Philja Primer

Pacifico A.
Agabin
Sedfrey M. Candelaria
Carlos P. Medina, Jr.
Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr.
Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing
Authors
Copyright ©2011 Supreme Court of the Philippines
All rights reserved. No part of this helpbook may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical
means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher,
except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review. The Asia Foundation and USAID reserve a royalty-
free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the
materials for the Foundation’s or USAID’s purposes. Inquiries should be addressed to The Asia Foundation, 36 Lapu-
Lapu Avenue, Magallanes Village, Makati City, Philippines. Email: tafphil@asiafound.org
This helpbook is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of USAID, the United States Government, or The Asia Foundation.
The Asia Foundation is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization committed to the development of a peaceful,
prosperous, just, and open Asia-Pacific region. The Foundation supports Asian initiatives to improve governance,
law, and civil society; women’s empowerment; economic reform and development; sustainable development and
the environment; and international relations. Drawing on nearly 60 years of experience in Asia, the Foundation
collaborates with private and public partners to support leadership and institutional development, exchanges, and
policy research.
With eighteen offices throughout Asia, an office in Washington, DC, and its headquarters in San Francisco, the
Foundation addresses these issues on both a country and regional level. In 2010, the Foundation provided more than
$98 million in program support and distributed nearly one million books and journals valued at over $42 million.
ISBN: 978-971-0361-06-9
Authors: Pacifico A. Agabin, Sedfrey M. Candelaria, Carlos P. Medina, Jr., Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr.,
and Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing
Editor: Yvonne T. Chua
Cover and book design: Eduardo A. Davad
Cover photo by Slateriverproductions | Dreamstime.com (used with permission)
CIP Data
Recommended Entry:
Helpbook on Human Rights: Extralegal
Killings and Enforced Disappearances /
Pacifico A. Agabin, Sedfrey M. Candelaria,
Carlos P. Medina, Jr., Herminio Harry L.
Roque Jr., and Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing,
authors. / Yvonne T. Chua, editor – City of
Manila:
Supreme Court of the Philippines c2011.
p. ; cm.
1. Helpbook – Human Rights – Philippines

2. Extralegal Killings – Helpbook – Philippines
3. Enforced Disappearances – Helpbook – Philippines
4. Human Rights – Philippines
5. The Asia Foundation – Human Rights – Philippines
6. Supreme Court - Philippine Judicial Academy – Human Rights – Philippines
7. Investigation – Human Rights
8. Prosecution – Human Rights Violation
9. Judicial Process
I. Agabin, Pacifico A.
II. Candelaria, Sedfrey M.
III. Medina, Carlos P., Jr.
IV. Roque, Herminio Harry L., Jr.
V. Quisumbing, Cecilia Rachel V.
ISBN: 978-971-0361-06-9
T
he right to life is a primordial right, one on which
the enjoyment of all other rights is anchored. The
fundamental law commands extreme respect for one’s
inherent right to live.
The right to life would be meaningless if it is simply a
right to exist, shorn of any guarantee of the right to enjoy one’s existence.
Thus, the right to life necessarily implies a right to secure quality of life.
Extralegal killings and enforced disappearances do not merely strike
against the individual’s right to life and right to security and liberty. They
strike against those fundamental rights with impunity.
Impunity unchecked leaves serious violations of human rights without
remedy and renders constitutional guarantees of liberty mere paper
guarantees. Cognizant of this, the Supreme Court, as the guardian of
rights, wielded its power to promulgate rules concerning the protection
of enforcement of constitutional rights and issued the twin rules on the
writ of amparo and habeas data. From then on, various activities have been
undertaken by the Court to enhance the capacity of the relevant sectors and
ensure the effective implementation of the new rules.
This Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced
Disappearances caps another milestone in the Court’s efforts to ensure
respect for the paramount rights to life and to security. It discusses in a
clear and easy-to-read presentation the various laws and rules that address
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the different government
agencies and instrumentalities and their respective roles in enforcing
those laws, and the step-by-step procedures to be followed to avail of the
remedies concerning the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication
vi Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

of cases involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. It is a
handy and practical reference guide for all of us who are concerned with the
promotion and protection of human rights—the victims of human rights
abuses and their families, witnesses, the police and crime investigators, the
prosecutors and defense counsels, the judges, the people’s organizations and
civil society, media, and the public at large.
The Philippine Judicial Academy deserves commendation for this
helpbook. The Court owes its gratitude to the United States Agency for
International Development and The Asia Foundation for partnering with
the Court in its effort to advance the cause of human rights and for assisting
in the publication of this helpbook.
The helpbook is not just another piece of legal literature. It is a guide
for all concerned stakeholders to ensure respect for human rights, eradicate
the culture of impunity, and build a just and humane society.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Supreme Court
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances vii
O
n behalf of the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), I congratulate the Supreme
Court of the Republic of the Philippines and the
Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA) for the production
of Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings
and Enforced Disappearances. This book is a testament to the commitment
of these two institutions to help eradicate impunity in the Philippines.
The US Government has always been a staunch supporter of human
rights. In the Philippines, USAID provided resources to implement a
human rights program by introducing substantial and durable measures
that strengthen the enforcement of human rights and the rule of law. The
current Strengthening Human Rights in the Philippines Project addresses
the prevailing culture of impunity by ensuring that accountability measures
for handling human rights violations are set in place.
This helpbook is the result of robust discussions on the current human
rights situation in the Philippines in the context of the criminal justice
system. It also identifies the gaps and corresponding recommendations in
the laws and procedures of concerned government agencies. USAID hopes
that this will serve as a useful and user-friendly reference for judges, law
practitioners, civil society organizations, and human rights advocates on
how to respond to cases of human rights violations.
viii Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances
Lastly, USAID congratulates the editorial consultants led by PhilJA
Chancellor, Justice Adolf Azcuna, the writers, the editor, and all the
dedicated people who collectively made this publication possible.
GLORIA D. STEELE
Mission Director
United States Agency for International Development
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances ix

O
ver the past decade, the country has witnessed
an alarming spate of extralegal killings, enforced
disappearances, torture, and other forms of human
rights violations. These incidents point to a prevailing
culture of impunity that threatens to cripple Philippine
democracy, making Filipinos’ most basic rights violable and thus, ineffective.
The Asia Foundation, through its Strengthening Human Rights
in the Philippines program supported by the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), seeks to end this culture of impunity
by introducing accountability measures that will strengthen enforcement
of human rights and the rule of law in the country. The program aims to
promote respect for human rights, protect citizens through improved
monitoring of violations, and prosecute human rights violations through
capacity building for better investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of
cases.
With these goals in mind, The Asia Foundation, in partnership with
the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJA) and the Commission on Human
Rights, among other government agencies, conducted a multi-sectoral
training of judges, prosecutors, and civil society representatives from all
judicial regions to build judges’ capacity to hear and adjudicate human
rights cases, help prosecutors prepare prosecution-ready cases, and aid civil
society in the promotion of human rights. As a result of the integration
of all the lectures, discussions, and recommendations of the seminars, this
helpbook on human rights came to be.
The Asia Foundation is optimistic that the Supreme Court’s Helpbook
on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances
x Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

will prove to be a useful weapon in the fight against impunity. Written to
serve all stakeholders, it can be an effective guide to lawyers, prosecutors,
members of the judiciary, members of security forces, and even lay people. It
sheds light on all stages of criminal investigation and prosecution of human
rights cases, from the moment the crime is committed until the case sees a
final conclusion.
The Asia Foundation sincerely thanks the Supreme Court and
the Philippine Judicial Academy in their tireless efforts in making this
publication a reality. The Foundation also wishes to thank USAID for the
generous support.
To all the writers, researchers, and staff who have been with us since
the beginning of the series of multi-sectoral trainings, finally the helpbook
is here. Congratulations and Mabuhay!
STEVEN ROOD, Ph.D.

Country Representative
The Asia Foundation
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances xi

H
elpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings
and Enforced Disappearances was prepared by the Supreme
Court of the Philippines and its training institute, the
Philippine Judicial Academy, in partnership with the
United States Agency for International Development and The Asia
Foundation.
It is aimed at all stakeholders of ELK and ED human rights concerns,
from the police and investigators, to the prosecutors and counsels, to the
judges, complainants, victims, relatives, witnesses, NGOs, civil society,
media, the public at large.
Considering its broad target of users, the book has been designed to be
of practical use, to be easily understood, and to be handy. Case studies are
likewise included and sidebars are provided for ready reference.
It starts with a Situationer which provides an overview of the present
situation and how it got there. This is a good place to begin for all who will
use this book.
The rest of the contents are arranged in sequence. After covering
Investigation and the Commission on Human Rights, it proceeds to treat
Prosecution and the Judicial Process, and ends with The Role of Civil Society.
Within each of these chapters the user will find the processes involved,
together with flow charts, such as those on crime scene investigation, inquest
proceedings, and the entire phase of prosecution from the determination of
possible ELK and ED to the filing of an information.
Furthermore, the role and functions of each vital component of
the system are spelled out in the chapters, including the interfaces and
cooperation needed.
xii Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances
A subject matter index is likewise included for aiding in the search of
relevant materials.
Finally, a digital version of the book with selected forms used by the
Commission on Human Rights and the Philippine National Police is
inserted at the back, which may also be made available separately.
It is our hope that the helpbook will prove to be truly that: a practical
tool that will help all those in need of information on the range of issues
touching on ELK and ED as real life-and-death concerns.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Chancellor
Philippine Judicial Academy
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances xiii
T
he Philippine Judicial Academy expresses its sincerest
appreciation to the following who contributed in innumerable
ways in the production of this helpbook. It is through their
concerned and concerted efforts that the development and
publication of this helpbook were made possible:
The Supreme Court, through the leadership of Chief Justice Renato C.
Corona, for providing the raison d’etre and the necessary counterpart funding
for the publication and related activities of the helpbook;
Retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, for his initiatives on strengthening
human rights in the Philippines, and supporting the purpose of this project;
The United States Agency for International Development, through
its Mission Director, Gloria D. Steele, and Agreement Officer’s Technical
Representative, Gerardo A. Porta, for its generous funding support;
The Asia Foundation, through its Country Representative Dr. Steven
Rood; Law and Human Rights Program Director Atty. Carolyn A. Mercado;
Program Officers, Attys. Alpha Carole O. Pontanal and Pocholo P. Labog, and
Assistant Program Officer Emil B. Tapnio, for their continued support on the
publication of the helpbook, as well as the human rights programs and activities
of the academy;
The writers, for sharing their expertise and efforts in the development of
this helpbook:

Dean Pacifico A. Agabin
Professor Sedfrey M. Candelaria
Professor Carlos P. Medina, Jr.
Professor Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr.
Commission on Human Rights Commissioner Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing
xiv Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances
The editorial consultants, for their guidance, encouragement, and
editorial advice on the content and organization of the Helpbook, as well the
general decisions and concerns relating to the publication:

PhilJA Chancellor Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna
Dr. Purificacion Valera-Quisumbing
PhilJA Executive Secretary Justice Marina L. Buzon

Ms. Yvonne T. Chua, for the overall editorial work and overseeing
consistency in style of the helpbook; Ms. Avigail M. Olarte, for proofreading
the manuscript; and Mr. Eduardo A. Davad, for the cover design and layout;
Ms. Milagros S. Ong, Supreme Court Senior Chief Staff Officer,
Library Services of the Supreme Court, for preparing the index;
The following institutions and their representatives, for providing
the research materials and documents necessary in the development of the
helpbook, as well as their participation and inputs in the focus group discussions
and validation workshops:
The Judiciary
Commission on Human Rights
Department of Justice
Philippine National Police
Armed Forces of the Philippines
National Bureau of Investigation
Office of the Ombudsman for the Military
Civil society organizations

The helpbook secretariat, composed of Atty. David L. Ballesteros, Atty.
Ria Corazon Berbano-Ablan, Ms. Joan Marie C. Tejada, and Ms. Charmaine C.
Saltivan, for assisting the writers and editorial consultants in various research
work; ensuring that all discussions in the helpbook meetings, writeshops,
workshops, and focus group discussions are documented; coordinating and
following up all efforts to make sure all deliverables were met;
Mr. Mathew R. Fajardo and Mr. Ruehl A. Aldea, for their technical
assistance in the helpbook writeshops and workshops; and
Mr. Romeo A. Orcullo and Daniel S. Talusig, for assisting the secretariat
in the helpbook meetings as support/service staff.
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances xv

ADB Asian Development Bank DID Death Investigation Division
ADR Alternative dispute resolution DIDM Directorate for Investigation and
AFAD Asian Federation Against Involuntary Detective Management
Disappearances DILG Department of the Interior and Local
AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines Government
AFPHRO Armed Forces of the Philppines Human DND Department of National Defense
Rights Office DOJ Department of Justice
AI Amnesty International DSWD Department of Social Welfare and
AIDSOTF Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operations Development
Task Force ED Enforced disappearance
AMRSP Association of Major Religious EJK Extrajudicial killing
Superiors of the Philippines ELK Extralegal killing
ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Mindanao ESB Efficiency and Separation Board
BCPC Barangay Council for the Protection of FEO Firearms and Explosives Office
Children FIND Families of Victims of Involuntary
BHRAC Barangay Human Rights Action Center Disappearances
CA Court of Appeals GSIS Government Service Insurance System
CAFGU Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit HOJ Hall of Justice
CAR Cordillera Administrative Region HPG Highway Patrol Group
CAT Convention Against Torture HSA Human Security Act
CHR Commission on Human Rights IALAG Inter-Agency Legal Action Group
CHRP Commission on Human Rights of the ICAED International Coalition Against
Philippines Enforced Disappearances
CICL Children in Conflict with the Law ICC International Criminal Court
CIDG Criminal Investigation and Detection ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and
Group Political Rights
CO Commanding officer ICESCR International Covenant on Economic,
CPP Communist Party of the Philippines Social, and Cultural Rights
CSO Civil society organization IDVI TG Interim Disaster Victim Identification
CSI Crime Scene Investigation Task Group
CSP Court security personnel IHL International Humanitarian Law
xvi Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances
IOP Investigator-on-case OTIG Office of the Inspector General
IP Indigenous Peoples PACER Presidential Anti-Crime and
KBP Kapisanan ng Mga Brodkaster ng Emergency Response
Pilipinas PAHRA Philippine Alliance of Human Rights
LEDAC Legislative-Executive Development Advocates
Advisory Council PAO Public Attorney’s Office
LGU Local government unit PCO Police Commissioned Officer
LOI Letter of Instructions PHILJA Philippine Judicial Academy
LSWDO Local social welfare and development PHRC Presidential Human Rights Committee
officer PIA Philippine Information Agency
MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front PJ Presiding judge
MTRCB Movie and Television Review and PNP Philippine National Police
Classification Board PPI Philippine Press Institute
NBI National Bureau of Investigation QRT Quick Response Team; Quick Reaction
NCRPO National Capital Region Police Office Team
NDF National Democratic Front R.A. Republic Act
NGO Nongovernmental organization RPC Revised Penal Code
NHRI National Human Rights Institution RTC Regional Trial Court
NICA National Intelligence Coordinating SAF Special Action Force
Agency SC Supreme Court, also referred to as
NPA New People’s Army “The Court,” “High Court”
NPS National Prosecution Service SITG Special Investigation Task Group
OESPA Office of Ethical Standards and Public SOCO Scene of the Crime Operatives
Accountability TF USIG Task Force Usig
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for TFAPV Task Force Against Political Violence
Human Rights TFDP Task Force Detainees of the Philippines
OMB Office of the Ombudsman TJAG Office of the Judge Advocate General
ONSA Office of the National Security Adviser TPMG Office of the Provost Marshall General
OPA Office of the Political Adviser TWG Technical Working Group
OPAPP Office of the Presidential Adviser on UCAT United Nations Committee Against
the Peace Process Torture
OSCP On-Scene Command Post UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances xvii
Messages vi
Preface xiii
Acknowledgments xiv
Abbreviations xvi
List of Tables xxx
List of Figures xxx
List of Annexes xxx
List of Forms xxx
1 Situationer: Human Rights in the Philippines 1

