rapporteur, the
President was forced to order the release of the report to the public.
In spite of the fact that the Melo Commission based its findings on
documents that came mostly from the police that are themselves widely
believed to be complicit, the Melo report still says that extrajudicial
killings are going on in the country and ``rogue elements'' in the
military may ``have a hand'' on these killings.
But the killings are going on with such a brazen impunity and
unless stopped, will continue to erode the foundations of a democratic
society and rule of law in a supposed democratic Philippines. Recently,
the Chief of Staff has announced the continuation of the Oplan Bantay
Laya II with the deployment of military troops in urban slum areas
where progressive party lists gained high number of votes in the 2004
elections. Terror grips these communities and we fear a further
escalation of killings and violence in the runup to the 2007 elections
in May. Just recently, the government has finally issued a warrant of
arrest on the basis of trumped up charges to one of the progressive
party-list candidates. Harassments and surveillance on our offices are
getting to be frequent.
Thus, unless the extrajudicial killings are ordered stopped by our
President, as commander in chief, who has supervision and effective
control of the armed forces, there will be no letup in these human
rights violations. And unless adherence to basic due process,
democratic principles, civilian supremacy over the military and
elementary principles of international humanitarian law that
distinguishes combatants and civilians are faithfully done by the
Arroyo government, the killings will continue.
And it is at this juncture that even more effective international
moral and other pressure be brought to bear upon the Philippine
Government especially that the brutal and unmitigated killings,
disappearances, torture, harassment, and persecution of its citizens
still haunt the Filipino people with unbridled impunity despite the
wide array and breadth of national and international criticism and
condemnation.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. You've been excellent panel.
Here's how we're going to proceed. I can stay here until
about 5 to 4. Senator Webb will stay here as long as he would
like to, to do his questions. And so, let me just start off by
thanking, thanking you very much for adding to our body of
knowledge on this.
And I'd like to ask unanimous consent to place into the
record a summary of the Alston Report, the Alston Report that--
he's the Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Human Rights Council
and Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions, without
objection.
I think this document is a very fair document, and I think
that it points out what has to happen.
Now, both Senator Webb and I have stated and cited this
very special relationship we have with the Philippines, and how
much we treasure that friendship. And, if I might say, I think
this is a very important turning point for the government, and
for the people. Because as Mr. Alston says, the Philippines
remains an example to all of us--these are his words--in terms
of the peaceful ending of martial law by the People's
Revolution and the adoption of a constitution reflecting a
powerful commitment to ensure respect for human rights.
And again, I was there in 1986. The spirit of that day and
that time will never leave me. And it is with a heavy heart
that I see some of the things that are happening now.
I think that Mr. Alston puts the response of the Government
into context. He says, ``There's been some important first
steps, but there's a huge amount that needs to be done.'' And
as long as I have this gavel, I hope I can use it in a way to
shine the spotlight on what's going on, and to make sure that
this critical juncture--the government moves in the best
direction, in the most democratic direction--rather than in the
other direction. Because that would be a very sad time, indeed,
for the people in the Philippines, and for all of us who really
care about the Philippines.
So, we're placing this in the record, because you know,
everyone ought to read it--it's a very important document that
raises the critical issues, and the problems.
Now, I want to share with Senator Webb, and some of you,
something that happened as we were setting this particular
hearing up. And, I mention it, because I believe that the truth
is important to talk about.
Now, we all followed the press in the Philippines when we
decided to have this hearing. And, I say to my colleagues, we
had a statement issued that there were going to be people here
from the government, which is fine with us, this is a place for
everyone to come. But, it was specifically stated that the
people they were going to send were going to be police and
military, to this hearing.
Now, I don't understand, why you would have to send
military and police to a hearing that a couple of Senators are
holding to look at human rights and allegations of human rights
abuses. And, we made it very clear--and to their credit, they
responded, ``OK, we won't send any military, we won't send any
police,'' and they added, ``we won't send any intelligence
officials.'' [Laughter.]
But, if you're here today, I don't know who you may be, we
welcome you. But we don't need to have military and police and
intelligence officials at an open hearing where there'll be a
public discussion and a public record.
So, I think the need to have more collaboration, and I
see--I'm so pleased that our State Department is still here--
this is a pretty basic point, that we don't try to intimidate
witnesses at an open hearing. People from the church; people
from the human rights community--that's the wrong signal to
send this committee.
And, I mention it because, again, I think it's almost maybe
a lack of understanding here about how we should proceed. And
the good news is, there's so many good people both in this
country, and the State Department, and the human rights
organizations, and also leaders in the Philippines who
understand what a true democracy is. And, the fact is, of
course we have dissent--my God, you should see some of the
arguments we get into here. We all see the world slightly
different from what, each other. But the beauty of a free
democracy is that you respect the other person's views. And you
battle it out in the court of public opinion, and on the floor
of the Senate, and the votes that are taken, and you don't come
after your adversaries in a way that intimidates them, or
subjects them to fear, and worse.
So, I just have a couple of questions, I want to ask one to
Mr. Martin, because Mr. Martin, you made a prediction here,
which was very disturbing to me. You told us that there was
kind of a signal sent that there may well be more violence
around the election. And, I want you to tell me, when is the
election, and one more time, if you can say--what was this sort
of signal that you've heard, and who was it from?
Mr. Martin. Thank you, Senator.
The election is scheduled for May 14. These are national
elections; campaigning has already begun.
The quote I gave you was from National Security Advisor
Norberto Gonzalez, who stated on March 8, that such candidates
must not be allowed to win seats in the Congress. His view is
that party list candidates, i.e., those who run as party
members, are ``under the direct influence of the Communist
Party.'' I think this gives a very powerful message to people
who may feel that they should be stopped from winning the
election.
Senator Boxer. And you predicted violence around the
elections.
Mr. Martin. Unfortunately, Philippine elections are often
accompanied by violence; yes, Ma'am.
Senator Boxer. Do you think it would help to send in some
international observers for a period of time, starting as soon
as possible, through the election period?
Mr. Martin. I should let my State Department colleagues
answer that. My understanding is that Embassy officers will be
monitoring the elections in various parts of the country. I
understand, also, this morning, that the Carter Center has been
approached--whether or not they've decided, I don't know.
Senator Boxer. OK.
And, I would say, Bishop, I found your testimony to be
pretty compelling, and I'm asking you if you could repeat for
the record, your three recommendations at the end of your
testimony. Could you repeat those? The three recommendations
you made? For the government?
