An ‘epidemic’ of killings
When P-Noy declared, upon his inauguration, that he and his administration would tread the “matuwid na daan” or straight and narrow path of governance, I assumed, as did many Filipinos, that this included bringing an end to extrajudicial killings.
“Extrajudicial killings,” as the term implies, refers to the killings (but also kidnap and torture) of citizens that do not fall within the ambit of the criminal justice system. These are defined in law as “killings due to the political affiliation of the victims, having a specific method of attack, and where there are reports of involvement or acquiescence of state agents in the commission of the killings.” A study says that in 32 percent of cases, the victim is an officer or member of an activist group. In some instances, the victims may also be judges, prosecutors, human rights lawyers, elective officials or journalists involved in controversial cases, political disputes, or who have simply pissed off the powerful.
In a report bearing the prosaic title “Report on the Philippine Extrajudicial Killings 2001-2010,” with funding support from The Asia Foundation and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), lawyer Al Parreño describes the number of extrajudicial killings in the country as an “epidemic.” They are “rampant and remain unsolved,” with 99 percent of the cases surveyed still unsolved.
A total of 305 incidents of extrajudicial killings in the last decade was recorded. Of these, 169 or 56 percent, were filed with prosecutors, and 101 prosecuted. Only 99 cases, or 32 percent, were tried in court, but just four, or one percent, ended up in conviction.
Worth noting is that 32 percent of cases are “cold cases,” unsolved and “untouched” because the identities of the assailants are still undetermined. In 57 percent of the cases, the perpetrators are described as “unidentified armed men,” but even more interesting, in 19 percent of cases, the identified killers belonged to the military.
* * *
EVEN more disturbing is the fact that, despite its claims to moral ascendancy over the previous administration, the P-Noy administration has done little better (and may even end up worse) in the prevention or elimination of extrajudicial killings.
Parreño writes that since P-Noy took office, “eight cases of extrajudicial killings have already been recorded.” In 2006, the height of the Arroyo administration’s campaign against insurgents, the rate of “EJKs” was 2.5 killings per week. A little over a year into the new administration, the killings have been recorded at the rate of two per week, which Parreño describes as “alarming.”
While the lawyer says that “whether or not this is a heritage of the past cannot be determined,” what seems clear is that the continuing EJKs stand in contrast to the President’s “resolute stand” on the issue.
“Claiming to be a victim of extrajudicial killings himself,” P-Noy declared that he “will not tolerate extrajudicial killings in his administration,” adding that he does not tolerate it, “that’s plain and simple.”
Still, the new deaths make clear that despite official condemnation, EJKs continue to occur and—it seems—to be tolerated.
* * *
PARREÑO’S report, conducted around the country and relying on judicial and police records as well as interviews with survivors and families of victims, prosecutors and judges, and police and military, is part of a wider campaign to raise awareness about the state of human rights in the country.
In particular, the campaign “aims to get President Noynoy Aquino to sign the National Human Rights Action Plan … (that, once signed) will become the roadmap for the government from the national to the barangay level, in upholding and protecting the civil and political rights of every citizen.” The campaign also seeks to “align the provisions of eight different international treaties and conventions to ensure the protection of the rights of all, including labor, women, children, activists, media and more.”
In an interview, Parreño said it was important to gather data and information on the number, manner and motives of EJKs so that all the actors on the issue could have a basis for action and policy.
A human rights lawyer who has handled a number of extrajudicial killing cases, Parreño says it was important to gather data free from “ideological bondage” as well as emotional connotations to get an accurate picture of the situation.
* * *
STILL, when asked why so few cases end up in court, Parreño says it’s because investigators “just aren’t interested” in solving the killings. Many times, cases are dismissed or not even filed for lack of evidence, usually when no witnesses can be found or they retract their statements or simply refuse to testify.
True, police and prosecutors may sometimes be too intimidated to pursue cases. But Parreño says he also suspects that when the victim is an activist or suspected to be one, the police and the military simply refuse to look further into the killing. Even more disturbing, he adds, is that in no case has the “mastermind” ever been determined.
In tomorrow’s column, I will discuss the recommendations that Parreño submits in his study. But already, he is addressing one glaring lack in the matter by going around the country and addressing mainly student assemblies on his findings and raising awareness of the issue.
The problem, we both agree, is that in the decades since the communist and Muslim insurgencies, the population has been bombarded with talk of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings. “Gasgas na (worn out),” as street lingo goes. But even if we have turned off the topic, the killings go on, and we’ll never know when or if the killings affect us or one of our own.