2 Investigation 19
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE 21
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES 78
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 84
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN 87
3 The Commission on Human Rights 93
4 Prosecution 133
5 Judicial Process 211
6 The Role of Civil Society 273
Bibliography 284
Index 291
Messages vi
Preface xii
Acknowledgments xiv
Abbreviations xvi
List of Tables xxviii
List of Figures xxviii
List of Annexes xxviii
1 Situationer: Human Rights in the Philippines 1
A DARK AND STORMY NIGHT 1

SHAFTS OF LIGHT IN THE DARK 9
A CULTURE OF IMPUNITY 10
THE VOICE OF REASON 15
2 Investigation 19
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE 21

GENERAL FRAMEWORK 21
SPECIFIC MANDATES ON EJK’S AND ED’S 24
PROCESS 26
Specific guidelines on the investigation of ELKs and EDs 26
Specific guidelines on the investigation of crimes of violence 30
Initial response (First responder) 30
Initial investigation 32
Investigator’s checklist 35
Evidence collection, handling, and transportation 33
Supplementary rules of procedure in general 34
Procedure in the investigation of crimes 34
Crime scene processing 35
Protocols in investigation 35
Protocol 1. Jurisdictional investigation by the territorial unit concerned 35
Protocol 2. Official police blotter 35
Protocol 3. Investigation team: Organization and equipment 36
Protocol 4. Duties of the first responder 37
Protocol 5. Duties and responsibilities of the investigating team 38
Protocol 6. Investigation of suspects 38
Protocol 7. Taking of sworn statements of suspects 39
Protocol 8. Taking of sworn statements of witnesses 39
Protocol 9. Preparation of reports and filing of charges 39
Protocol 10. Procedure in the release of crime scene 39
Protocol 11. Follow-up of case 40
Protocol 12. Preparation of Case Investigation Plan 40
Protocol 13. Attendance to court duties 40
Protocol 14. Uniform of the investigator 40
Investigator’s notebook 40
General investigative procedures 41
Upon receipt of a call or walk-in complaints 41
At the crime scene 41
Investigation procedures at the crime scene 42
Recording 43
Searching for evidence 44
Collecting evidence 45
Marking evidence 45
Evaluating evidence 45
Preserving evidence 46
Releasing evidence 46
Chain of custody 46
Transmitting evidence to Crime Laboratory 46
SOCO assistance 47
Release of crime scene 47
Other operational procedures in relation to crime scene response 47
General SOCO procedures 48
Duties of the Territorial Police Unit 48
Crisis management: Processing persons at the crime scene 49
After an armed confrontation 49
Procedure in handling children in conflict with the law (CICL) 50
Procedure in police intervention operations 52
Warning by use of megaphones 52
Warning shots 53
Use of force 53
Issuance of warning 53
Reasonable force 53
Use of weapon 54
Excessive use of force 54
Reportorial requirements 54
Moving vehicles 54
Spot checks/accosting, and pat-down searches 54
Grounds for spot checks/accosting 54
Procedures and guidelines for spot checks/accosting 55
Grounds for body frisk/pat-down search 55
Procedures for pat-down search 56
Reporting after the spot check/accosting or pat-down search 57
Arrest 57
Methods of arrest 57
With warrant of arrest 57
Without warrant of arrest 58
Lawful warrantless arrest 58
How to effect arrest 58
Making the arrest 59
Arrest on the street 59
Arrest at home, office, or business establishment 59
Summoning assistance for arrest 59
Procedures when arrest is made 59
Arrest of minors 60
Detention and bodily search of minor 60
Use of handcuffs and other instruments of restraint of force or restraint 60
What to consider in making an arrest 61
Use of ‘reasonable force’ 61
Arrest of suspects on board a moving vehicle 61
Rights of the accused under custodial investigation 61
Right of attorney to visit person arrested 61
Duties of arresting officer 62
Booking procedure of the arrested person/suspect 62
Medical examination of arrested person/suspect 63
Mug shots and fingerprints 63
Reports on arrested persons 63
Search 63
Definition of a search warrant 63
Requisites for filing an application for search warrant 64
Where to file application for search warrant 64
Other important requirements or features concerning a search warrant 65
Lawful warrantless searches and seizures 66
Seizure 66
Items to be seized 66
Disposition of money and other valuable property 67
Disposition of articles not covered in a search warrant 67
Inquest procedure 67
Inquest prosecutor 68
Commencement and termination of inquest 68
Inquest procedure 68
Monitoring of case 69
Custodial investigation 69
Duties of the police during a custodial investigation of person arrested/detained 70
Detention 71
Admission 71
Requirements for admission 72
Visitation 72
Transfer of custody 73
Release 73
Segregation of detainees 74
Transporting detention prisoner 74
Application of command responsibility in investigation 75
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES 78

PROCESS 80
Steps in the conduct of operations 81
Pre-planned military operations 81
Chance encounter 82
RECOMMENDATIONS 83
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 84

PROCESS 86
RECOMMENDATIONS 86
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN 87

PROCESS 89
Case initiation 90
Case evaluation 90
Investigation proper 90
RECOMMENDATIONS 91
3 The Commission on Human Rights 93
Specific Mandates on ELK’s, TORTURE, and ED’s 96
The Anti-Torture Law (R.A. No. 9745) 97
Secret detention 97
Institutional protection of torture victims 97
Writs of habeas corpus, amparo, and habeas data 98
Assistance in filing a complaint 98
Compensation to victims 98
Rehabilitation program 98
Monitoring compliance 99
Education and information campaign 99
The International Humanitarian Law (R.A. No. 9851) 99
Protection of victims and witnesses 100
Reparations to victims 100
Rule on the writ of amparo 101
Who may file 101
Interim reliefs 101
Temporary protection order 101
Inspection order 102
Production order 102
Witness protection order 103
Human Security Act (R.A. No. 9372) 103
PROCESS 103
Investigation 103
Sources of complaint 105
Preliminary evaluation 105
Dialogue 105
Investigation proper 105
Notice to respondents and victims 107
Investigation report 107
Resolution 108
Evaluation and preparation of resolution 108
Approval and issuance of resolution 109
Notice of resolution 109
Appeal of resolution 109
Resolution of appeal 110
Notice of resolution of appeal 110
Monitoring of status of cases 110
Public inquiry 112
Sidebar: The CHR at work 114
Investigation 114
Public inquiry 115
Resolution 115
Assistance to victims 118
Kinds of assistance 118
Regular financial assistance 118
Special congressional fund 119
Application process 119
Witness protection 120
RECOMMENDATIONS 120
Sidebar: Practical tips for complainants 125
4 Prosecution 133

Domestic law 133
Department of Justice 135
National Prosecution Service 135
The role of the prosecutor 138
Beyond the right not to be killed 139
Public Attorney’s Office 140
Prosecuting killings under the Revised Penal Code and special laws 141
Revised Penal Code 141
Murder and homicide 141
Special laws 142
Torture 142
Crimes against humanity 143
Terrorism 145
Prosecuting abductions or disappearances 145
Revised Penal Code 145
Special laws 147
International law 150
Duty to ‘protect and promote’; duty to ‘investigate, prosecute, and punish’ 150
Extralegal killings 151
Enforced disappearances 153
Discharging the ‘duty to investigate’ 153
UN Human Rights Committee 153
Other international tribunals 158
Standard of an effective investigation 160
UN principles 161
Investigation 161
Objective 161
Power of investigators 162
Independent commission 162
Autopsy 162
Exhumation 162
Autopsy report 163
Protection from violence 163
Rights of the victim’s family 163
Written report 163
Legal proceedings 164
No blanket immunity 164
Compensation 164
Minnesota Protocol 165
Factors triggering a special investigation 165
Command responsibility 165
Rome Statute 165
R.A. No. 9851 166
Executive Order No. 226 167
Specific Mandates on ELK’s and ED’s 168
Administrative Order No. 157 168
DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 4-2010 171
DOJ Department Order No. 848 171
Process 173
Cooperation between police and prosecutor 173
EPJust Findings 173
Cooperation in practice 176
Crime 176
Crime scene 176
Evidence 177
Measures concerning the victim 177
Securing witnesses 177
Measures concerning the suspects 178
Manhunting operations 178
Press and public relations 179
Prosecutor’s urgency ordinance competence 179
File management 179
Preliminary investigation and prosecution 180
Summative checklist 180
Step 1: How do you know that it is an extralegal killing? 180
Step 2: Look at the circumstances of the case 181
Step 3: How do you prove that there has been a human rights violation? 182
Nature of evidence in enforced disappearances 182
Resort to material evidence 184
Istanbul Protocol 185
DNA evidence 186
Establish credentials 186
Establish experience with DNA testing 187
Identify exhibits 187
Explain steps of test 188
Tie the steps to description by the independent expert 188
Explain quality control 188
Step 4: What do you do about it? 189
Remedies that expressly recognize human rights violations 190
Remedies that indirectly recognize human rights violations 191
Step 5: Is there a way forward? 191
Make human rights violations akin to aggravating circumstances 191
The fact that human rights violations have been committed should be reflected in
the information 192
Resort may be made to the principles of public international law 192
Field investigation of ELKs and EDs 195
Inquest proceedings 195
Commencement of inquest proceedings 196
Murder, homicide and parricide 196
Frustrated or attempted homicide, murder, parricide, and physical injuries 196
Inquest proper 197
Presence of inquest prosecutor at the crime scene 197
Recommendations 199
Alston preliminary report 199
Alston final report 199
Poor cooperation between police and prosecutors impedes the effective gathering of evidence 199
The witness protection program is inadequate 200
Limited forensic resources lead to over-reliance on witness testimony 201
The Ombudsman lacks independence 201
Melo Commission report 202
Political will 202
Investigation 203
Prosecution 204
Protection of witnesses 205
Special law for strict chain-of-command responsibility 205
Enhancement of investigative capabilities of the PNP and NBI 206
Proper orientation and training of security forces 206
PhilJA Department of International Law and Human Rights 207
DOJ and the NBI 208
5 Judicial Process 211
General Framework: Institutional Mandate 212

Constitution 213
Bill of Rights 213
Right to life 213
Right to security 214
Judiciary 215
Rule-making power 215
International law 215
International norms on judiciary 215
Role of courts in ELK and ED cases 216
International jurisprudence 217
Secret nature of enforced disappearances 217
Duty to investigate 218
Specific Mandate on ELK’S AND ED’S 218
Summit conclusions and recommendations 219
Recommendations 219
Overview of new rules 219
Writ of amparo 219
History 220
Distinguished from habeas corpus 221
Writ of habeas data 222
Habeas data 223
Who may file 223
Where to file 223
Where returnable; enforceable 223
Docket fees 224
Petition 224
Issuance of the writ 225
Penalty for refusing to issue or serve the writ 225
How the writ is served 225
Return; contents 225
Contempt 226
When defenses may be heard in chambers 226
Prohibited pleadings and motions 226
Return; filing 227
Summary hearing 227
Judgment 227
Return of service 227
Hearing on officer’s return 228
Appeal 228
Institution of separate actions 228
Consolidation 228
Effect of filing of a criminal action 228
Substantive rights 229
Suppletory application of the rules of court 229
Effectivity 229
PROCESS 229
Steps in handling ELK and ED cases 230
Preliminary matters 230
Search warrant 230
Problem area 231
Warrants of arrest 231
Problem area 231
Initial stage: Filing of petition for issuance of a writ of amparo 232
Nature of petition 232
Petition 232
Applicant 232
Who may file 232
Venue 233
Choice of venue 233
Where to file 233
No docket fees 233
Contents of petition 234
Contents of Petition 234
Problem areas 234
Characterization of acts 234
Elements 234
Context or complexion 235
Determining sufficiency of form and substance of application 236
Applicant’s personality 236
Contents of petition 236
Process of issuance of the writ 236
Issuance 236
Issuance of the writ 236
Penalty for refusing to issue or serve the writ 237
How the writ is served 237
Return; contents 237
Defenses not pleaded deemed waived 238
Prohibited pleadings and motions 238
Problem areas 239
Identification of respondents 239
No return 239
Presidential immunity 239
Scope 239
R.A. No. 9851 240
Command responsibility 241
Superiors 241
R.A. No. 9851 244
Hearing 245
Ex parte 245
Effect of failure to file return 245
Summary nature 245
Summary hearing 245
Problem areas 245
Practical considerations 245
Application for interim reliefs 248
Interim reliefs 248
Witness protection 250
Relief by respondent 250
Availability of interim reliefs to respondent 250
Contempt 251
Contempt 251
Problem areas 251
Understanding the concerns of the victims’ families 251
Confidentiality and national security 252
Executive privilege 252
Inadequate protection: Use of safe havens or sanctuaries 253
Evidentiary matters 253
Burden of proof 253
Burden of proof and standard of diligence required 253
Judgment 254
Problem areas 254
Judgment and appeal 255
Form and content 255
Judgment 255
Appeal 256
Appeal 256
Archiving 256
Archiving and revival of cases 256
Problem area 256
Separate actions: Criminal, civil, or administrative 257
Consolidation rules (criminal/civil) 257
Institution of separate actions 257
Effect of filing of a criminal action 257
Consolidation 258
Nondiminution of substantive rights 258
Substantive rights 258
Suppletory application of the rules of court 258
Applicability to pending cases 258
CONCLUSION 258
6 The Role of Civil Society 273
CIVIL SOCIETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 274

Amparo Rule 275
CIVIL SOCIETY IN ACTION 276
Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances 276
How to file a complaint 276
Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearances 277
Assistance to victims or their families 278
Karapatan 279
Services program 280
How to get witness protection 280
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates 281
Task Force Detainees of the Philippines 281
RECOMMENDATIONS 282
Bibliography 284
Index 291
Tables
1.1 Victims of Extralegal Killings, January 21, 2001 to June 30, 2010 (by year) 3
1.2 Victims of Enforced Disappearances, January 21, 2001 to June 30, 2010 (by year) 4
1.3 Victims of Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances, January 21, 2001 to June 30, 2010 (by sector) 6
1.4 Victims of Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances, January 21, 2001 to June 30, 2010 (by region) 8
1.5 Victims of Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances, July to October 2010 (by sector/special group) 15
1.6 Victims of Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances, July to October 2010 (by organization) 16
4.1 Comparison of Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code and R.A. Nos. 9372, 9745, and 9851 148
Figures
1.1 Victims of Extralegal Killings, 2001-2006 2