Bishop Pascua. In the light of the realities of the
extrajudicial killings, we propose that this committee ask the
Philippine Government immediately stop the extrajudicial
killings, and other forms of human rights violations, and
including the revocation of all hit lists that target church
people, farmers, workers, party-list members and leaders, human
rights defenders, community organizers, activists, indigenous
people, moral people, national minorities, women, lawyers,
members of the press, and other civilians, most of whom are
suspected or labeled by Philippine authorities as alleged
Communist sympathizers, or affiliated with Communist-front
organizations.
No. 2, ask the Philippine Government to take effective
measures to bring to justice members of the Security Forces and
their agents, against whom there is credible evidence of human
rights violations, including immediately suspending those
persons and former members who have been credibly alleged to be
responsible for gross violations of human rights, and
investigating, prosecuting, and punishing them.
And, No. 3, call upon the Philippine Government to comply
with its obligations under international law, and receive its
national security policy under its current counterinsurgency,
and counterterrorism campaign, which has the effect of
legitimizing and encouraging the killing of innocent civilians.
And this includes making no distinction between combatants, and
noncombatants, as well as labeling and falsely accusing critics
of Philippine Government's policies, or those who advocate for
human rights, as being enemies of the State.
Senator Boxer. I wanted to thank you, because I thought you
just really honed in on the problem.
I'm going to turn it over to Senator Webb, but I wanted to
note that Senator Lugar has repeatedly asked the Philippine
Government to investigate the incidents of journalists being
killed--you mentioned journalists, Reporters Without Borders
2007 report said that at least 6 journalists were reportedly
killed in the Philippines in 2006. The report states that
authorities have failed to stem the wave of violence against
journalists, and then, according to some estimates, 50
journalists have been killed since 2001.
And, critics of the Philippine Government have complained
that in many cases, the personalities had exposed local
government corruption or human rights abuses, and that police
beholden to local elites did not perform a proper
investigation.
So, let me just say, in turning it over to my colleague to
go as long as he would like, and ask as many questions to
complete this record--that I'm very appreciative to you for
coming out here today--all four of you.
And again, I know, because I can get a sense of it--that
this isn't easy for you to do. But you know, when you shine
light on an issue, and you come out of your fear, and you're
out there, that--I think--is the best antidote to these kinds
of problems. We have to step out and give a face to these
issues.
And again, I will do everything I can to make sure that the
Government of the Philippines fulfills the hopes and dreams of
the people there, in a way that we all can move forward, with
prosperity, and security and yes, we're in it, on the war
against terror--I cited the fact that I had lost a constituent
who was beheaded by the Abu Sayyaf, and we all--we all want to
work to stop terror, in its tracks. We don't, however, want to
use it as an excuse to do bad things to people who don't
deserve this kind of treatment.
And again, we're going to have our differences, in America,
we're going to have our differences, in the Philippines between
people, but we don't resolve it with violence and killing, and
fear and intimidation.
I again, want to thank the State Department representative
for staying, it means a lot to me that you did. We will
continue to work together on this committee, we will be
following up with some letters, after we go through the
testimony, very--line by line--and again, I want to thank you,
and I want to thank my good colleague for coming over here
today and completing the hearing, and I will turn the gavel
over to you, so you are now the chairman.
Senator Webb [presiding]. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
I'd like to echo the chairman's comments, in terms of
expressing my appreciation for your testimony today. This is an
issue that I am coming in on without having dealt with it,
obviously, in a previous Congress. I just assumed the mantle of
serving in the Senate, but as I said, I do have a good bit of
time in Asia over my adult lifetime, and some of that time has
been spent in the Philippines.
I'm quite aware of the potential for violence, quite
frankly, in Philippine society. You can't drive down the street
in a place like Manila without seeing some security guard
standing outside of a bank somewhere with an M-16. And I know
that is, you know, it's an easy thing for violence to occur,
below the water line in societies like that. I guess the
reality that we're dealing with here.
I have four or five questions that may be appropriate to
the State Department witnesses as much as to the panel here,
but for the record, I think for the benefit of the committee as
we analyze this issue, and I'm pledging to you that we will, my
staff, we're going to look at this information and the
recommendations that were given, and see where we could assist
in the resolving the problem, if appropriate.
But, I'd like to start with some fairly basic questions
about the facts, I think we can't really solve problems unless
we know what the facts really are, and the first question I
have is--how we have arrived at these figures, the 836 figure,
in one of the reports it was listed as between 136 and 800--but
how exactly have we determined that there were this number of
people who were assassinated?
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. Yes; thank you, sir.
My organization, as I said, has 15 regional centers, and
our documentation is such that we have workers in the field and
the 836 that we have documented, includes--a majority of this
includes farmers in the areas that have been deployed with
military troops. But these farmers are civilians. And, in some
cases, when military operations occur, some of the troops vent
their ire on these civilians.
I understand that there has been a report from the
Philippine National Police saying that the number is lower, and
I think they have a different category, in fact they have
recategorized the killings, and telling our group that some of
the cases that we documented are victims of legitimate
encounters.
But, in our investigation, many of these alleged--the
alleged victims of legitimate encounters, are not victims of
legitimate encounters, but victims of military troops directly
shooting them.
Senator Webb. But, you could say that a percentage of that
836 would be attributable to the excessive use of military
force, rather than politically targeting someone. Would that be
fair?
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. I would say that these are the result
of counterinsurgency operations by military forces, and for us,
we also consider these as extrajudicial killings.
Senator Webb. But, in terms of trying--for us, trying to
understand the political nature, as opposed to reckless
behavior, or soldiers in an area unjustifiably taking out their
anger. There would be a percentage of these that were killed as
a result of inappropriate behavior by soldiers in an area, as
opposed to targeted political killings. Would that be--is that
fair to say?
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. As I said, in our documentation, we
consider these cases as not only as simple--what's this--
behavioral problem on the soldiers, but because they are
related to counterinsurgency operations, we consider these as
extrajudicial killings, especially that State Security Forces
are involved in such cases. Under our Constitution, State
Security Forces should protect the people and----
Senator Webb. Right.
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez [continuing]. Our citizens' rights.
Senator Webb. Do you know the percentage of the 836 that
were killed as a result of military activities like that?
Farmers, you know, the soldiers--shooting people? Like, in the
fields, that sort of thing you're talking about?