1.2 Victims of Enforced Disappearances, 2001-2006 3
2.1 PNP Organizational Structure 22
2.2 Crime Scene Investigation 25
3.1 Basic Steps in CHR Investigations 104
3.2 Steps in a Public Inquiry 111
4.1 DOJ Organizational Structure 134
4.2 Inquest Proceedings 198
4.3 From Investigation to Prosecution 209
Annexes
5.1 Media and the Courts 259

5.2 Personal Security of Judges 268
Forms (in CD)
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

1. Barangay Human Rights Action Center Complaint Form
2. CHR Complaint Form (Form 9)
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

Basic investigation forms
1. After Operation Report
2. Final Report
3. Progress Report
4. Spot Report
Forensic request formats

1. Sample Request Form for Chemistry Examination (Paraffin Test)
2. Sample Request Form for Chemistry Examination (Trajectory)
3. Sample Request Form for Chemistry Examination (Ultra-violet)
4. Sample Request Form for Fingerprint Examination
5. Sample Request Form for Firearms Identification (Ballistic)
6. Sample Request Form for Firearms Identification (Cross-Matching)
7. Sample Request Form for Medico-Legal Examination (Autopsy)
8. Sample Request Form for Medico-Legal Examination (Blood Sample)
9. Sample Request Form for Medico-Legal Examination (Physical - Medical)
10. Sample Request Form for Polygraph Examination
11. Sample Request Form for Questioned Documents Examination
12. Sample Request Form for the Conduct of SOCO
Investigation formats
1. Advance Information
2. After Hearing - Promulgation Report
3. Alarm (Missing Person)
4. Another Format of Case Referral
5. Booking and Arrest Report
6. Case Folder Guide
7. Case Referrals (Regular Filing and Inquest)
8. Certification of Orderly Search
9. Complaint Sheet (Other Crimes)
10. Compliance - Return of Search Warrants
11. Coordination Report
12. Crime Report
13. Detainees Report
14. Evidence Custodian Report
15. Investigation Report
16. Receipt - Inventory of Property Seized
17. Sworn Statement (Narrative)
18. Sworn Statement (Question and Answer)
19. Turn-over of Crime Scene Formats (First Responder to Investigator)
20. Turn-over of Crime Scene Formats (Investigator to SOCO)
Legal forms
1. Affidavit of Arresting Officers
2. Affidavit of Complainant
3. Affidavit of Witnesses
4. Application for Search Warrant
5. Complaint
6. Deposition of Witness
Situationer: 1
Human Rights
in the Philippines
Dean Pacifico A. Agabin
A Dark and Stormy Night
A
scan of the horizon of human rights in the Philippines over
the past decade shows a dark landscape brightened only by a
few shafts of light at infrequent intervals. By sheer coincidence,
the period begins in 2001, the start of the age of terror. After
September 11 of that year, the world, including the Philippines, has never
been the same again.
“None of us will ever forget this day,” intoned United States President
George W. Bush as he launched the war on terror.
Then Philippine President Gloria M. Arroyo echoed Bush’s war cry
and heartily joined the coalition of the willing. At about the same time,
Arroyo, as commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), embarked on her domestic version to wipe out insurgents and
terrorists in the country: “Operation Bantay Laya.”
The military and the police were given up to 2010, the year Arroyo was
to bow out of office, to wipe out all insurgencies. To the AFP fell the task of
“establishing a physically and psychologically secure environment conducive
to national development” through its internal security operations focused
on preventing armed groups from using force against the people. Gen.
Hermogenes Esperon, Jr., the Armed Forces’ 37th Chief of Staff, identified
the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), National Democratic
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances 1

Front (NDF), and the New People’s Army (NPA) as the primary security
1 threat to the country, saying they employ deceptive parliamentary means

and use of force to overthrow the government.
It is an iron law of human behavior, however, that terror breeds counter-
terror, and violence breeds counter-violence, leading to a vicious cycle that
devours not only its own children but also bystanders and innocent civilians.
The first victim of any war is human rights.
Reports rendered to the National Consultative Summit on
Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances convened in July 2007
by the Supreme Court showed a steady rise in extralegal killings from 2001
to 2006 that alarmed the high tribunal.1
Figure 1.1 Victims of Extralegal Killings, 2001-2006
n Karapatan n CHR n Task Force Usig
2000 2002 2004 2006

Source: Commission on Human Rights, PNP-Task Force Usig, and Karapatan
There was a similar rise in enforced disappearances.2

The statistics hardly improved after 2006. By June 30, 2010, when
Arroyo’s term ended, the number of victims of extralegal killings since she
1 Supreme Court. Information Office. 2008. A Conspiracy of Hope: Report on the National
Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances, 1.
2 Supreme Court. Information Office. 2008, 2.
2 Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

Figure 1.2 Victims of Enforced Disappearances, 2001-2006
n Karapatan n CHR
11
31
56
93
1
8
7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: CHR and Karapatan
assumed the presidency on January 21, 2001 had reached 1,206,3 according
to Karapatan, an alliance of organizations that advance human rights.
Table 1.1 Victims of Extralegal Killings,

January 21, 2001 to June 30, 2010 (by year)
Year Total Organized Women
2001 100 35 11
2002 124 45 14
2003 130 34 14
2004 85 45 11
2005 194 101 14
2006 235 116 25
2007 100 39 14
2008 90 22 18
2009 130 33 32
Jan-June 2010 18 5 0
TOTAL 1,206 475 153
Source: Karapatan
3 Karapatan. 2010. 2010 Year-End Report on the Human Rights Situation in the
Philippines, 16.

1 Table 1.2 Victims of Enforced Disappearances,
January 21, 2001 to June 30, 2010 (by year)
Year Total Organized Women
2001 8 1 1
2002 10 3 2
2003 11 2 1
2004 23 10 5
2005 32 6 0
2006 78 25 15
2007 30 14 5
2008 9 5 1
2009 4 4 1
Jan-June 2010 1 0 0
TOTAL 206 68 31
As well, enforced disappearances over the same period had risen to

206. 4
While the recent figures have yet to be validated by the Commission
on Human Rights (CHR) and the Philippine National Police (PNP),
even a fraction of these would be alarming enough to raise the concern of
governments and human rights groups. Indeed, it has caught the attention
of the US government and Amnesty International.
In its 2010 human rights report on the Philippines, the US State Department,
through its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, said:
Arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings by elements of the

security services and political killings, including killings of journalists,
4 Karapatan. 2010, 17.

by a variety of actors continued to be major problems. Concerns about
impunity persisted. Members of the security services committed acts of
physical and psychological abuse on suspects and detainees, and there
were instances of torture. Prisoners awaiting trial and those already
convicted were often held under primitive conditions. Disappearances
occurred, and arbitrary or warrantless arrests and detentions were
common. Trials were delayed, and procedures were prolonged. Corruption
1
was endemic. Leftist and human rights activists often were subject to
harassment by local security forces. Problems such as violence against women,
abuse of children, child prostitution, trafficking in persons, child labor, and
ineffective enforcement of worker rights were common.
Amnesty International summarized the human rights situation in the

Philippines in 2009 thus:
Renewed armed conflict displaced more than 610,000 and killed

over 100 civilians in Southern Philippines. Peace talks between
the government and various armed groups stalled. The majority of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances remained unsolved. A
culture of impunity continued to encourage vigilante killings. Indigenous
Peoples (IPs) continued to struggle for land rights as the government
failed to comply with its obligation to obtain IPs’ free, prior, and
informed consent to development plans in their traditional territories.
Cruel, inhuman, and degrading conditions of detention persisted, and
under-18s experienced abuse in juvenile detention centres.
In April that year, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on

Extrajudicial Killings declared, “[These] killings, [which] have eliminated
civil society leaders, including human rights defenders, trade unionists, and
land reform advocates, intimidated a vast number of civil society actors, and
narrowed the country’s political discourse.”5
The following year, Amnesty International, after visiting the
Philippines from March to May and in December found that:
5 Amnesty International. 2009. 2009 Annual Report for the Philippines, 2.

1 Table 1.3 Victims of Extralegal Killings and Enforced
Disappearances, January 21, 2001 to June 30, 2010 (by sector)
SECTOR
Peasants
Moro
EJK
580
111
ED
131
9
Indigenous people 89 5
Workers 66 15
Children 77 4
Unborn 12 0
Urban poor 50 7
Church 27 1
Youth and
27 9
students
Fisherfolk 23 3
Human rights
24 2
workers
Government
25 1
employees
Entrepreneurs 23 10
Teachers 10 0
Health workers 4 0
Media 36 1
Lawyers 7 0
Others 8 5
Unclassified 7 3
TOTAL 1,206 206
Organized 475 68
Women 153 31
Source: Karapatan

With 2010 as the self-imposed deadline by the government to “crush”
the communist insurgency, the military failed to differentiate between
New People’s Army (NPA) fighters and civilian activists and human
rights defenders in rural areas, resulting in displacement and unlawful
killings. The military subjected civilians to secret detention, torture, and
other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Both sides carried out
politically motivated killings and enforced disappearances. A culture of
1
impunity continued as almost no perpetrators were brought to justice. In
July, the government began actively pursuing the resumption of formal
peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front (NDF) and the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

Hundreds of thousands remained displaced. Indigenous Peoples living
in remote areas throughout the country, and the Moros (Philippine
Muslims) in Mindanao were particularly affected. Privately armed
militias and death squads carried out unlawful killings. Indigenous
Peoples suffered both as a result of the conflict and from forced evictions
from their lands in the interest of extraction industries.
The UN Special Rapporteur followed up his report on the Philippines,

saying the government had not implemented reforms to ensure command
responsibility for human rights violations. He noted that impunity for
unlawful killings remained widespread and witness protection inadequate.
The UN Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) likewise expressed concern
about the “numerous, ongoing, credible, and constant allegations…of routine and
widespread use of torture and ill-treatment of suspects in police custody, especially
to extract confessions” and that “those committed by law enforcement and military
services personnel were seldom investigated or prosecuted.”6
As documented by Karapatan, certain sectors of society seem to have
been victimized by extralegal killings and enforced disappearances more
than others.
And the practices are much more prevalent in some regions than in others.
6 Amnesty International. 2010. 2010 AI Visits/Reports on the Philippines, 261.

Disappearances, January 21, 2001 to June 30, 2010 (by region)
CAR
REGION
Cagayan Valley
Ilocos
EJK
35
30
7
ED
2
4
2
Central Luzon 154 66
Southern Tagalog 179 30
Bicol 199 10
NCR 41 6
Eastern Visayas 126 27
Central Visayas 28 4
Western Visayas 32 6
Northern
33 2
Mindanao
Caraga 35 11
Socskargen 27 5
Western Mindanao 29 10
Southern
106 13
Mindanao
ARMM 145 8
TOTAL 1,206 206
Organized 475 68
Women 153 31
Source: Karapatan

The problem had reached alarming proportions that the UN sent in
2006 its Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, Philip Alston, to
the Philippines to investigate. That same year, Arroyo created a presidential
commission headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo to probe
the rash of killings and abductions.
The Melo Commission investigated 136 instances of killings and
disappearances reported by Task Force Usig, which the PNP had formed
to handle the murders of activists and journalists. Its findings: All the
victims were generally unarmed and gunned down by two or more masked
or hooded assailants, oftentimes riding in motorcycles. The assailants
usually surprised the victims in public places or at their homes and made
quick getaways. The ambushes were carried out by professional killers who
quietly escaped with impunity.
Truly, as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen

observes, “Ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole
causes of public misfortunes and governmental corruption.”
Shafts of Light in the Dark 1

T
he bleak and forlorn landscape of human rights in the
Philippines has been illuminated partly by the Supreme
Court in 2007. Shocked and outraged by the rising tide of
extralegal killings and enforced abductions committed
against political activists and journalists, the Court, after conducting the
summit on the issues, promulgated the rule on the writ of amparo that took
effect in October 2007.
Designed to complement the writ of habeas corpus, the writ of amparo
protects the life, liberty, and security of persons by empowering courts to issue
protective orders for victims of threatened or consummated abductions and
kidnappings; authorize the production and inspection of records, documents,
and even premises of military or police headquarters, safehouses, and
equipment; and place witnesses under a witness protection plan.
The following year, the high tribunal approved the rule on habeas data,
which empowers the courts to compel government and military officials to
allow access to official documents by invoking “the right to truth.”
The other shaft of light was the general election of 2010, which was
generally peaceful and orderly, and enabled some 40 million voters to freely
cast their ballots. A popular candidate, Benigno Aquino III, resoundingly
won the presidency in the first national automated electoral system.
The implications of Aquino’s clear victory at the polls on the problem of
human rights in the Philippines should not be glossed over.
First, his administration is not beholden to the military for its survival.
So unlike that of his predecessor, Arroyo, who always needed military support
during her nine-year term as she suffered from lingering doubts about her
legitimacy—and the officers knew this. In fact, a number of junior officers and
even generals attempted to mount a coup to topple it. An administration that is
overly dependent on the military to maintain political stability is bound to close
its eyes to human rights abuses committed by the military.
Second, Aquino himself is determined not only to disavow the policy

of using terror to counter terror, but also to bring perpetrators of extralegal
1 killings and enforced disappearances to the bar of justice. In his inaugural

speech, he spelled out his policy: “There can be no reconciliation without
justice. When we allow crimes to go unpunished, we give consent to their
occurring over and over again.”
The newly elected president would have no truck with the killers.
“Cases of extrajudicial killings need to be solved; not just to identify the
perpetrators but have them captured and sent to jail,” he told a group of
foreign ambassadors and international observers.
A Culture of Impunity
B
rave fighting words. Aquino must have underestimated the
problems in bringing the culprits to justice.
The PNP identified these problems in tracking down
killers:
q Reluctance of the victim’s family and witnesses to cooperate in the

investigation for fear of reprisal
q Limited coverage, facilities, and resources of the government’s witness
protection program
q Limited investigation facilities and resources of the police
q Lack of appropriate training for first responders, crime scene investigators,
forensic investigators, case profilers, and cold case investigators
q Lack of funds to support the reward system on high-profile cases
q Failure of personnel to observe the basic procedures, rules of
engagement, and provisions of law
q Problems of security in responding to remote and insurgency-affected areas
q Absence of a centralized database on ballistics, missing persons, and
recovered unidentified cadavers
q Absence of a centralized database on case monitoring
q Lack of motivation and incentives for forensic specialists to include
investigators in the field
q Short reglementary period for custodial investigation, leading to
dismissal of cases because of resultant sloppy investigation