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. I would say that in many of these
instances--because it's around half of the 836 we consider the
victims as civilians being killed by the military during
counterinsurgency operations. Like, if I can just illustrate my
point.
There was this group of farmers in Palo Leyte, and they
were conducting farming activities in the area early one
morning, in November 2005, and then the soldiers came and just
shoot at them, and so seven of the farmers were killed.
But then, the victims were portrayed as rebels, and the
military said that they were New People's Army. So, this was
the report given by the military. But, when we went to the area
and investigated, they were ordinary farmers, with no arms.
Senator Webb. You say geographically, what would be the
breakdown of these killings, between, say, Luzon, Mindanao, and
other areas?
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. The highest number that has registered
in our documentation is southern Tagalog Region. These are the
areas south of Manila, and then next would be central Luzon,
north of Manila, and then next would be the Bicol Region, and
eastern Visayas and southern Mindanao.
Senator Webb. What--do you know--could you tell us what
percentage are religious figures?
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. Pardon?
Senator Webb. How many are religious figures? People who
are in the church, serving in the church?
Bishop Pascua. In our accounting, there are already 26
religious people--clergy and lay persons who are working with
the church. And out of that, 16 belong to the United Church of
Christ in the Philippines. Other churches who have offered
their members and church workers are United Methodist Church,
the Philippine Independent Church, where Bishop Romento
belonged, and that is a born-again Christian church. And the
Roman Catholics for those lay persons who are working in the
community-based programs.
Senator Webb. And how many are media? How many have been
media figures? Reporters? Journalists?
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. Well, from our information, coming from
the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines, I think
the figure now comes to 49 since President Arroyo came to
power.
Senator Webb. Are you comfortable with the newly created
office, the Human Rights Office, of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines? The activities that they're engaging in? This is
for the panel.
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. I am not very comfortable with that. I
think it's not only a newly created office, before they have
already a certain section in the military they call a human
rights desk, or office. And, because in the years past, we had
dialogs with them, and what they do is just to receive the
complaints, and then write us and say that, ``We will look into
the complaint,'' and then nothing has been heard from them.
I don't know, now, if this office will perform in the same
manner that it performed in the past, but I'm not very
confident--especially since that--they have been--even after
the Melo Report and the Alston Press Statement came out, the
military maintains that the rebel forces are the ones
committing these killings.
Senator Webb. Are any of you aware of any precedent in
Philippines' history where government officials have been held
accountable when civilians have been killed for political
reasons, other than deposing President Marcos. But, I mean, in
a general sense. Are you aware of any point in the Philippines'
history where government officials who have engaged in this
kind of conduct have been held accountable?
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. Not to my mind, sir. As I said, I am a
survivor of martial law.
Senator Webb. Right.
Ms. Hilao-Enriquez. I cannot recall----
Senator Webb. Does any of the other panel know of any time
in the history of the Philippines that people have been held
accountable for this kind of conduct?
[No response.]
Senator Webb. All right.
This has been helpful, I think, as I've said before, these
kinds of issues are best addressed first by developing the
right kind of factual information so that we can evaluate and
make policy decisions. And, I can tell you that the questions
that I just asked you have been very helpful to me.
With that, I thank you again, for your testimony, I thank
all of you for being here, and this hearing will be closed.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Prepared Statement of Hon. Willy C. Gaa, Philippine Ambassador to the
United States
We welcome the initiative of the U.S. Senate's Subcommittee on East
Asian and Pacific Affairs conducting a hearing on the issue of
unexplained killings in the Philippines which the Philippine Government
is addressing with resolve.
The Senate move is a positive step that will shed more light into
this complex issue. It provides a vital forum for constructive dialog
among all concerned parties and opens a new avenue for us to work
together in promoting human rights and in upholding the rule of law.
President Gloria Arroyo's decision to extend the mandate of the
Melo Commission--its recommendations have been fully adopted by the
government--and her invitation for U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip
Alston to conduct his own fact-finding mission in the Philippines, have
yielded encouraging results.
It is our hope that militant groups and relatives of the victims
will now be more willing to cooperate with the Melo Commission, in
response to the swift action by the Philippine Government on the
panel's recommendations. Karapatan, a representative of which has been
invited to speak before this Senate subcommittee, had questioned the
Commission's independence even before the panel could even start its
fact-finding work and had subsequently ignored its repeated invitations
to participate in the investigations.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur himself had assessed that the
Commission had conducted an independent probe, and had cited the
sincerity of the Philippine Government in addressing and finding
solutions to this problem of unexplained killings.
There have been allegations that Philippine military personnel are
involved in these killings despite the fact that no charges against
particular military men have been filed by the accusing parties.
The Melo Report itself states: ``From the evidence gathered, and
after an extensive study of the same, the Commission comes to the
conclusion that there is no direct evidence, but only circumstantial
evidence, linking some elements in the military to the killings. There
is no official or sanctioned policy on the part of the military or its
civilian superiors to resort to what other countries euphemistically
call `alternative procedures'--meaning illegal liquidations.''
It further states: ``While state responsibility is possible for
private acts, there is no basis to hold liable the entire military
leadership or even the entire leadership of one of its branches, under
the doctrine of command responsibility. The findings herein do not
justify a ruling that each and every high-ranking officer in the
military, or the institution itself, should be held liable for the
killings.''
Nonetheless, President Arroyo issued an instruction on 31 January
2007 to the Department of Justice and the Department of National
Defense directing them to coordinate with the Commission on Human
Rights (CHR) in constituting a joint fact-finding body. Its task is to
``delve deeper into the matter of possible involvement of military
personnel in unexplained killings, filing the corresponding charges
against, and prosecute the culpable parties.''
The CHR is an independent body created by virtue of our 1987
Constitution. President Arroyo has recently allocated an additional
funding of 25 million pesos to the CHR so that it can best carry out
its mandate to check reported human rights violations.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) also deemed it imperative
to issue on 4 February 2007 a directive to all levels of command
underscoring strict adherence to the doctrine of command
responsibility.
Under this doctrine, ``any AFP officer shall be held accountable
for neglect of duty under the doctrine of command responsibility if he
has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed, is being
committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others
within his area of responsibility and despite such knowledge, he did
not take preventive or corrective action either before, during, or
immediately after its commission.''
The same directive incorporates the principle of ``presumption of
knowledge'' by a commanding officer of ``the Commission of
irregularities or criminal offenses within his area of responsibility
in any of the following circumstances: (a) When the irregularities or
illegal acts are widespread within his area of jurisdiction; (b) when
the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or regularly
committed within his area of responsibility; or (c) when members of his
immediate staff or office personnel are involved.''
Commanders of erring military personnel found in violation of this
directive ``shall be held accountable either for violation of the
Article of War 95 or as an accessory after the fact upon deliberate
refusal or failure or neglect to act accordingly and decisively as
requited by existing AFP laws.''
On 13 February 2007, the General Headquarters of the AFP released a
Staff Memorandum delineating the functions and organization of the AFP
Human Rights Office (AFPHRO). Among its specific functions is ``to
plan, implement and supervise programs, measures and mechanisms'' to
protect and promote respect for human rights and adherence to
international human rights laws, and to monitor the litigation of cases
against the AFP.
At present, 94 cases of alleged political killings ``where
(Philippine) security forces are probably involved'' are now being
investigated by the newly created AFP Human Rights Office. These 94
cases are among the 240 and 113 cases that the Melo Commission and the
Department of Interior and local government-created Task Force Usig,
respectively, recommended for investigation. The cases indicate the
names, incidents and circumstances pointing to the probable involvement
of security forces.
On 31 January 2007, President Arroyo requested the Supreme Court
(SC) to establish special courts for the expeditious trial of cases
involving unexplained killings of a political or ideological nature.
The Supreme Court has already designated 99 regional trial courts as
special tribunals with the order for these courts to resolve the cases
at the soonest.
To strengthen the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Witness Protection
Program, the DOJ liberalized the admission requirements for witness
protection coverage, particularly when the threat level on bona fide
witnesses to alleged media and politically motivated killings is high.
Regional state prosecutors have also been authorized to grant
provisional coverage to high-risk witnesses under threat pending
confirmation of their admission to the program. The economic benefits
and social services for witnesses under the program have also been
enhanced.
Within a long-term framework, the AFP has been implementing the
Philippine Defense Reform Program (PDRP). It is the product of the
Joint Philippines-United States Joint Defense Assessment (JDA) that was
completed in 2003. Its aims include, among others, the reform and
professionalization of the military.
A similar reform-oriented management assessment--a joint
undertaking of the U.S. Government and the Philippine National Police
(PNP)--is being conducted under the auspice's of the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP).
Given the aforementioned efforts, we wish to take strong exception
to related allegations being raised by some quarters that U.S.
assistance, particularly military logistical equipment, are being
misused by Philippine security forces as instruments for human rights
violations and in conducting these political killings.
The Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) serves as a
strong oversight mechanism which strictly inventories and monitors the
use of U.S.-provided military equipment. The AFP must even secure its
prior approval before it could dispose of equipment which have already
been rendered unusable.
U.S. military assistance is vital to the AFP's counterterrorism
campaign which we are winning, particularly resulting to the recent
killing of the top two leaders of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). The ASG
was responsible for the hostage-taking of the American couple Martin
and Gracia Burnham and the beheading of another American, Guillermo
Sobero. The Philippine Government has also made headways in its
campaign against the New People's Army (NPA), the armed wing of the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), which had assassinated JUSMAG
Chief Col. James Rowe, among its terroristic acts. The CPP-NPA is
presently included in the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist
Organizations (FTOs).
The reason for our government's success rests on the fact that our
counterterrorism strategy is a wholistic one, with both military and
socioeconomic components. The Philippine Government fully recognizes
that reliance on military solution alone would not eliminate the
scourge of terrorism unless the prevailing conditions such as poverty,
and the despondency and despair, that it breeds are thoroughly
addressed.
We desire peace because hostilities exact a heavy toll in terms of
human lives and divert resources which are better utilized to alleviate
people's economic and social well-being. It was for this reason that we
had engaged the CPP-NPA in peace talks. Unfortunately, they failed
because of the CPP-NPA's repeated violations of the cease-fire
agreement which underscored its bad faith. Moreover, it waged countless
and relentless terroristic acts for which reason it was tagged as a
terrorist organization by the United States and European Union.
The Philippine Government has likewise engaged the Muslim
secessionist groups, namely the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF)
and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in the peace process.
Abandoning the ``all out war'' strategy of its antecedent
administration, the Arroyo administration decided to adopt an ``all out
peace'' strategy.
Owing to U.S. economic assistance, about 28,000 former MNLF
combatants have been reintegrated into our democratic mainstream and
are gainfully pursuing various kinds of livelihood. USAID assistance to
Muslim Mindanao, in southern Philippines, has generated US$441 million
in investments and created 77,000 jobs. Around 60 percent of total
USAID assistance to the Philippines has been channeled to this region.
We wish to point out that U.S. economic assistance is administered by
the USAID which ensures its responsible and cost-effective use.
Complementing USAID's assistance is the U.S. Institute of Peace's
(USIP) public diplomacy and awareness projects in Mindanao to sustain
broad popular support for the peace process.
We have a cease-fire agreement with the MILF which is holding. One
unique aspect of this agreement is our joint conduct of
counterterrorism operations as part of our confidence-building
measures. We remain hopeful that this peace and development process
will move forward. We are thankful for the U.S. Government's commitment
that once a final peace accord between the Philippine Government and
the MILF is forged, it will provide additional assistance for post-
conflict rehabilitation and economic programs.
Integral to our efforts toward achieving durable peace and
sustainable development in Muslim Mindanao are the interfaith dialogs,
evident in the creation of a Bishop-Ulama Conference. This forum
fosters religious tolerance and cultural understanding and which are
essential aspects of respect for human rights.
Related to this, we wish to convey our profound appreciation to the
U.S. Embassy in the Philippines for the proactive programs it has
initiated in promoting respect for and adherence to human rights, in
promoting the rule of law, and in strengthening the judicial system in
the Philippines. Some of these programs are instrumental in inculcating
the values and principles of human rights among our military and police
forces.
We also appreciate the encouraging words of the U.S. Ambassador to
the Philippines that our Government is on the right track in its
efforts at addressing the issue of extrajudicial killings.
U.N. Special Rapporteur Professor Alston himself recognized the
Arroyo administration's ``willingness to permit outside scrutiny, and a
very welcome preparedness to engage on this issue.''
He also pointed out that ``the Government's invitation (for him) to
visit (the Philippines) reflects a clear recognition of the gravity of
the problem'' and that ``(it) showed good faith in responding to
allegations by setting up an independent commission.''