Even before the Supreme Court’s 2007 summit, Alston had isolated the
problems the justice system faced in the matter of extralegal killings. On the
timidity and vulnerability of witnesses, the UN Special Rapporteur decried:
The vital flow which undermines the utility of much of the judicial system
is the problem of witness vulnerability. The present message is that if you
1
want to preserve your life expectancy, don’t act as a witness in a criminal
prosecution for the killing. Witnesses are systematically intimidated 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.
Observing the inefficacy of the witness protection program, he said:
Implementation of the statute establishing the witness protection program

is deeply flawed. It would seem to be truly effective in only a very limited
number of cases. The rights and benefits mandated by law are too narrowly
interpreted in practice to make participation possible for some witnesses.
Another widely cited shortcoming, likely caused by inadequate resources,

is that at-risk family members are not admitted into the program,
although in theory “any member of his family within the second civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity” who is at risk may be admitted.
A more fundamental problem is that, even when a witness is available,
cases seldom move quickly through the justice system.
When a case fails to prosper, the witness is expelled from the program,
although he or she may still be at risk.
He also noted the lack of scientific facilities as well as the lackadaisical

attitude of the police:
There are a few strong forensic facilities in the country. And even more
disappointing is the extent to which the police do not go further to
apply forensic mechanisms which might actually yield those significant

information relating to the killers. Instead of doing serious forensic tests and
1
investigations, they rely on witnesses. They need to find someone who saw it
and when that person is called to defend that person that was killed, witness
disappears. That in fact is very convenient for the conclusion of the police.
Alston also bewailed the reluctance of the police to investigate soldiers:
Police (are) reluctant to investigate the military. No one I spoke

with questioned the PNP’s authority and duty to investigate crimes
allegedly committed by the AFP. However, in practice, it does so in
only a perfunctory manner. Plausible explanations for this reticence
include fear, a tacit understanding that crimes by the AFP should
not be investigated, the personal bonds felt among senior AFP and
PNP officers, and the solidarity fostered by current cooperation in
counterinsurgency operations.
The UN Special Rapporteur underscored the lack of cooperation

between the police and prosecutors:
The current system so discourages cooperation between prosecutors and

police that each is tempted to simply blame the other in failing to achieve
convictions. Prosecutors rather than judges make the determination
whether the evidence provides probable cause for the charges to be
brought. During this preliminary hearing, prosecutors are expected to
show absolute impartiality. Prosecutors thus perceive themselves unable
to guide the police with respect to the theory and physical evidence
that must be obtained to make a case. Then when prosecutors find the
evidence presented by the parties in the preliminary hearing insufficient,
they seldom provide a reasoned explanation for that insufficiency for fear
of appearing biased. Police thus lack expert guidance in building cases.
He then suggested how the Supreme Court can make prosecutors

more “proactive”:
While this problem is deeply embedded in the culture of the criminal

justice system, changes in the role of the prosecutor could be affected

by revising the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which are promulgated
by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should use this power to
require prosecutors to provide reasoned decisions for probable cause
determinations and to insist that prosecutors take a more proactive role
in ensuring the proper investigation of criminal cases.
It should be stressed that the culture of impunity has been nurtured

1
by the past administrations with respect to extralegal killings involving
perceived “communists,” “insurgents,” or “enemies of the state.”
The public has been conditioned into thinking that such killings are
tolerable, if not righteous, because the enemy has been identified to be the
CPP-NPA, which has been demonized as inhuman and evil, said Prof.
Cristina Montiel of the Psychology Department of the Ateneo de Manila
University. This is done by political labeling, like the military calling the
CPP-NPA “enemies of the state.”
The problem lies in the failure of the government’s counter-insurgency
policy to distinguish between the NPA fighters and the activists in legitimate
organizations. In addition, the authoritarian culture in the military and the
rule of obedience to superiors lend itself to the culture of impunity.
The problems faced by the police and the prosecutors point toward
denial of justice insofar as cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances are concerned.
According to Amnesty International, out of the hundreds of cases
reported in previous years, only two were resolved as of 2009, and no high-
ranking officials were prosecuted. In the same vein, the CHR and human
rights groups noted little progress in implementing and enforcing some
reforms aimed at decreasing the incidence of killings.
The US State Department’s 2010 report bemoaned that there were no
developments in the earlier disappearance cases during the year. It observed
that investigative and judicial inaction on these cases contributed to the climate
of impunity and undermined public confidence in the justice system.7
Figures presented by Task Force Usig’s Police Senior Inspector
Edmund Bayle to a Philippine Judicial Academy workshop on extralegal
7 US State Department. Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor. 2011. 2010
Human Rights Report: Philippines, 4.

killings and enforced disappearances in Cagayan de Oro confirm just how
1 slow cases were being disposed. As of July 2009, out of the 154 cases being
handled by the task force involving 119 party-list militants and 35 media
practitioners, 93 cases were filed, 60 cases were under investigation, and
only one was closed.
The problems run up to the level of the judiciary. In the same workshop,
Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando of the Court of Appeals enumerated
problems her division encountered in two disappearance cases:

q Assertion by respondent officers of governmental or military privilege,
under which documents claimed to be “highly classified,” “confidential,”
or “top secret” can be withheld or suppressed. This almost always stops
the proceedings on its tracks.
q Adherence of the military and the police to the doctrine of chain of
command. This hampers the attendance in court of witnesses from these
institutions who reason that their testimony might break the chain of
command. Junior officers subpoenaed to produce documents and reports
in their possession are reluctant or hesitant to produce these because prior
authority of their superiors is needed.
q Natural reticence of witnesses to testify, prompted by their instinct of
self-preservation
q The tendency of media to sensationalize cases, resulting in slanted or
inaccurate reports
q Security problems of judges, court personnel, and witnesses
q Pressure on judges and justices not only from the public but also from
court-imposed deadlines
q High expectations of the court by the parties—and the public—when
petitions for habeas corpus or amparo are filed

THE VOICE OF REASON
I
n light of these problems, the investigation, prosecution, and
conviction of extralegal killings and enforced disappearance cases
bear a dismal record. As the chapter on Judicial Process points out,
of 286 incidents reported from 2000 to 2010, only 169 were turned
1
over for prosecution by the police. Of these, only 101 cases were filed by the
prosecutors in court. As of 2010, only one case had resulted in a conviction.
Some of the cases are still pending as of 2011.
Undeniably, the problem of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances cannot be solved immediately. Even in the liberal regime
of Aquino, these practices go on, albeit at a diminished rate. Karapatan’s
figures show 20 victims of extralegal killings and 206 victims of enforced
disappearances for the period from July 2010, when Aquino took his oath
of office, to October 2010 alone.
Table 1.5 Victims of Extralegal Killings and Enforced

Disappearances, July to October 2010 (by sector/special group)
SECTOR EJK ED
Peasant 14 2
Indigenous people 3 0
Local government unit 2 0
Youth and students 1 0
TOTAL 20 206
Organized 13 0
Women 3 0
Source: Karapatan

Disappearances, July to October 2010 (by organization)
ORGANIZATION
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas
Katribu
EJK
7
3
ED
0
0
Bayan Muna 3 0
Youth and students 1 0
TOTAL 130 0
Women 3 0
Source: Karapatan
The international NGO Human Rights Watch also noted that since
President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino took office on June 30, 2010, leftist
activists have been killed in addition to at least two journalists in the course
of their work. At least four men have been forcibly disappeared. 8 Human
Rights Watch has implicated the military in several of those abuses.
As early as 1990, the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances
suggested the following remedial measures to resolve the problem:
q Disband the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Units or CAFGUs,

or at least restrict their deployment to the defensive action under the
supervision of the Army in which strict discipline should be enforced. This
was recommended also by the International Labor Organization, Peace
Commission, Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and various
NGOs.
q Prosecute those responsible for disappearances and take severe
disciplinary measures against officers who have failed to enforce adequate
measures to prevent disappearances.
q Fight actively against the practices of “red labeling”
q Establish regional and central registers of arrest to facilitate the search
for missing persons
q Introduce legislation to narrow powers of arrest by strictly
circumscribing which category of public officials may arrest civilians for
8 Jessica Evans, “True Friends,” Philippine Daily Inquirer (April 24, 2011): 14.

which offences, in case the Supreme Court had no immediate occasion to
review its rulings on warrantless arrests
q Introduce legislation that should provide for civil action against
military and police personnel for all offenses involving civilians
q Initiate a thorough overhaul of both the law and practice of habeas
corpus
q Protect witnesses
1
If we listen to the voice of reason and adopt at least half of the proposed
solutions, we will perhaps see the dawn, as the former Chief Justice Reynato
Puno saw it when he said:
We have seen the darkness, and we are slowly easing into the light.
Together, let us work to drive away the pall of darkness cast over our
human rights by extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Sooner
or later, our work will bear its fruits, for, of all kinds of rights, human
rights are beyond murder. Let us, therefore, be buoyed by the thought
that there is no way to lose the battle for human rights. For we know
that they who have attempted to bury human rights, all ended up in the
graveyard instead. That is not a prophecy; that is history.9
There is light at the far end of the tunnel. Recently, the CHR, acting
on the resolution of the Supreme Court in the case of the abduction of
agriculturist Jonas Burgos,10 conducted a thorough investigation of his
mysterious disappearance. Investigators were able to pinpoint a military
officer who could shed light on the circumstances behind Burgos’ abduction.
More recently, the Morong 43 medical workers, who were earlier arrested
by the military for alleged subversive activities, were ordered freed by
President Aquino.
9 Puno, Reynato. 2008. “The Task is Not Yet Done.” Keynote address, Multi-Sectoral and
Skills-Building Seminar-Workshop on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced
Disappearances for the Second Judicial Region, Baguio City, April 3.
10 Edita Burgos v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo et al., G.R. Nos. 183711 and 183712 (June 22,
2010).

Investigation 2
Carlos P. Medina, Jr.1
W
hen an extralegal killing, enforced disappearance, or
any criminal act is committed, the process of seeking
a remedy by the victim or his or her family through
the justice system begins with an investigation by law
enforcement authorities.
Investigation ordinarily means a systematic examination of something.
The Philippine National Police’s Criminal Investigation Manual defines
investigation as “the collection of facts to accomplish a threefold aim: (a) to
identify the suspect; (b) to locate the suspect; and (c) to provide evidence of
his guilt.” The manual further provides that the investigator must seek to
establish the 5Ws and 1H:
q What crime has been committed

q How it was committed
q By whom
q Where
q When
q Why
1 The writer wishes to acknowledge the following members of the Ateneo Human Rights
Center who contributed significantly in the research and writing of this chapter: Atty. Ma. Krizna
S. Gomez (Program Coordinator, MSQRT on ELKs and EDs) and her Program Assistant,
Anna Carillo; and Interns Michelle Marie Villarica, Klarise Anne Estorninos, Roberto
Mabagos, Jr., John Paul dela Passion, Abrame-Lionel Gamaliel Olympia, Jason Mendoza, and
Oscar Carlo Cajucom.
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced DISAPPEARANCES 19

2
An ELK or ED case may be investigated by any or all of the following
government agencies for civil, criminal, or administrative purposes:
q Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

q Philippine National Police (PNP)
q Department of Justice (DOJ)
q National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
q Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
q Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)
The CHR is the primary government institution for the promotion and
protection of human rights. One of its primary functions is to investigate
all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights,
including ELKs and EDs. The powers and functions of the commission are
extensively discussed in another chapter.
The DOJ, as the principal law agency of the government, administers
the criminal justice system, and this includes the investigation and
prosecution of crimes. Investigation is carried out by two of its constituent
units—the National Prosecution Service (NPS) and the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI). The work of the NBI is taken up in this chapter. The
work of the NPS is discussed in the chapter on Prosecution.
Hence, this chapter focuses on the investigation procedures of the
PNP, NBI, AFP, and the Ombusman.
The bulk of this chapter is on the PNP, the government’s primary law
enforcement agency. As a general rule, all crimes, including ELKs and EDs,
are investigated by the police as the first responder.
The other agencies have lesser roles in investigating ELKs and EDs. The
NBI as an investigatory body usually gets involved in high-profile case or
as directed by higher authorities. The Ombudsman’s powers and functions
may cover the investigation of ELKs and EDs, but its focus is largely on
graft and corruption cases. The AFP may also investigate ELKs and EDs,
but it is limited to inquiring into the involvement of military personnel for
disciplinary purposes.
In investigating ELKs and EDs, various government agencies work
together through a special interagency unit called the Task Force Against
20 Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced DISAPPEARANCES

Political Violence (TFAPV). The task force was set up in 2007 through
2
Administrative Order No. 211 to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and
punish ELKs and EDs in the country. It is composed of the Department
of Justice (DOJ), Department of National Defense (DND), Department
of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Office of the National
Security Adviser (ONSA), Office of the Political Adviser (OPA), Office
of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), Presidential
Human Rights Committee (PHRC), and the Philippine Information
Agency (PIA).
Philippine National Police

GENERAL FRAMEWORK
T
he PNP2 is mandated to:

q Enforce the law.
q Maintain peace and order.
q Prevent and investigate crimes and bring offenders to justice.
q Detain an arrested person for a period not beyond what is prescribed
by law.
q Implement pertinent laws and regulations on firearms and explosives
control.
q Supervise and control the training and operations of security agencies.
Various units of the PNP, both at national and regional levels, are
involved in carrying out its function to investigate crimes in general (Figure
2.1). These units include the following:
2 The following publications of the PNP were used as primary reference materials for this
section: Know Your Rights: A Citizen’s Primer on Law Enforcement (2008), PNP Operational
Procedures (March 2010), PNP Criminal Investigation Manual (2010), PNP Human Rights
Desk Operations Manual (2010), and PNP Field Manual on Investigation of Crimes of Violence
and Other Crimes (2011).

2
22
Figure 2.1 PNP Organizational Structure
Chief, PNP
Internal Affairs
Service
PNP Human Rights Program Deputy Chief, PNP Deputy Chief, PNP
Affairs Office Management Office for Administration for Operations
The Chief of the

Directorial Staff
Directorial staff
Directorate Directorate Directorate Directorate for Directorate for

Directorate Directorate Directorate Directorate Directorate Investigation Directorate for Information &
for Personnel & for Integrated for Police-Community Research and
Records Management for Intelligence for Operations Police Operations for Logistics for Plans for Comptrollership Relations & Detective Development Communications
Management Tech Mgmt
administrative support units operational support units
Information Finance Health Communications Police Security Criminal

Logistics Support Technology Mgmt and Electronic Maritime Intelligence and Protection Investigation and Special Action
Service Service Service Service Group Group Detection Group Force
Service Group
Headquarters Engineering Training Aviation Highway Patrol Police-Community Civil Security Crime
Chaplain Legal Support Service Service Service Security Group Group Relations Group Group Laboratory
Service Service
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGIONAL POLICE OFFICE Police Regional Office 1-3, 5-13, ARMM, CAR, CALABARZON, MIMAROPA
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced DISAPPEARANCES

Regional Public 5 District Offices Provincial Police Offices City Police Offices
Safety Mgmt Regional Public Regional Public
Battalion Safety Mgmt Safety Mgmt
Battalion Battalion
Police Stations Municipal/Component CPO Police Stations
City Police Stations
City Public Safety
Sub-stations Precincts Mgmt Company
q The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) is the
2
investigative arm of the PNP that normally handles high-profile cases.
q Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) units process the crime scene
for possible recovery of vital evidence.
q Police precincts are limited to the investigation of crimes within their
areas of operation.
q Police regional offices are limited to the investigation of crimes within
the police districts in their region.
DOJ prosecutors participate in police investigations. They guide police

investigators on the legality of steps taken through the different phases of
investigation. Where possible, investigators coordinate with prosecutors
before going to the crime scene and exchange views with prosecutors during
the investigation.
The PNP also generally seeks to involve civil society through various
programs where citizens can help in police investigations. These include
PNP-TXT 2920 and I-TEXT MO KAY TSIP, in which any person with
a mobile phone can text complaints or police-related information. These
allow the public to reach not only PNP commanders at all levels but also the
PNP chief.
The PNP has a Human Rights Affairs Office (HRAO) responsible
for ensuring the implementation of human rights policies and guidelines
of the PNP. The HRAO coordinates, monitors, and reports human rights
concerns through human rights desks with human rights officers in all
PNP offices or stations at the municipal, city, provincial, regional, and
national levels of command. However, the HRAO and human rights desks
do not investigate cases involving human rights violations. They simply
“receive and consolidate reports/complaints” and facilitate their referral to
the appropriate investigating agencies.

Specific Mandates
2 on ELK’s and ED’s
I
n response to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the
PNP issued a letter of instructions (LOI) on Task Force Usig (TF
Usig) to coordinate the investigation, prosecution, and monitoring
of ELKs and EDs by various police units. The LOI describes the
task force’s mission: “To investigate incidents of slain militant partylist
members/leftist activists and media practitioners3 who were killed due to
work-related circumstances or by reasons of victim’s political or ideological
inclinations or related thereto for the early resolution of cases.”
Task Force Usig is under the supervision of the Directorate for
Investigation and Detective Management (DIDM) and is composed of the
following PNP units: Directorate for Intelligence, Directorate for Police
Community Relation, Directorate for Operation, Intelligence Group,
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, Police Community Relation
Group, Legal Service, and Crime Laboratory.
More specifically, in the investigation and prosecution of cases of
political and media killings or violence, the DOJ Secretary issued in 2010
Memorandum Circular No. 4 directing the coordination and cooperation
between prosecutors and local law enforcement agencies as a standard
operating procedure. This issuance clearly makes it the duty of prosecutors
to work with the PNP in investigating cases involving ELKs and EDs.
3 This description of who can be victims of ELKs and EDs is very limited and should be
expanded to include even individuals who do not belong to any militant group or are not media
practitioners. This is among the recommendations concerning the PNP outlined in this chapter.

Figure 2.2 Crime Scene Investigation
Incident Report
Checklist of Procedures
at the Crime Scene
z Save and preserve life. Immediately request support from medical experts
z Provide emergency first aid for those injured at the scene and evacuate them
to hospital.
2
z Prepare to take the “Dying Declaration” of severely injured person if any.
z Arrest, detain, and remove any suspect present, if more than one, isolate them.
z Cordon the area to secure and preserve the crime scene.
First responders proceed to z Prevent entry of persons into the cordoned area.
the crime scene z Record information gathered and arrival time.
z Conduct preliminary interview of witnesses to determine what and how crime
was committed.
z Prepare to brief the investigator on the initial data gathered upon his arrival.
z Assume responsibility over the crime scene upon arrival.

z Conduct assessment of the crime scene.
z Organize and establish the On-Scene Command Post (OSCP).
z Conduct interviews and gather information.
z Conduct Crime Scene Investigation.
z Request for technical assistance in processing of the crime scene from Crime
Lab SOCO and ensure the following:
Investigator-on-case (IOC) y Evaluation of evidence at the crime scene
arrives at the crime scene y Documentation (photography/sketching/note taking/videography)
y Collection and handling of evidence
y Custody and transport of pieces of evidence
z Request Laboratory Examination of recovered physical evidence by PNP Crime
Laboratory.
z Ensure appropriate inventory is maintained.
z Lift cordon only after completion of final survey and documentation.
z Preparation prior to the conduct of SOCO

z Crime scene approach
z Preliminary crime scene survey with investigator-on-case
z Evaluation of physical evidence
Conduct of SOCO by z Narrative description of the crime scene
Crime Laboratory z Crime scene photography/videography
z Sketch of crime scene
z Detailed crime scene search
zPhysical evidence recording and collection
z Final crime scene survey with the investigator-on-case
z Submit result of SOCO/inventory of seized evidence to investigator-on-case
z Ensure that appropriate inventory has been provided.

IOC checks crime scene z Release is accomplished only after completion of the final survey and proper
before cordon is lifted documentation.
z Release the crime scene in writing with the notion that there is only one
chance to perform job correctly and completely.
Source: PNP Field Manual on Investigation on Crimes of Violence (2011).

Process
2I n investigating ELKs and EDs, the PNP is governed by rules of
procedures based on the rights of citizens under Article III or the
Bill of Rights of the Constitution. These rights include:
q The rights of a person to life, liberty and property, such that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
[Section 1]
q The right to equal protection of the laws [Section 1]
q The right of persons to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures [Section 2]
q The right of any person under investigation to be informed of his
or her rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his or her own choice [Section 12(1)]
q The right of a person against torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will, such that
secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms
of detention are prohibited, and any confession or admission obtained
through these shall be inadmissible in evidence against him or her
[Section 12(3)]
q The right of an accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
[Section 14(2)]
Specific guidelines on the investigation

of ELKs and EDs
The guidelines given to Task Force Usig are very specific. In investigating
ELKs and EDs, all its units must observe the following:
q First responders at the crime scene shall immediately protect and

secure the area.
q Once an incident is reported, local police units shall immediately send
an investigator to the crime scene and request the assistance of SOCO
where practicable and applicable.

q The assigned investigator must establish if the victim is a militant
2
party-list member, leftist activist, or media practitioner and determine
the motive of the crime. If the motive remains unknown within five days
after the occurrence of the crime, the case shall temporarily fall under TF
Usig until the motive is determined.
q In determining the victim’s affiliation, look for ID cards and, if
practicable, coordinate with his or her organization to secure documents
proving membership or obtain affidavits from at least two officers or
members of the organization or family members attesting that the victim
is a member of that organization.
q Coordinate with the victim’s relatives, friends, co-workers, and co-
members to determine the most probable motive of the killing. If the
victim has no known enemy and the only possible motive for the killing
was due to his or her being a militant party-list member, leftist activist,
or media practitioner, the incident will temporarily fall under TF Usig
until the motive is determined.
q Investigators shall turn over all objects or physical evidence recovered
from the crime scene to the Crime Laboratory for forensic examination.
q Investigating units shall offer security or protection to the victim’s
family and witnesses to the crime. Refusal of such protection must be
in writing. In coordination with the prosecutors, when appropriate,
investigating units shall apply for the admission of any witness under the
DOJ’s Witness Protection Program.
q Investigating units shall ensure that the body of the victim has
undergone autopsy and other related examinations as long as applicable
and practicable. The family’s refusal of autopsy must be in writing.
q Investigators shall determine whether the incident falls under TF
Usig concern and recommend to higher headquarters for inclusion or
exclusion from the list of TF Usig cases.
q Higher headquarters shall approve or disapprove the recommendation
of lower units on the inclusion or exclusion of incidents under TF Usig
concern.
q Investigating units shall regularly maintain two copies of updated case
folders of the incident.
q As much as possible, no investigator-on-case shall be relieved,
transferred, or reassigned without a valid cause or justifiable reason.

2
Report requirements for TF USIG cases, validation/
verification of Karapatan and other lists:
1 Comprehensive report narrating the incident (5W’s and 1H), suspects and its
disposition, status of case, investigator-on-case with contact numbers, place and
time of incident, extent of investigation conducted, and evidence gathered
2 Inclusion of group affiliation of the alleged victim for proper classification
3 Inclusion of the motive of the killings for proper classification
4 Proof that the validation was conducted in the exact place of incident as
indicated in the list claimed by Karapatan or other groups
5 Additional documentary requirements for alive victim
z Printout and e-copy of picture of the alleged victim
z Affidavit of the alleged victim and witnesses
z Photocopy of any ID card
z Certification from the barangay chairman and local civil
registrar that no death certificate was issued in the name of the
alleged victim
6 Additional documentary requirements for nonreported incident:
z Certification from the barangay chairman on the existence or
nonexistence of the alleged incident in the locality
7 Additional documentary requirements for fictitious/nonexisting person:
z Certification from the barangay chairman on the
nonexistence of the alleged victim in the locality
z Certification from the local civil registrar regarding the
nonexistence of any birth or death of the alleged victim in the locality
8 Additional documentary requirements for legitimate/armed encounter:
z After Combat/Operation Report of the concerned AFP/
PNP Unit
z Affidavit of witnesses
z Certification from the barangay chairman that a legitimate
encounter transpired in the locality
z Dossier of the killed or arrested suspected New People’s
Army (NPA) members, if any
z Inclusion in the report of evidence gathered at the crime scene.

q The outgoing investigator-on-case shall turn over all documents,
2
evidence and other pertinent records to the incoming investigator. The
turnover must be done through a formal written communication duly
acknowledged by the incoming investigator and approved by the head of
the local investigating unit.
On July 15, 2010, the DIDM/TF Usig commander issued Memorandum

No. 07-39 providing additional guidelines on the investigation of media
and militant killings. It directs the PNP regional director to immediately
organize a Special Investigation Task Group (SITG) when a killing takes
place. The special task force will be headed by the PNP provincial director
and composed of the following: Investigation Team; Technical/Legal
Support Team; Administrative/Logistics Team; a Case Record Officer;
and a Public Information Officer.
1 Initial SITG actions:
z Conduct usual investigative procedures.

z Immediately validate and confirm the victim’s affiliation.
z Conduct press briefings daily.
z Establish an On-Scene-Command Post for on-scene investigation
and ensure the presence and availability of the SITG commander all
the time.
2 Follow-up actions by SITG:
z Conduct profiling of the victim, suspects and witnesses.

z Conduct link/matrix analysis and exploit evidence information.
z As much as possible, refrain from inviting witnesses to the police
stations and always consider their convenience, so that they may fully
cooperate in giving their sworn statements.

Specific guidelines on the investigation
2 of crimes of violence
The DIDM published in 2011 the Field Manual on Investigation of Crimes
of Violence and Other Crimes. The manual provides guidelines by way of
checklists to PNP initial responders, investigators, SOCO teams, and case
managers to ensure compliance with basic procedures in investigating crimes
of violence, particularly murder, homicide, and kidnapping/abduction.
These are among the crimes committed in cases of ELKs and EDs.
Initial response (First responder)

The first officer on the scene has four main tasks:
q Give first aid.

q Arrest the suspected offender.
q Protect and, if necessary, collect and preserve the evidence.
q Cordon off and protect the area.
More particularly, the first officer on the scene should perform the following:
q Give first aid. Immediately request assistance from medical experts.

q Decide whether a crime has been committed.
q Arrest the suspected offender.
q Write down the names of all persons at the crime scene and where
they can be contacted in the next few hours. Remove them from the scene.
q Do not let anyone enter the crime scene area, except for first aid measures.
q Inform the Chief of Police or Provincial Director and call in
reinforcements to the scene.
q If shots have been fired, secure evidence of gunpowder residue on the
hands.
q If anyone has been hospitalized, send a police officer to the hospital to
take the necessary measures.
q Cordon off a sufficiently large area around the crime scene while
waiting for reinforcements.

q Protect the crime scene from alteration.
2
q Note down measures taken, persons who enter the crime scene, the
time of important events, and observations.
q Take pictures or video of the crime scene and adjacent area, including
people hanging around the scene.
q Control the crime scene until the investigator-on-case arrives and
assumes responsibility of the crime scene.
Crime scene security and preservation require these of the first responder:
q After giving first aid, protect the crime scene and collect evidence that
might otherwise be destroyed.
q Avoid contamination throughout the material handling chain, from
collection at the crime scene to examination in the laboratory. The best
way to do this is to leave the crime scene untouched. Also apply the
following rules:
z Never let the victim and the suspect be in the same room or
be transported in the same car, even at different times.
z Use protective clothing when entering a crime scene and
collecting trace evidence such as hair, fibers, blood, and secretions.
z Plan out the gathering of evidence such that each specific
source is handled separately, if possible.
z Examine cars on site, if possible. If it must be moved, have
it towed. Avoid using the seats or driving it; otherwise, use
protective clothing.
q Cordon off the area, so unauthorized persons do not enter
the crime scene.
q Do not allow the suspect of witnesses to return to or enter the
crime scene.
q If anyone has been taken to the hospital, have a police officer
go to the hospital immediately to perform the following:
y Seize or retrieve the person’s clothes.
y Make sure all trace evidence on the victim and the
suspect is collected and preserved.
y Make sure the victim and the suspect take alcohol and
drug test.

y If shots have been fired, ask for a paraffin test to collect
2
gunpowder residue from the person’s hands.
Initial investigation
The first 72 hours of a major case like murder, kidnapping, or abduction
is crucial. The investigator-on-case must immediately request technical
assistance of the SOCO Team from the local PNP Crime Laboratory.
Where he or she must collect the evidence himself or herself, as when it
is about to be destroyed or contaminated, he or she must be guided by the
rules on evidence collection, handling and transportation.
On arrival at the crime scene, he or she must assess it, walk through it, take
notes on important factors and evidence most likely to be encountered, define
the extent of the search area, determine needed personnel and equipment and
develop a theory of the crime scene to set his or her plan in motion.
The investigator-on-case must remain at all times responsible for and
in charge of the crime scene. He or she should always be present during the
whole SOCO operations to provide necessary support and to oversee the
processing. An on-scene command post should immediately be established.
Investigator’s checklist:
q Before going to the scene, find out as much as possible about the crime.
q On arrival, get all available information from the first responder and
other officers at the scene.
q Get an overview of the crime scene and of what happened.
q Start keeping an action log.
q Cordon off the area or expand the cordon, if necessary, with guards.
q List down all people who enter the crime scene.
q If shots have been fired, collect gunpowder residue from the hands of
those involved.
q Take a picture or video of the crime scene.
q Assess the situation and start planning. This is where crime scene
analysis begins.
q Note down your observations continuously, and use a tape recorder.

q Decide whether you need expert help like a forensic pathologist, or biologist.
2
q Take pictures continuously. Photograph all the evidence before it is
collected. If possible, engage a photographer for trace evidence.
q Search for and collect evidence. Avoid contamination.
q Consider a detailed search outside of the crime scene.
q Write a continuous seizure report.
q Check the crime scene before the cordon is lifted to ensure you have
not forgotten anything important.
Evidence collection, handling, and transportation

In the investigation of violent crimes, crime scene processing or evidence
collection, handling, and transportation are primarily conducted by the
SOCO specialists. However, the first responder or the investigator-on-case
sometimes may have to collect evidence that might otherwise be destroyed
or contaminated.
The general rules for the collection and preservation biological material:
1 Use protective gloves.

q Avoid touching individual smears or traces, since gloves can
contaminate.
q Change gloves after handling each kind of material.
q Use disposable equipment for preliminary tests and trace
evidence collection.
q Cover surfaces where materials are to be placed with
protective paper, and keep separate the victim’s and suspect’s
clothes.