We are earnest in engaging all stakeholders and concerned parties
who wish to become part of the solution as we strive to deal with this
urgent issue.
We are committed in strengthening our institutions and in building
our capacity to eradicate a culture of violence which threatens our
democratic way of life.
It is in our national interest to build a culture of justice and we
look forward to the partnership of this subcommittee and of the entire
U.S. Congress in our pursuit of this goal.
I wish to express my deep gratitude to Senator Barbara Boxer and to
the honorable members of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific
Affairs for granting to me this privilege and opportunity to submit
this statement on behalf of the Philippine Government, for the official
record.
Thank you very much.
______
Summary Report of Prof. Phillip Alston, Special Rapporteur of the
United Nations Human Rights Council on Extrajudicial, Summary or
Arbitrary Executions--Manila, February 21, 2007
I have spent the past 10 days in the Philippines at the invitation
of the Government in order to inquire into the phenomenon of
extrajudicial executions. I am very grateful to the Government for the
unqualified cooperation extended to me. During my stay here I have met
with virtually all of the relevant senior officials of Government. They
include the President, the Executive Secretary, the National Security
Adviser, the Secretaries for Defense, Justice, DILG and the Peace
Process. I have also met with a significant number of Members of
Congress on different sides of the political spectrum, the Chief
Justice, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), the Chair of the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman, the
members of both sides of the Joint Monitoring Committee, and
representatives of the MNLF and MILF. Of particular relevance to my
specific concerns, I also met with Task Force Usig, and with the Melo
Commission, and I have received the complete dossier compiled by TF
Usig, as well as the report of the Melo Commission, and the responses
to its findings by the AFP and by retired Major General Palparan. I
have also visited Baguio and Davao and met with the regional Human
Rights Commission offices, local PNP and AFP commanders, and the Mayor
of Davao, among others.
Equally importantly, roughly half of my time here was devoted to
meetings with representatives of civil society, in Manila, Baguio, and
Davao. Through their extremely valuable contributions in the form of
documentation and detailed testimony I have learned a great deal.
Let me begin by acknowledging several important elements. The first
is that the Government's invitation to visit reflects a clear
recognition of the gravity of the problem, a willingness to permit
outside scrutiny, and a very welcome preparedness to engage on this
issue. The assurances that I received from the President, in
particular, were very encouraging. Second, I note that my visit takes
place within the context of a counterinsurgency operation which takes
place on a range of fronts, and I do not in any way underestimate the
resulting challenges facing for the Government and the AFP. Third, I
wish to clarify that my formal role is to report to the U.N. Human
Rights Council and to the Government on the situation I have found. I
consider that the very fact of my visit has already begun the process
of acting as a catalyst to deeper reflection on these issues both
within the national and international settings. Finally, I must
emphasize that the present statement is only designed to give a general
indication of some, but by no means all, of the issues to be addressed,
and the recommendations put forward, in my final report. I expect that
will be available sometime within the next 3 months.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The first major challenge for my mission was to obtain detailed and
well-supported information. I have been surprised by both the amount
and the quality of information provided to me. Most key Government
agencies are organized and systematic in much of their data collection
and classification. Similarly, Philippines civil society organizations
are generally sophisticated and professional. I sought, and obtained,
meetings across the entire political spectrum. I leave the Philippines
with a wealth of information to be processed in the preparation of my
final report.
But the question has still been posed as to whether the information
provided to me by either all, or at least certain, local NGO groups can
be considered reliable. The word ``propaganda'' was used by many of my
interlocutors. What took them to mean was that the overriding goal of
the relevant groups in raising EJE questions was to gain political
advantage in the context of a broader battle for public opinion and
power, and that the HR dimensions were secondary at best. Some went
further to suggest that many of the cases were fabricated, or at least
trumped up, to look more serious than they are.
I consider it essential to respond to these concerns immediately.
First, there is inevitably a propaganda element in such allegations.
The aim is to win public sympathy and to discredit other actors. But
the existence of a propaganda dimension does not, in itself, destroy
the credibility of the information and allegations. I would insist,
instead, on the need to apply several tests relating to credibility.
First, is it only NGOs from one part of the political spectrum who are
making these allegations? The answer is clearly ``no.''
Human rights groups in the Philippines range across the entire
spectrum in terms of their political sympathies, but I met no groups
who challenged the basic fact that large numbers of extrajudicial
executions are taking place, even if they disagreed on precise figures.
Second, how compelling is the actual information presented? I found
there was considerable variation ranging from submissions which were
entirely credible and contextually aware all the way down to some which
struck me as superficial and dubious. But the great majority are closer
to the top of that spectrum than to the bottom. Third, has the
information proved credible under cross-examination. My colleagues and
I heard a large number of cases in depth and we probed the stories
presented to us in order to ascertain their accuracy and the broader
context.
As a result, I believe that I have gathered a huge amount of data
and certainly much more than has been made available to any one of the
major national inquiries.
EXTENT OF MY FOCUS
My focus goes well beyond that adopted by either TF Usig or the
Melo Commission, both of which are concerned essentially with political
and media killings. Those specific killings are, in many ways, a
symptom of a much more extensive problem and we should not permit our
focus to be limited artificially. The TF Usig/Melo scope of inquiry is
inappropriate for me for several reasons:
(a) The approach is essentially reactive. It is not based on
an original assessment of what is going on in the country at
large, but rather on what a limited range of CSOs report. As a
result, the focus then is often shifted (unhelpfully) to the
orientation of the CSO, the quality of the documentation in
particular cases, etc.;
(b) Many killings are not reported, or not pursued, and for
good reason; and
(c) A significant proportion of acknowledged cases of
``disappearances'' involve individuals who have been killed but
who are not reflected in the figures.
HOW MANY HAVE BEEN KILLED?
The numbers game is especially unproductive, although a source of
endless fascination. Is it 25, 100, or 800? I don't have a figure. But
I am certain that the number is high enough to be distressing. Even
more importantly, numbers are not what count. The impact of even a
limited number of killings of the type alleged is corrosive in many
ways. It intimidates vast numbers of civil society actors, it sends a
message of vulnerability to all but the most well connected, and it
severely undermines the political discourse which is central to a
resolution of the problems confronting this country.
Permit me to make a brief comment on the term ``unexplained
killings,'' which is used by officials and which consider to be inapt
and misleading. It may be appropriate in the context of a judicial
process but human rights inquiries are more broad-ranging and one does
not have to wait for a court to secure a conviction before one can
conclude that human rights violations are occurring. The term
``extrajudicial killings'' which has a long pedigree is far more
accurate and should be used.
TYPOLOGY
It may help to specify the types of killing which are of particular
concern in the Philippines:
--Killings by military and police, and by the NPA or other groups--in
course of counterinsurgency. To the extent that such killings take
place in conformity with the rules of international humanitarian
law, they fall outside my mandate.
--Killings not in the course of any armed engagement but in pursuit of
a specific counterinsurgency operation in the field.
--Killings, whether attributed to the military, the police, or private
actors, of activists associated with leftist groups and usually
deemed or assumed to be covertly assisting CPP-NPA-NDF. Private
actors include hired thugs in the pay of politicians, landowners,
corporate interests, and others.
--Vigilante, or death squad, killings.
--Killings of journalists and other media persons.
--``Ordinary'' murders facilitated by the sense of impunity that
exists.
RESPONSE BY THE GOVERNMENT.
The response of Government to the crisis of extrajudicial
executions varies dramatically. There has been a welcome
acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem at the very top. At
the executive level the messages have been very mixed and often
unsatisfactory. And at the operational level, the allegations have too
often been met with a response of incredulity, mixed with offence.
EXPLANATIONS PROFFERED
When I have sought explanations of the killings I have received a
range of answers.
(i) The allegations are essentially propaganda. I have addressed
this dimension already.
(ii) The allegations are fabricated. Much importance was attached
to two persons who had been listed as killed, but who were presented to
me alive. Two errors, in circumstances which might partly explain the
mistakes, do very little to discredit the vast number of remaining
allegations.
(iii) The theory that the ``correct, accurate, and truthful''
reason for the recent rise in killings lies in purges committed by the
CPP/NPA. This theory was relentlessly pushed by the AFP and many of my
Government interlocutors. But we must distinguish the number of 1,227
cited by the military from the limited number of cases in which the
CPP/NPA have acknowledged, indeed boasted, of killings. While such
cases have certainly occurred, even those most concerned about them,
such as members of Akbayan, have suggested to me that they could not
amount to even 10 percent of the total killings.
The evidence offered by the military in support of this theory is
especially unconvincing. Human rights organizations have documented
very few such cases. The AFP relies instead on figures and trends
relating to the purges of the late 1980s, and on an alleged CPP/NPA
document captured in May 2006 describing Operation Bushfire. In the
absence of much stronger supporting evidence this particular document
bears all the hallmarks of a fabrication and cannot be taken as
evidence of anything other than disinformation.
(iv) Some killings may have been attributable to the AFP, but they
were committed by rogue elements. There is little doubt that some such
killings have been committed. The AFP needs to give us precise details
and to indicate what investigations and prosecutions have been
undertaken in response. But, in any event, the rogue elephant theory
does not explain or even address the central questions with which we
are concerned.
SOME MAJOR CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE
(a) Acknowledgement by the AFT
The AFP remains in a state of almost total denial (as its official
response to the Melo Report amply demonstrates) of its need to respond
effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings
which have been convincingly attributed to them. The President needs to
persuade the military that its reputation and effectiveness will be
considerably enhanced, rather than undermined, by acknowledging the
facts and taking genuine steps to investigate. When the Chief of the
AFP contents himself with telephoning Major General Palparan three
times in order to satisfy himself that the persistent and extensive
allegations against the General were entirely unfounded, rather than
launching a thorough internal investigation, it is clear that there is
still a very long way to go.
(b) Moving beyond the Melo Commission
It is not for me to evaluate the Melo Report. That is for the
people of the Philippines to do. The President showed good faith in
responding to allegations by setting up an independent commission. But
the political and other capital that should have followed is being
slowly but surely drained away by the refusal to publish the report.
The justifications given are unconvincing. The report was never
intended to be preliminary or interim. The need to get ``leftists'' to
testify is no reason to withhold a report which in some ways at least
vindicates their claims. And extending a commission whose composition
has never succeeded in winning full cooperation seems unlikely to cure
the problems still perceived by those groups. Immediate release of the
report is an essential first step.
(c) The need to restore accountability
The focus on TF Usig and Melo is insufficient. The enduring and
much larger challenge is to restore the various accountability
mechanisms that the Philippines Constitution and Congress have put in
place over the years, too many of which have been systematically
drained of their force in recent years. I will go into detail in my
final report, but suffice it to note for present purposes that
Executive Order 464, and its replacement, Memorandum Circular 108,
undermine significantly the capacity of Congress to hold the Executive
to account in any meaningful way.
(d) Witness protection
The vital flaw which undermines the utility of much of the judicial
system is the problem of virtual impunity that prevails. This, in turn,
is built upon the rampant problem of witness vulnerability. The present
message is that if you want to preserve your life expectancy, don't act
as a witness in a criminal prosecution for killing. Witnesses are
systematically intimidated and harassed. In a relatively poor society,
in which there is heavy dependence on community and very limited real
geographical mobility, witnesses are uniquely vulnerable when the
forces accused of killings are all too often those, or are linked to
those, who are charged with ensuring their security. The WPP is
impressive--on paper. In practice, however, it is deeply flawed and
would seem only to be truly effective in a very limited number of
cases. The result, as one expert suggested to me, is that 8 out of 10
strong cases, or 80 percent fail to move from the initial investigation
to the actual prosecution stage.
(e) Acceptance of the need to provide legitimate political space for
leftist groups
At the national level there has been a definitive abandonment of
President Ramos' strategy of reconciliation. This might be termed the
Sinn Fein strategy. It involves the creation of an opening--the party-
list system--for leftist groups to enter the democratic political
system, while at the same time acknowledging that some of those groups
remain very sympathetic to the armed struggle being waged by illegal
groups (the IRA in the Irish case, or the NPA in the Philippines case).
The goal is to provide an incentive for such groups to enter mainstream
politics and to see that path as their best option.
Neither the party-list system nor the repeal of the Anti-Subversion
Act has been reversed by Congress. But, the executive branch, openly
and enthusiastically aided by the military, has worked resolutely to
circumvent the spirit of these legislative decisions by trying to
impede the work of the party-list groups and to put in question their
right to operate freely. The idea is not to destroy the NPA but to
eliminate organizations that support many of its goals and do not
actively disown its means. While nonviolent in conception, there are
cases in which it has, certainly at the local level, spilled over into
decisions to extrajudicially execute those who cannot be reached by
legal process.