2 Avoid coughing or sneezing on evidence/materials.
3 When packaging biological materials:

q Use paper packaging.
q Separate outer packages for trace evidence and for clothes.
q Do not mix materials or samples in the same parcel.
q Seal with tape.

4 Adopt special precautions:
2
q Note down if a person from whom material has been
collected is suspected of having an infectious disease.
q Prevent contamination.
q Do not open packages with collected materials until the
examination in the laboratory is to start, except when moist
material must be dried out.
The general information on submitting evidence to the crime laboratory:
q Coordinate with the Crime Laboratory for any questions before

submitting evidence.
q Submit only items that need analysis.
q Be wary of contamination in packaging.
q Clearly mark all potential biohazard items. If evidence is suspected of
being contaminated with contagious viruses, note it down in the Request
for Examination of Evidence.
q The laboratory will not reanalyze evidence previously analyzed by an
outside laboratory for the same type of examination.
Supplementary rules of procedure in general

The specific guidelines in the investigation of ELKs and EDs by the PNP
under LOI Task Force Usig and the PNP Field Manual on Investigation of
Crimes of Violence and Other Crimes are supplemented by various other
rules of procedures concerning the investigation of crimes in general.
Procedure in the investigation of crimes

The following procedures are provided in the PNP Criminal Investigation
Manual:

Crime scene processing
1 Processing and securing a crime scene. Processing a crime scene includes

the application of diligent and careful methods by an investigator/
policemen to recognize, identify, preserve, and collect facts and items of
evidentiary value that may help reconstruct what actually happened. The
2
crime scene is the area surrounding the place where the crime occurred.
The processing of the area at the scene includes all direct traces of the crime.
This is determined by the type of crime committed and where it occurred.
2 Protecting the crime scene and the evidence. Successful crime scene processing
depends upon the policeman’s or investigator’s skill in recognizing and
collecting facts and items of value as evidence, and upon his or her ability
to protect, preserve, and later, to present these in a logical manner. This
requires making careful and detailed notes and sketches; written statements
and transcribing verbal statements of witnesses, suspects and marking and
preservation of collected physical objects of evidentiary nature.
3 Laboratory examination of objects and substances is located usually at the crime

scene. Objects and substances needing examination in some cases are carried,
intentionally or unintentionally, by suspects from the crime scene.
Protocols in investigation
Protocol 1. Jurisdictional investigation by the territorial unit concerned
The police station, which has territorial jurisdiction of the area where
the crime was committed, shall immediately investigate and process the
crime scene, unless otherwise directed by higher authorities.
Protocol 2. Official police blotter
A police blotter is a logbook that contains the daily register of all crime
incident reports, official summary of arrests, and other significant events
reported in a police station.

As a general rule, all crime incidents must be recorded in the official
2
police blotter. A separate police blotter, however, shall be maintained for
offenses requiring confidentiality like violence against women and children
and those cases involving a child in conflict with the law to protect their
privacy pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against
Women and Children Act of 2004) and R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act of 2006).
The duty police officer shall record the nature of the incident in the
police blotter containing the 5W’s (who, what, where, when, and why) and
1H (how) of the information and inform his or her superior officer or the
duty officer regarding the occurrence of such incident.
In answering the above 5W’s and 1H and the case disposition, all the
material details about the incident, including the nature of the action or
offense; the date, time, and place of occurrence; the names of the suspect,
victim, witnesses, if any; facts of the case; significant circumstances that
aggravate or mitigate the event or the crime should be entered along with
the identity of the officer to whom the case is assigned (officer-on-case); and,
the status of the case.
Protocol 3. Investigation team: Organization and equipment
All investigators in any police unit must be a graduate of prescribed

investigation course with a rank of at least Police Officer 2 (PO2),
prerequisite to assignment.
The team should be composed of the following:
q Team leader
q Investigator/recorder
q Photographer
q Evidence custodian
q Composite illustrator/artist
The equipment of the investigator includes:
q Police line
q Video camera

q Voice recorder
2
q Camera
q Measuring device
q Gloves
q Flashlight
q Fingerprint kit
q Evidence bag
q Evidence tag
q Evidence bottles/vials
q Investigator’s tickler (contains the investigator’s checklist; anatomical
diagram form; evidence checklist; and turnover receipt)
Protocol 4. Duties of the first responder
1 Proceed to the crime scene to validate the information received.

2 Record the exact time of arrival and all pertinent data about the incident in
his or her issued pocket notebook and notify the investigator-on-case.
3 Cordon off the area and secure the crime scene with a police line or
whatever available material like ropes, straws, or human as barricade to
preserve its integrity.
4 Check whether the situation still poses imminent danger and call for
backup if necessary.
5 Identify possible witnesses and conduct preliminary interview and
ensure their availability for the incoming investigator-on-case.
6 Arrest the suspect if he or she is around. If the suspect is fleeing, make
appropriate notification for dragnet operations.
7 Prepare to take the “dying declaration” of severely injured persons.
8 Evacuate the wounded to the nearest hospital.
9 Account for killed, wounded and arrested persons for proper disposition.
10 Conduct initial investigation.
11 Brief the investigator-on-case upon arrival and turn over the crime
scene.
12 Conduct inventory on the evidence taken at the crime scene. The
inventory receipt should be properly signed by the first responder, SOCO,
and the investigator.

2
Protocol 5. Duties and responsibilities of the investigating team
1 Take full control of the crime scene:
q Conduct a search
q Take photographs
q Make sketches
q Lift fingerprints
q Mark physical evidence
q Transmit evidence to crime laboratory (chain of custody)
q Interview witnesses
q Gather and evaluate evidence
q Follow up and further document the case
q File appropriate charges in court
2 Establish a command post in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene.

3 Designate a holding area in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene
(for the media, VIP’s, and other personalities present).
4 Conduct case conference with the first responder, SOCO, other law
enforcers, and rescue personnel.
5 Note any secondary crime scene, if the situation requires.
6 Release the crime scene after investigation.
Protocol 6. Investigation of suspects
When an arrest is made:
1 Secure the person arrested (handcuff at the back).

2 Inform the arrested person of the cause of his or her arrest and his or
her rights as provided for in the Constitution.
3 Conduct thorough search for weapons and other illegal materials
against the suspect.
4 Use reasonable force in making arrest
5 Properly document and mark confiscated evidence.
6 Bring the arrested person to the police station for investigation.

When booking the arrested person:
1 Fingerprint, photograph, and subject the arrested person to medical

examination to include liquor and drug tests.
2 Conduct record check.
Protocol 7. Taking of sworn statements of suspects

2
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) stipulates that a suspect shall
execute his or her waiver always in the presence of his or her chosen counsel
or any independent counsel.
Protocol 8. Taking of sworn statements of witnesses
The sworn statement or affidavit of the complainant or witness must be taken

immediately by the investigator-on-case.
The affidavit of arrest of arresting officers must be taken not later than
24 hours.
In inquest cases, the investigator-on-case and the arresting officer shall
observe Article 125 of the RPC.
Protocol 9. Preparation of reports and filing of charges
The investigator-on-case shall submit the following:
q Spot Report within 24 hours to headquarters

q Progress Report
q After-Operation Report
q Final Report after the case is filed before the prosecutor’s office or court
q Accomplishment Report
Protocol 10. Procedure in the release of crime scene
1 Make an appropriate inventory.

2 Complete the final survey and properly document the evidence,
witnesses, victim and suspect.

3 If the crime scene is within a private property, release it to the lawful
2
owner witnessed by a barangay official. In case of a government facility,
release it to the administrator.
Protocol 11. Follow-up of case
The investigator shall conduct police operation to identify and apprehend

the suspect based on the results of the initial investigation conducted.
Protocol 12. Preparation of Case Investigation Plan
A Case Investigation Plan must cover the conduct of police operation involving
sensational cases, high-profile and heinous crimes.
Protocol 13. Attendance to court duties
The investigator-on-case and arresting officers shall endeavor to ensure

their attendance during court hearings. The Chief of Police or Head of Unit
shall supervise and ensure the attendance of witnesses.
Protocol 14. Uniform of the investigator
Investigators should wear the prescribed uniform when conducting

investigation to identify them as PNP personnel.
Investigator’s notebook
Considering the mass of details and the number of cases assigned to an

investigator, he or she might forget some details. Many of the details
associated with the investigation, though not essential to the report, might
become points of interest to the court when the case is brought to trial.
Experienced investigators employ a notebook to record the relevant details
of the case. The court allows investigators to consult their notes to refresh
their memory.
The data of the investigation should be recorded in a complete, accurate,
and legible fashion, so that in the event another investigator is required to

assume responsibility for the investigation, he or she can make intelligent
2
use of the notebook.
General investigative procedures
Upon receipt of a call or walk-in complaints
The Duty Desk Officer should:
1 Record the time it was reported.

2 Get the identity of the caller or complainant.
3 Get the place of the incident.
4 Get the nature of the incident.
5 Get the number of the victim.
6 Record a brief synopsis of the incident.
7 Direct the nearest mobile car, beat patrollers, or the nearest police
precinct to act as first responder equipped with “police line” to secure the
place of incident.
8 Inform the duty investigator, preferably a team of investigators.
At the crime scene
In addition to his or her duties outlined in Protocol 4, the first responder

should:
1 Check the victim’s condition while the other team members secure the
area with a police line.
2 If the victim is not in serious condition, bring him or her immediately
to the nearest hospital, get his or her identity and other data about him
or her, and get an initial interview. Other team members should remain
at the crime scene to secure it.
3 If he or she is in serious condition, bring him or her immediately to the
nearest hospital.
4 If he or she is dying, get the dying declaration, if necessary. Ask the
following questions:

q Ano ang pangalan at address mo?
2
(What is your name and your address?)
q Kilala mo ba ang gumawa nito sa iyo?
(Do you know who did this to you?)
q Sa pakiramdam mo ba ay ikamamatay mo ang tinamo mong
sugat?
(Do you feel that the wound you sustained may cause your death?)
5 However, if there is a chance to ask more questions, do so. The
statement, once reduced into writing, shall be duly signed by or with the
victim’s thumb mark.
If the victim is dead, take a picture and make a sketch of the victim.
If the suspect is arrested at the scene, the first responder should:
1 Get the names of the persons who turned over or arrested the suspect.
2 Isolate the arrested suspect and separate him or her or her from any
probable witness of the incident.
3 Record time the suspect was arrested.
4 Wait for the investigator to interview the suspect.
5 If the suspect volunteers any statement, take note of the time, location,
and circumstances of the statements.
Investigation procedures at the crime scene
Upon arrival at the crime scene, the investigator should:
1 Receive the crime scene from the first responder.

2 Record time and date of arrival at the crime scene, location of the
scene, condition of the weather, condition and type of lighting, direction
of wind and visibility.
3 Take a photograph or video the entire crime scene.
4 Put on surgical gloves before entering the crime scene.
5 Find out if the victim is still alive or already dead before touching or
moving any object at the crime scene in a homicide or murder case. If
still alive, the investigator should gather information from the victim
himself about the circumstances of the crime, while a member of the team

or someone must call an ambulance from the nearest hospital. Before
2
removing the victim, mark, sketch, and photograph his or her relative
position. Only a coroner or a medical examiner shall remove the dead
body unless unusual circumstances justify its immediate removal.
6 Designate a member of the team or ask other policemen or responsible
persons to stand watch and secure the scene. Permit only authorized
persons to enter the area.
7 Identify and retain for questioning the person who first notified the
police, and other possible witnesses.
8 Determine the assailant through inquiry or observe him or her if his or
her identity is immediately apparent. Arrest him or her if he or she is still
in the vicinity.
9 Separate witnesses in order to get independent statements.
Recording. The investigator should record pertinent facts and details of the
investigation the moment he or she arrives at the crime scene. He or she
should:
1 Record the time when he or she was initially notified before his or her
arrival.
2 Write down the identification of persons involved and what he or she
initially saw.
3 Draw a basic sketch of the crime scene and take the initial photograph
to ensure that an image of the crime scene is recorded before any
occurrence that disturbs the scene. If a photographer is available, avail of
his or her services.
4 Not touch, alter, or remove anything at the crime scene until the
evidence has been processed through notes, sketches, and photograph,
with proper measurements.

Searching for evidence. In looking for evidence, the investigator should:
2 1 Make a general survey of the scene to note the locations of obvious

traces of action, probable entry and exit points used by the offender(s),
and the size and shape of the area involved.
2 Initiate a systematic search (preferably clockwise) in rooms, buildings,
and small outdoor areas, and examine each item on the floor, walls,
and ceiling for anything that may be of evidentiary value, with special
attention to fragile evidence that may be destroyed or contaminated if it
is not collected when discovered.
3 If any doubt exists as to the value of an item, treat it as evidence until
proven otherwise.
4 Ensure that the item or area where latent fingerprints may be present
is closely examined and that action is taken to develop the prints.
5 Carefully protect any impression of evidentiary value in surfaces
conducive to making casts or molds. If possible, photograph the
impression and make a cast or mold.
6 Note stains, spots, and pools of liquid within the scene, and treat them
as evidence to be protected from contamination.
7 Treat as evidence all other items, such as hair, fibers, and earth
particles foreign to the area in which they are found (for example, matter
found under the victim’s fingerprints).
8 Proceed systematically and uninterruptedly to conclude processing
of the scene. The search for evidence is initially completed when, after
a thorough examination of the scene, the rough sketch, necessary
photograph, and investigative notes have been completed and the
investigator has returned to the point from which the search began.
9 Conduct further search as needed after the evidence and the statements
obtained have been evaluated.
10 Divide large outdoor areas into strips about four feet wide, and search
strip by strip.
11 Where advisable, search beyond the area of the immediate scene of the
incident. For example, evidence may indicate that a weapon or tool used
in the crime was discarded or hidden by the offender somewhere within a
square-mile area near the scene.
12 After completing the search of the scene, examine the object or person

actually attacked by the offender. For example, process a ripped safe, a
2
desk drawer that has been pried open, or a room from which items has
been stolen after the remainder of the scene has been examined for traces
of the offender.
13 In a homicide case, outline the position of the victim with a chalk or
any other suitable material before the body is removed from the scene. If
the victim is dead, examine the body, the clothing, and the area under the
body after the remainder of the scene has been searched.
Collecting evidence. The investigator begins collecting evidence after the

search is completed, the rough sketch finished, and photographs taken.
Fragile evidence should be collected as they are found. All firearms with
tampered serial numbers should automatically be subjected to macro etching
at the PNP Crime Laboratory and verified with the Firearms and Explosive
Office. The investigator should place his or her initials and the date and time of
discovery on each item of evidence for proper identification. Items that could
not be marked should be placed in a suitable container and sealed.
Marking evidence. Any physical evidence obtained should be marked or

tagged before its submission to the evidence custodian to ensure that the
items can be identified by the collector at any time in the future. This
precaution will help establish the credibility of the collector’s report or
testimony and avoid any suggestions that the item has been misidentified.
Markings on the specimen must at least contain the following:
q Exhibit case number

q Initials or signature of the collecting officer, or both
q Time and date of collection
It is also important to note the place or location where the evidence was
collected.
Evaluating evidence. Each item of evidence must be evaluated in relation to

all the evidence, individually and collectively. If necessary, these pieces of
evidence must be subjected to crime laboratory examination (for example,
firearms for ballistic examination, hair strands).