(f) Reevaluate problematic aspects of counterinsurgency strategy
The increase inextrajudicial executions in recent years is
attributable, at least in part, to a shift in counterinsurgency
strategy that occurred in some areas, reflecting the considerable
regional variation in the strategies employed, especially with respect
to the civilian population. In some areas, an appeal to hearts and
minds is combined with an attempt to vilify left-leaning organizations
and to intimidate leaders of such organizations. In some instances,
such intimidation escalates into extrajudicial execution. This is a
grave and serious problem and one which intend to examine in detail in
my final report.
CONCLUSION
The Philippines remains an example to all of us in terms of the
peaceful ending of martial law by the People's Revolution, and the
adoption of a constitution reflecting a powerful commitment to ensure
respect for human rights. The various measures ordered by the President
in response to Melo constitute important first steps, but there is a
huge amount that remains to be done.
______
Response of Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric John to Question Submitted
for the Record by Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. The FY08 budget outline reflects a major drop in foreign
assistance for the Philippines. The proposed cut in the FY08 budget
request is $28.5 million below the FY 2006 funding level. Democracy and
governance programs were cut from $13.1 million to $8.1 million, and
FMF programs from $29.7 million to $11.1 million.
What is the rationale for this drastic change in financial
assistance to the Philippines? The figures suggest that the Philippines
is no longer a key component in the U.S. war against terror. How was
this calculation achieved? How will Philippine reformers view the
zeroing out of anticorruption efforts? How will this cut in funding
impact efforts to further promote the rule of law and democracy in the
Philippines?
Answer. The Philippines remains an important treaty ally and
partner of the United States. Our relations are based on our history,
shared values, and personal ties, with more than 3 million Filipinos
resident in the United States and more than 100,000 American citizens
living in the Philippines. We are pleased with United States-
Philippines cooperation on issues that affect the region and the
international community, including U.S. support for the Philippine
Government's considerable recent success against al-Qaeda-linked
terrorists.
The Department reduced its FY08 request for assistance to the
Philippines not because we value our alliance any less, but because of
the tough decisions required in a constrained budget. In addition, the
Philippine Government has decided to increase its budgetary
contribution to key areas, reducing the need for U.S. funding.
Our most important goal in FY 2008 remains counterterrorism and
promoting stability and security, not only in the Philippines, but in
the southeast Asian region. About 60 percent of our development
resources will continue to be directed to conflict-affected Mindanao.
In addition, the United States continues its longstanding support for
institutional reform within the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police. Besides bolstering these forces'
capabilities, our support of these institutional reforms also seeks to
improve respect for human rights. The Philippine Government has
contributed $4 million of its own funding to this effort, and we
encourage this partnership.
Despite the substantial budget challenges we face, we recognize the
need to continue and even enhance our most critical democracy and
governance program activities. Democracy funding is concentrated on
promoting good governance, where it will best support the success of
the 2-year $21 million MCC Threshold Program, which focuses on
supporting Philippine anticorruption efforts. Our programs to support
judicial reform, improve economic governance, and strengthen local
governance also contribute to anticorruption efforts. President Arroyo
has announced that the Philippine Government will contribute $21
million of its own matching funds to this effort.
______
Responses of Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric John and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary Jonathan Farrar to Questions Submitted for the
Record by Senator Norm Coleman
Question. Role of the Philippine Military: Philip Alston, the U.N.
expert on extrajudicial executions, stated in his initial findings
that: ``The Armed Forces of the Philippines remains in a state of
almost total denial of its need to respond effectively and
authentically to the significant number of killings which have been
convincingly attributed to them.'' An Amnesty International Press
release dated February 23 states: ``The Body of Evidence is now so
compelling that it can no longer be ignored: There is substantial
confirmation of the pattern of political killings in the Philippines.''
Amnesty International and other investigative teams report that many of
the victims have been threatened by the military, including being
informed that their names are on an ``order of battle'' list indicating
who should be targeted in offensive military operations.
Do you agree with these statements? Do you believe the
killings, harassment, and disappearances taking place in the
Philippines are being conducted by the Armed Forces of the
Philippines?
Do local commanders have a list of targeted members of legal
organizations?
Answer. We are concerned about unlawful killings in the
Philippines, whoever may be responsible, but particularly about
allegations that members of the security forces have been involved. As
the State Department's ``Country Report on Human Rights Practices''
indicates, elements of the military and the police apparently were
involved in some of the killings. We have strongly urged, and will
continue to encourage, the Philippine Government to investigate
thoroughly any alleged involvement by its security forces in these
killings and to bring the perpetrators to justice. We have heard
reports from NGOs that local military units list ``enemies of the
state'' in a presentation made to local communities and that an ``order
of battle'' list may exist; however, we are unable to confirm the
existence of these lists.
Question. Impunity: What is being done to bring the killers to
justice and address the apparent climate of impunity in the
Philippines?
If the military has evidence of illegal activities, why are
the perpetrators not arrested and brought into the justice
system?
Answer. We are encouraged that President Arroyo has taken several
steps to address this problem. We were pleased that the Arroyo
administration decided to make the Melo Commission findings public and
is taking steps to implement Commission recommendations. We also note
that President Arroyo invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on
Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Phillip Alston, to
conduct a 10-day fact-finding mission in February. No previous
Philippine Government has done as much substantively and
institutionally as the Arroyo administration has done to address this
issue. President Arroyo's initiatives include establishing a police
task force, called Task Force Usig (``to prosecute''), to investigate
the killings and to file charges against the perpetrators, as well as a
Presidential commission under the leadership of former Philippine
Supreme Court Justice Melo. The Melo Commission has examined this
problem and made policy recommendations, on which the government has
promptly acted.
Following the Melo Commission report, the Armed Forces of the
Philippines issued a new directive reiterating the principle of command
responsibility and established a human rights office to investigate--
along with the Philippine Commission on Human Rights--cases in which
military involvement is alleged. President Arroyo ordered the
Philippine Department of Justice to strengthen and expand the
government's witness protection program. At President Arroyo's request,
the Philippine Supreme Court has established special courts to handle
these cases. President Arroyo also instructed the Department of Justice
and the Presidential Human Rights Committee to give priority to cases
for trial by these special courts. In addition, President Arroyo
ordered the release of 25 million pesos (US$500,000) to the Commission
on Human Rights (CHR), which the CHR will use to establish human rights
centers in local communities.