Preserving evidence. The investigator should exercise every precaution to
2
preserve physical evidence in the state in which it was recovered or obtained
until it is released to the evidence custodian.
Releasing evidence. All collected evidence can only be released upon order of
the court or prosecutor, as the case may be.
Chain of custody. A list of all persons who came into possession of an item
of evidence, continuity of possession, or the chain of custody, must be
established whenever evidence is presented in court as an exhibit. Adhering
to standard procedures in recording the location of evidence, marking it
for identification, and properly completing evidence submission forms for
laboratory analysis is critical to chain of custody.
Every person who handled or examined the evidence and where it is at
all times must be accounted for. As a rule, all seized evidence must be in the
custody of the evidence custodian and deposited in the evidence room or
designated place for safekeeping.
Transmitting evidence to Crime Laboratory. Physical evidence must be properly

handled to obtain the maximum possible information upon which scientific
examination shall be based, and to prevent exclusion as evidence in court.
Specimens that truly represent the material found at the scene, unaltered,
unspoiled, or otherwise unchanged in handling, will provide more and
better information upon examination.
Legal requirements make it necessary to account for all physical pieces
of evidence from the time it is collected until it is presented in court. With
these in mind, the investigator should observe the following principles in
handling all types of evidence:
q The evidence should reach the laboratory in same condition as when it

was found, as much as possible.
q The quantity of specimen should be adequate. Even with the best
equipment available, good results cannot be obtained from insufficient
specimens.
q Submit a known or standard specimen for comparison purposes.
q Keep each specimen separate from others, so there will be no

intermingling or mixing of known and unknown material. Wrap and
2
seal in individual packages when necessary.
q Mark or label each evidence for positive identification as the evidence
taken from a particular location in connection with the crime under
investigation.
q The chain of custody of evidence must be maintained. Account for
evidence from the time it is collected until it is produced in court. Any
break in this chain of custody may make the material inadmissible as
evidence in court.
SOCO assistance
In cases where the crime scene needs special processing because of

its significance or sensational nature, SOCO specialists of the Crime
Laboratory should be requested.
If the situation involves a clandestine drug laboratory, biological
weapons, radiological, or chemical threats, the appropriate agency should
be contacted before entering the scene.
Release of crime scene
In releasing the crime scene, the investigator should:
1 Ensure that appropriate inventory has been provided.

2 Release the scene with the knowledge that there is only one chance to
perform the job correctly and completely.
3 Complete the final survey and proper documentation, after which the
release is deemed accomplished.
Other operational procedures in relation

to crime scene response
The PNP Manual on Operational Procedures provides for crime scene
response procedures in specific and general situations, knowledge of which
may be useful and relevant in the investigation of ELKs and EDs.

2
General SOCO procedures
SOCO specialists from the PNP Crime Laboratory should be requested in

cases where the evidence gathered needs special processing due to significant
or sensational cases.
In bombing cases, the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel
should first clear the area and declare it “secured” prior to entry of the
SOCO. The former, before entering the crime scene, must submit to the
latter for swabbing. All evidence collected must be pre-cleared by the EOD
before documentation.
In suspected or reported chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear
situations, the SOCO shall directly coordinate with the Special Rescue
Team of the Bureau of Fire and Protection before conducting crime scene
investigation.
In mass victim situation, the SOCO shall also act as the first responder
to the Interim Disaster Victim Identification Task Group (IDVI TG) of
the PNP Crime Laboratory. The IDVI TG shall immediately assess the
forensic specialists needed to be deployed at the crime scene and relay the
requirements to the PNP Crime Laboratory headquarters.
The SOCO can, on its own, direct all operating units involved in
the police operation to submit their respective personnel for forensic
examination, their service firearms for ballistic tests, and other pieces of
evidence involved to expedite the investigation of the case.
Duties of the Territorial Police Unit
q Provide assistance in evacuating injured persons to the nearest

hospital.
q Control the crowd at the crime scene.
q Direct the flow of traffic away from the crime scene so as not to destroy
and contaminate vital evidence.
q Provide security backup to the SOCO.

Crisis management: Processing persons at the crime scene
As soon as the perpetrators surrender, or when they are captured or

neutralized, the On-Scene Commander shall accomplish the following:
1 Processing and debriefing

2
z Hostages/victims
z Perpetrators
z Witnesses
z Key participants of the incident
2 Documentation (sworn statement)
z Witnesses
z Hostages
z Perpetrators
z Key participants in the incident
Considering the instability of the situation, the safety of the responders

and persons found at the scene of the crime, and the preservation of the
place of incident, the venue of the processing, debriefing, and investigation
should be at a neutral and secured place.
In a hostage situation, the following procedure should be followed:
1 Activate immediately the Crisis Management.

2 Secure and isolate the scene of the incident.
3 Do not allow unauthorized persons to enter and exit the scene.
4 Record witnesses’ names, addresses, and other information.
5 Direct witnesses to a safe location.
After an armed confrontation
Things to be done immediately:
1 Secure the site of confrontation.

2 Take photographs.
3 Check whether the situation still poses imminent danger.

4 Evacuate the wounded to the nearest hospital.
2
5 Ensure that all persons who died on the spot are not moved from their
original position. But keep arrested suspects in isolation.
6 Debrief all involved PNP operatives.
7 Submit After-Operation Report.
The police unit that has territorial jurisdiction over the area where the
armed confrontation occurred should immediately undertake the necessary
investigation and processing of the scene of the encounter. The SOCO team
shall conduct crime scene processing upon request.
In case a suspect dies in armed confrontation, the team leader of the
operating unit shall submit the incident for inquest before the duty inquest
prosecutor before the body is removed from the scene except in areas where
there are none. In which case, the territorial police unit can proceed with
the investigation.
Procedure in handling children in conflict with the law (CICL)
In investigating or handling children in conflict with the law, the Manual on

Operational Procedures requires the investigator or officer to:
1 Explain to the child, in a language or dialect he or she can clearly

understand, why he or she is being taken into custody and the offense he
or she allegedly committed.
2 Advise the child of his or her constitutional rights.
3 Properly identify himself or herself as police officer.
4 Refrain from using vulgar or profane words and from sexually
harassing or abusing, or making sexual advances on the child.
5 Avoid displaying or using any firearm, handcuffs, or other instruments
of force or restraint, unless absolutely necessary and only after all other
methods of control have been exhausted and have failed.
6 Refrain from using greater restraint than is necessary for the child’s
apprehension.
7 Avoid the use of unnecessary force.
8 Conduct a search on a child only if the police officer of the same gender
as the child.

9 Determine the age of the child.
2
10 Turn over custody of the child to the local social welfare and
development office (LSWDO) or other accredited NGOs immediately
but not later than eight hours after apprehension and notify the child’s
parents or guardians and the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) of the
child’s apprehension.
11 Take the child immediately to the proper medical and health
officer for a thorough physical and mental examination. Keep
the examination results confidential unless otherwise ordered by
the Family Court. Whenever the medical treatment is required,
immediately take steps to provide this.
12 Should detention be necessary, secure the child in quarters separate
from that of the opposite sex and adult offenders. Do not lock up the
child in a detention cell.
13 Take the statement of the child in the presence of (a) the child’s
counsel of choice or in the latter’s absence, a lawyer from the PAO; (b)
the child’s parents, guardians, or nearest relatives, and (c) LSWDO.
14 In the absence of the child’s parents, guardians, or nearest
relatives, and the LSWDO, conduct the investigation in the presence
of an NGO, religious group, or member of the Barangay Council for
the Protection of Children (BCPC).
15 Ensure that all statements signed by the child during investigation
shall be witnessed by the child’s parents or guardians, social worker,
or legal counsel in attendance who shall affix his or her signature to
the statement.
16 Record the following in the initial investigation:
z Whether handcuffs or other instruments of restraint were
used, and if so, the reason for such
z That the parents or guardians of a child, the DSWD, and
the PAO have been duly informed of the apprehension and
the details thereof
z The exhaustion of measures to determine the age of a child
and the precise details of the physical and medical
examination or the failure to submit a child to such
examination

17 Ensure respect for the rights of the child in conflict with the law,
2
including but not limited to:
z The right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
z The right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be
informed of such right
z The right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate
assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the
deprivation of his or her liberty
z The right to privacy in all stages of the proceedings
z The right to be treated as an individual with distinct and
separate personality under the law
z The right to be treated with respect, taking into account
the inherent dignity of his or her person and the needs of a
person of his or her age
z All other rights as guaranteed under the Constitution,
domestic laws, the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
and other related international human rights instruments
Procedure in police intervention operations

Police intervention operations include arrest, raid, search and seizure,
checkpoint, demolition, and civil disturbance management. Knowledge
of these operations and procedures may also be useful and relevant in the
investigation of ELKs and EDs. These procedures are provided in the PNP
Manual on Operational Procedures.
In general, all police intervention operations should be conducted:
q With a marked police vehicle

q Preferably led by a Police Commissioned Officer (PCO)
q With personnel in prescribed police uniform
Warning by use of megaphones
During actual police intervention operations, the team leader shall use

peaceful means, including the use of megaphones or any other similar
2
instruments, to influence or warn the offender or the suspect to stop and
peacefully give up.
Warning shots
The police should not use warning shots during police interventions.
Use of force
Issuance of warning
The police officer must first issue a warning before he or she could use force
against an offender. The warning is issued for the police officer to identify
himself or herself and to give opportunity to the offender to surrender.
The duty to issue a warning is, however, not absolute. It is necessary only
in situations where several options are still available to the police officer. But
in cases where the threat to the life of a police officer is already imminent,
and there is no other option but to use force to subdue the offender, the law
enforcer’s failure to issue a warning is excusable.
Reasonable force
During an armed confrontation, only necessary and reasonable force should

be applied to overcome the offender’s resistance or to justify the force or
act under the principles of self-defense, defense of relative, or defense of
stranger. The Officer-in-Charge of the operation shall, at all times, exercise
control over his or her men in the area and exhaust all possible means, so
that no innocent civilian is caught in the crossfire.
The reasonableness of the force used will depend on the number of
aggressors, their weapons, physical condition, size and other circumstances,
including the place and occasion of the assault. A police officer, however,
is not required to afford the attacker the opportunity for a fair or equal
struggle. His or her duty requires him or her to overcome his or her
opponent.

2
Use of weapon
Excessive use of force. Excessive use of force is prohibited. The use of weapon
is justified if the suspect poses imminent danger of causing death or injury
to the police officer or other persons.
Reportorial requirements. Any police officer who used his or her firearm
against a suspect must submit an after-encounter report outlining the
circumstances necessitating the use of weapon against the suspect.
Moving vehicles. A moving vehicle shall not be fired upon except when its
occupants pose imminent danger of causing death or injury to the police
officer or any other person, and that the use of firearm does not create a
danger to the public and outweighs the likely benefits of its non-use.
Spot checks/accosting, and pat-down searches
Grounds for spot checks/accosting
The police officer may stop an individual for the purpose of conducting
a spot check/accosting only when reasonable suspicion exists. Reasonable
suspicion must be more than just a hunch or feeling. In justifying the stop,
the police officer must be able to point to specific facts that, when taken
together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the stop. Such facts
include, but are not limited to:
q The appearance or demeanor of the individual suggests he or she is

part of a criminal enterprise or is engaged in a criminal act.
q The actions of the individual suggest that he or she is engaged in a
criminal activity
q Questionable presence of the individual in the area.
q The subject is carrying a suspicious object.
q The suspect’s clothing bulges in a manner that suggests he or she is
carrying a weapon.

q The suspect has been found in the time and place proximate to an
2
alleged crime.
q The police officer has knowledge of the suspect’s prior criminal record
or involvement in criminal activity.
q The individual flees at the sight of a police officer.
Procedures and guidelines for spot checks/accosting
The police office should observe the following when accosting a person or
conducting a spot check:
1 Clearly identify himself or herself as a police officer. If not in

uniform, announce his or her identity and displaying official ID card
or badge.
2 Be courteous at all times but maintain caution and vigilance for
suspicious movements like tending to retrieve weapon, conceal or
discard contraband, or other similar actions.
3 Before approaching more than one individual, determine whether
the circumstances warrant a request for backup and whether the spot
check/ accosting can and should be delayed until backup arrives.
4 Confine their questions to the suspect’s identity, place of residence,
and other inquiries necessary to resolve his or her suspicion. However,
in no instance should a suspect be held longer than the period
reasonably necessary for the police officer to make limited inquiries
and resolve suspicions.
The police officer is not required to give the suspect the Miranda Warning
unless the person is placed under arrest and the questioning focuses on the
guilt of the suspect.
Grounds for body frisk/pat-down search
A police officer may perform a pat-down search if the individual has been
legitimately stopped with reasonable suspicion and when the police officer
has reason to believe he or she has a weapon on his or her person and poses
a threat to the police officer’s or another person’s safety.