U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston's report cites the Philippine
Government's recognition of the gravity of the problem, expresses
concern about the views of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
regarding the situation, and states that the various measures ordered
by President Arroyo in response to the Melo Commission report
constitute important first steps, but much remains to be done. We
concur with that assessment.
According to the records of Task Force Usig, Philippine authorities
have filed charges in 50 cases of extradjucial killings, with 10
individuals under arrest and 27 suspects at large. At least 11 cases
have alleged links to the military, with criminal charges filed in 6
cases already, while 29 cases have alleged links to the Communist Party
of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA). Another 60 cases remain
under investigation.
Question. U.S. Assistance: Given the United States significant role
in the arming and training of the AFP, how can the U.S. Congress and
the American people be sure that our tax dollars and soldiers are not
contributing to this crisis?
What accountability measures are in place to track U.S.
military aid to the AFP?
Answer. As required by the Leahy amendment, all candidates for U.S.
Government sponsored training who are members of the Philippine
security forces, both military and police, are thoroughly vetted before
approval. This includes training in the United States, in the
Philippines, or elsewhere, including the International Law Enforcement
Academy in Bangkok.
The U.S. Embassy in Manila submits names of candidates for vetting
to the constitutionally mandated Philippine Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) and the Philippine National Bureau of Investigation.
Concurrently, vetting is conducted by the U.S. Embassy, including the
Consular Section, the Regional Security Office, and other USG agencies,
such as the Drug Enforcement Administration.
If there is no locally available questionable information on the
candidate, the Embassy then forwards the name of candidate or unit to
the State Department in Washington for another tier of vetting that
also includes the Department of Defense, FBI, and CIA. Once the Embassy
receives notification back from the Department's office in Washington
that it possesses no credible information of gross violations of human
rights by the candidate, they are permitted to attend training.
Candidates for whom questionable information is available have been and
will continue to be excluded from receiving U.S. assistance.
In addition to these immediate efforts to protect the integrity of
our training programs, the United States has provided longstanding
support for institutional reform within the AFP and the Philippine
National Police, as well as the Philippine judiciary. This assistance
has included human rights training for Philippine security forces. The
United States is also a firm supporter of Philippine Defense Reform,
which aims to strengthen a professional and effective military that
respects and protects civil liberties and human rights.
Question. Press Freedoms: What is the status of press freedoms in
the Philippines?
To what do you attribute the larger numbers of journalists
murdered in the Philippines in recent years?
Dana Dillon from the Heritage Foundation has stated that
``No one claims President Arroyo ordered or knew of any of the
killings of reporters. But government foot-dragging when it
comes to apprehending the killers is unacceptable for a country
that receives such large amounts of American aid.'' Do you
agree with this statement?
Answer. Philippine law provides for freedom of speech and of the
press, and, except for a few instances during a week-long imposition of
a state of national emergency, the government has generally respected
these rights in practice. The media are active and express a wide
variety of views without restriction. Broadcast and print media are
freewheeling and are often criticized for lacking rigorous journalistic
ethics. They tend to reflect the particular political or economic
orientations of owners, publishers, or patrons, some of whom are close
associates of present or past high-level officials. Special interests
often use bribes and other inducements to solicit one-sided and
erroneous reports and commentaries that support their positions.
Journalists continued to be murdered. The National Union of
Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) recorded 12 journalists killed in
2006. Task Force Usig classified two of these cases as work-related
slayings. According to the task force, 7 of more than 70 cases of
journalist killings since 1986 resulted in convictions. In many cases,
the suspected killers were local government officials retaliating
against
``hard-hitting reporters.'' It is difficult to determine definitively
who was responsible given the low number of convictions in these cases.
Two mayors and two village chairmen have already surrendered, with
charges now filed against them. Two police and one soldier have been
arrested in other cases. Out of 26 cases involving journalists from
2001-07, the police have filed cases in 21 and are still investigating
the remaining 5.
We take this problem seriously, and are committed to helping our
Philippine allies bring those responsible to justice. We are encouraged
by the steps that the Philippine Government has taken to date, but we
will continue to make clear that more progress is essential and that we
stand ready to be of assistance.
In respect to Philippine journalism we currently have a State
Department Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF) grant awaiting
congressional notification that will help Filipino media reduce
sensationalist reporting, highlight the human cost of ongoing violent
conflict, and encourage reconciliation and reasoned debate. This
project will contribute to democracy and human rights by working to
make the media a more constructive and responsible force for social and
political cohesion, and will create a national association of human
rights journalists.
Question. New People's Army: Please explain the rationale for
placing the New People's Army on the U.S. State Department list of
international terrorist organizations.
What has been the effect on the ongoing peace negotiations
with the National Democratic Front?
Has the placement of the NPA on the terrorism list diverted
the focus from the pursuit of radical Islamic terrorists?
Do you believe there has been an increased destabilization
in the Philippines countryside? If so, to what do you attribute
this unrest, and do you believe that unrest has been exploited
by the NPA in their recruiting?
Answer. The Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army
(CPP/NPA) has been seeking the violent overthrow of the Philippine
Government since the 1970s. Two CPP/NPA members were convicted in
connection with the 1989 murder of Col. James ``Nick'' Rowe, the deputy
commander of the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group.
The Communists broke off peace negotiations in August 2004 after
the Philippine Government refused to ask the United States and the
European Union to remove the CPP/NPA from their lists of foreign terror
organizations. We have consistently stated that we are willing to
examine the question of removing the CPP/NPA from the list once it
fully renounces terrorism in pursuit of its political objectives.
The Philippine Government is combating multiple insurgencies and
terrorist groups. The CPP/NPA's violent nationwide insurgency has
forced the Philippine Government to divert resources from combating
jihadist terrorists. Nonetheless, Philippine Armed Forces have been
able to achieve major successes against al-Qaeda linked Jemaah
Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf Group terrorists in Mindanao and the Sulu
Archipelago. Recent successful military operations led to the deaths of
Abu Sayyaf Group Leader Khadaffy Janjalani and Operations Chief Abu
Solaiman.
While we don't see any increased destabilization in the Philippines
countryside, we note that the CPP/NPA regularly attacks AFP and
Philippine National Police units and installations and targets their
officers and government officials for assassination. The CPP/NPA
continues to extort money from local businesses and demand ``permit to
campaign fees'' from politicians in areas under its control.