Circumstances that may justify pat-down search:
2 q The type of crime believed to be committed by the subject, particularly

crimes of violence where the threat of use or use of deadly weapon is
involved
q Where the police officer handles several suspects
q The time of the day and the location where the pat-down search took place
q Prior knowledge by the police officer of the suspect’s use of force or
propensity to carry deadly weapons
q The suspect’s appearance and demeanor
q Visual indications suggesting that the suspect is carrying a firearm or
other deadly weapon
Whenever possible, pat-down searches should be performed by police

officers of the same gender.
Procedures for pat-down search
Pat-down searches should be conducted in the following manner:
q Whenever possible, at least two police officers should conduct pat-

down searchers—one to perform the search and the other to provide
protective cover.
q Because pat-down searches are cursory in nature, they should be
performed with the suspect in a standing position, or with hands placed
against a stationary object, and feet spread apart. However, should an
officer visually observe a weapon, a more secure search position may be
used like the prone (lying face down) position.
q In a pat-down search, officers are permitted only to feel the outer
clothing of the suspect. Police officers may not place their hands inside
the pockets of the subject’s clothing unless they feel an object that could
probably be a weapon such as a gun, knife, or a club.
q If the suspect is carrying an object such as handbag, suitcase, briefcase,
sack, or other similar items that may conceal a weapon, the police officer
should not open the item but instead put it in a place out of the suspect’s
reach.

q If the external patting of the suspect’s clothing fails to disclose evidence
2
of a weapon, no further search may be made. If a weapon is found and
the possession of which amounts to a violation of the law, the police officer
shall arrest the suspect and conduct a complete search.
q However, in a search made pursuant to routine airport security
procedure, the search is not limited to search for weapons. Passengers
may also be searched for prohibited materials or substances.441
Reporting after the spot check/accosting or pat-down search
If after conducting a spot check/accosting or pat-down search, the police

officer has no basis for making an arrest, he or she should record the facts of
such spot check/accosting or pat-down search and forward a report to the
appropriate authority.
If the spot check/accosting or pat-down search gives a justification for a
valid warrantless arrest, then an arrest shall be made.
Arrest
An arrest is the taking of a person into custody so he or she can answer for
the commission of an offense. The following rules of procedure, spelled out
in the PNP Criminal Investigation Manual, apply to arrest:
Methods of arrest
With warrant of arrest. The officer shall inform the person to be arrested of
the cause of the arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued for
his or her arrest, except when he or she flees or forcibly resists before the
officer has opportunity to inform him or her or when the giving of such
information will imperil the arrest.
The officer need not have the warrant in his or her possession at the
time of the arrest. But after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the
4 People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825 (December 27, 2002).

warrant shall be shown to him or her as soon as practicable.
2 Without warrant of arrest. The officer shall inform the person to be arrested
of his or her authority and the cause of his or her arrest, unless the person
to be arrested is then engaged in the commission of an offense or is pursued
immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly
resists before the officer has opportunity to inform him or her, or when the
giving of such information will imperil the arrest.
Lawful warrantless arrest
A warrantless arrest is allowed and lawful under the following circumstances:
q When in the law enforcer’s presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
q When an offense has just been committed and the officer has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
q When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped.
q If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may
immediately pursue or retake him or her without a warrant at any time
and in any place within the Philippines.
q When the arrest is made by a bondsman for the purpose of
surrendering the accused.
q Where the accused released on bail attempts to leave the country
without court permission.
q Violation of conditional pardon, punishable under Article 159 of the
Revised Penal Code as a case of evasion of service of sentence.
q Arrest following a deportation proceeding by the Immigration
Commissioner against illegal and undesirable aliens.
How to effect arrest
In general, an arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person to be

arrested, or by his or her submission to the custody of the person making
the arrest. No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an

arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subjected to any greater restraint
2
than is necessary for his or her detention.52 according to Section 2, Rule 113
of the Rules of Court.
Making the arrest. The police officer should use good judgment in connection
with the arrest. He or she should assume that the subject is armed and will
take the police officer’s life if given an opportunity.
Arrest on the street. This should be made from the side or rear of the person to
be arrested when possible. The subject should be forced toward a building.
The arresting police officer should avoid congested areas when possible.
Arrest at home, office or business establishment. The police officer should

restrict the subject’s movement and should not grant request for personal
privileges before the search. Clothing and other things requested should
be examined for weapons or items of evidence before turning them over to
the subject.
Summoning assistance for arrest
Any officer making a lawful arrest may verbally summon as many as he or

she deems necessary to aid him or her in making the arrest. Every person so
summoned shall aid him or her in the making of such arrest when he or she
can render such aid without detriment to himself or herself .
Procedures when arrest is made
1 Secure the person arrested (handcuff at the back).

z Conduct a thorough search for weapons and other illegal materials.
z Inform the arrested person of his or her rights as provided for in
the Constitution.
2 Use reasonable force in making arrest.
z Properly document confiscated evidence.
5 The Rules of Court and Revised Penal Code are also among the references used for the
sections on arrest, search, seizure, and inquest.

z Bring the arrested person to a government-accredited hospital for
2
medical examination.
z Bring the arrested person to the police station for documentation.
Arrest of minors
If the child taken into custody is fifteen years old or below, R.A. No. 9344,
the Juvenile Justice Act of 2005, requires the authority that will have
an initial contact with the child to immediately release the child to the
custody of his or her parents or guardians, or in their absence, the child’s
nearest relative. The authority shall give notice to the local social welfare
and development officer (LSWDO). If the parents, guardians, or nearest
relatives cannot be located, or if they refused to take custody, the child may
be released to any of the following:
q Duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization

q A barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children (BCPC)
q A local social welfare and development officer
q DSWD
Detention and bodily search of minor
A child in conflict with the law shall only be searched by a law enforcement
officer of the same gender and shall not be locked up in a detention cell.
However, if detention is necessary, the arresting officer shall ensure that the
child shall be secured in quarters separate from that of the opposite sex and
adult offenders.
Use of handcuffs and other instruments of force or restraint
Unless absolutely necessary and only after all other methods of control
have been exhausted and have failed shall handcuffs or other instruments
of restraint be used. Apprehending officers shall avoid displaying or using
any firearm, weapon, handcuffs, or other instrument.

2
What to consider in making an arrest
Use of “reasonable force.” The force to be used must be one that is only
necessary to overcome any actual resistance to the arrest.
Arrest of suspects on board a moving vehicle. In general, vehicles carrying

suspected persons may not be fired upon solely to disable the car. The driver
or other occupant of a moving vehicle may be fired upon only if the police
have probable cause to believe that the suspects pose an imminent danger of
death to the police or other persons, and the use of firearm does not create a
danger to the public that outweighs the like benefits of its use.
Rights of the accused under custodial investigation. Article III of the

Constitution provides that:
q Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall

have the right to be informed of his or her right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his or her own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he or she must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.
q No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means that
vitiate the free will shall be used against him or her. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
q Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this shall be
inadmissible evidence against him or her.
Right of attorney to visit person arrested
Any lawyer shall, at the request of the person arrested or of another on his
or her behalf, have the right to visit and confer privately with the person, in
jail or any other place of custody at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of
the night. This right may be exercised by any relative of the person arrested
subject to reasonable regulation.

2
Duties of arresting officer
1 Arrest the accused and deliver him or her without delay to the nearest
police station or jail for the recording of the fact of the arrest of the accused.
2 Inform the person arrested, with or without warrant, of his or her
constitutional right to remain silent and that any statement he or she might
make could be used against him or her. He or she shall have the right to
communicate with his or her lawyer or his or her immediate family. The
arresting officer shall see to it that this is accomplished.
3 Immediately bring the person arrested without a warrant to the proper
police station for investigation without unnecessary delay, and within the
time prescribed in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code—twelve, eighteen,
or 36 hours, as the case may be—subject him or her to inquest proceedings
under Section 7, Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
4 No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means that
vitiate the free will shall be used against an arrested person. The bringing
of arrested persons to secret detention places, solitary confinement or other
forms of detention is prohibited.
5 If the person arrested without a warrant waives his or her right under
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, the arresting officer shall ensure
he or she signs a waiver of detention in the presence of his or her counsel
of choice. If the person arrested waives his or her right against self-
incrimination and opts to give his or her statement, the arresting officer
shall ensure that the waiver be made in writing and signed by the person
arrested in the presence of counsel of his or her own choice or a competent
and independent counsel provided by the government.
Booking procedure of the arrested person/suspect
1 The arrested suspect shall be subjected to booking procedure. He or she

shall likewise be fingerprinted, photographed, and tested for possible use
of prohibited drugs. If he or she refuses to be fingerprinted he or she may
be prosecuted for disobedience to an agent of person in authority under
Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code.
2 The arrested person must be informed of his or her rights as provided by

the Constitution.
2
3 The officer should prepare spot report, sworn statement/s of arresting
officers and witnesses, other supporting documents, and the processing of
evidence.
Medical examination of arrested person/suspect
Immediately after the arrest of a person ordered arrested by the court or

of a suspect under investigation, he or she should be subjected to a medical
examination. Prior to his or her release or any change of custody, he or
she should also be medically examined by a medico-legal officer or, in the
absence of a medico-legal officer, by any government physician in the area.
Mug shots and fingerprints
Arresting units shall at all times take the mug shots and fingerprints of
all arrested persons. Copies thereof shall be submitted to the PNP Crime
Laboratory Service to serve as master file.
Reports on arrested persons
All arrests made shall be immediately reported to the PNP Chief and the
DIDM, or the Presidential Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER)
in case of kidnapping, or the Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operations Task
Force (AIDSOTF) in case of drugs.
Search
A search is an examination of a person, his or her things, house, or other

places to discover contraband or other evidence for use in the prosecution
of a criminal act.
Definition of a search warrant
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge, and directed to a peace officer, commanding

him or her to search for personal property described in the warrant and to
2
bring it before the court.
Requisites for filing an application for search warrant
All applications for search warrant shall be personally endorsed by the

heads of the agency for the search of places and the things to be seized to
be particularly described in the order. The application shall be recorded in a
log book. The application shall likewise indicate the following data:
q Office applying for the search warrant

q Name of officer-applicant
q Name of the subject, if known
q Address/place to be searched
q Specific statement of things/articles to be seized
q Sketch of the place to be searched
A search warrant shall be issued only upon probable cause (personal

knowledge of facts and not mere hearsay) in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally by the judge. The facts must be
sufficient to establish the need for the issuance of the warrant.
Where to file application for search warrant
The application for a search warrant shall be filed with any court within
whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. But the application
can, for compelling reason stated in the application, also be filed with any
court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place
where the crime was committed is known, or any court within the judicial
region where the warrant shall be enforced. If the criminal action has been
filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal
action is pending.

2
Other important requirements or features concerning a search warrant
q Things illegally seized shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
q Generally, articles not included in the warrant may not be seized.
However, articles prohibited by a law, although not included in the
warrant, may be seized.
q A search warrant must be served within ten days from its issuance
(after which it shall be void) in the following manner:
1 The police officer must go to the place shown in the warrant and take only
the things described in it in the presence of at least one competent witness
who is a resident of the neighborhood. If he or she is denied entry after giving
notice of his or her purpose and authority, he or she may force himself or
herself in to execute the warrant. If he or she is detained therein, he or she
may force himself or herself out to free himself or herself.
2 The search must be made at daytime, unless otherwise stated. No
search of a place shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
occupant or any member of his or her family or, in their absence, two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
3 The officer seizing the property must issue a detailed receipt for the
same to the lawful occupant. If he or she is not around, he or she must in
the presence of the witnesses leave a receipt in the place where he or she
found the seized property.
4 As much as possible, during the opening of safes, drawers, cabinets,
the lifting of the articles should be done by the owner of the house or his
or her authorized representative, or by immediate members of his or her
family, to preclude any suspicion of theft or planting of evidence.
5 The officer must immediately deliver the things seized to the judge who
issued the warrant, together with an inventory duly verified under oath.
6 Approval by the court that issued the warrant is necessary for the police
officers to retain seized property. Without such approval, they cannot
retain possession of seized property or deliver the property to another
agency.63
6 Tambasen v. People, 246 SCRA 184 (July 14, 1995).

2
Lawful warrantless searches and seizures
Warrantless searches and seizures are lawful under any of the following
circumstances:
q When there is consent or waiver of the right to a search with warrant.

For waiver to be valid, the right must exist, the owner must be aware of
such right, and he or she must have an intention to relinquish it.
q When evidence to be seized is in “plain view.” The discovery of the
evidence must be unintentional.
q Customs search made at airports or seaports in order to collect duties.
q Search of moving vehicles or vessels, since it would be impractical to
get a warrant.
q Routine searches in the interest of national security, like border checks
or checkpoints.
q Stop-and-search or stop-and-frisk, where the search is allowed on
grounds of reasonable suspicion. Search incidental to a lawful arrest,
where after an arrested person is searched for dangerous weapons or
anything that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense.
q Search under exigent circumstances, where some kind of emergency
makes obtaining a search warrant impractical, useless, dangerous, or
unnecessary.
Seizure
A search warrant also allows the seizure of things found to be illegal or

subject of the warrant.
Items to be seized
Based on a search warrant, the following personal properties may be seized:
q Property subject of the offense

q Stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds, or fruits of the
offense

q Property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
2
offense
Disposition of money and other valuable property
1 Money should be counted, and the serial numbers of the bills noted.
2 Valuables should be sealed in a property envelope in the presence of the
owner.
3 Property envelope should show a complete inventory of its contents.
4 The owner should initial the outside of the envelope showing approval
of its contents.
5 Raiding officers should sign their names on the outer part of the
envelope.
6 A receipt should be given to the suspect. However, it must be noted
that the Supreme Court has declared as inadmissible in evidence the
Receipt for Property Seized, signed by the accused, in cases where mere
possession of the items seized is punishable.
Disposition of articles not covered in a search warrant
If the articles are illicit or contraband, they must be seized.

If the articles may be used as evidence to prosecute the person, they
may be seized.
Noncontraband articles must not be seized, or if seized should be
returned to the owners.
Inquest procedure
A person arrested without a warrant must be delivered to the authorities
within specific periods as provided by law, depending on the penalty for the
crime he or she allegedly committed. This duty to deliver is complied with
if the person arrested is charged in court within the required period. For
this purpose, an inquest is conducted, which is an informal and summary
investigation conducted by a public prosecutor in criminal cases involving
persons arrested and detained without a warrant to determine whether
or not the person should remain under custody and correspondingly be

charged in court.
2
The PNP Criminal Investigation Manual provides for the following
rules on inquest:
Inquest prosecutor
PNP units shall coordinate with the city or provincial prosecutors to ensure
efficient inquest proceedings. If there is only one prosecutor in the area, all
inquest cases shall be referred to him or her for appropriate action.

Commencement and termination of inquest
The inquest proceedings shall commence upon receipt by the Inquest

Officer from the law enforcement authorities of the complaint and referral
documents that should include:
q The affidavit of arrest

q The investigation report
q The statement of the complainant and witnesses
q Other supporting evidence gathered by the police in the course of the
investigation of the criminal incident involving the arrested or detained
person
The Inquest Officer shall, as far as practicable, cause the affidavit of

arrest and statement/affidavit of the complainant and the witnesses to be
subscribed and sworn to before him or her by the arresting officer and the
affiants.
The inquest proceedings must be terminated within the period
prescribed under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Inquest procedure
The investigator handling cases related to ELKs and EDs shall prepare
certain documents for submission or presentation to the Inquest Prosecutor.

For murder, homicide and parricide:
q Certified true copy/machine copy of the certificate of death of the

victim
q Necropsy report and the certificated of postmortem examination, if
readily available.
2
For frustrated or attempted homicide, murder, parricide and physical
injuries:
q Medical certificate of the complaining witness showing the nature or

extent of the injury
q Certification or statement as to the duration of the treatment or
medical attendance
q Certificate or statement as to duration of incapacity for work
Submission of these documents is not absolutely required if there are

other forms of evidence submitted that will sufficiently establish the facts
sought to be proved by the documents.
The inquest shall proceed unless the arrested person opts for a
preliminary investigation by executing the required waiver of rights.
Monitoring of cases
An investigator’s job does not end upon the filing of the case with the
Prosecutor’s Office. It is imperative that the case be continuously monitored
up to its final resolution.
Custodial Investigation
A person arrested or detained by the police may be subjected to custodial
investigation to determine his or her involvement in a criminal act. The
PNP Manual of Operational Procedures provides for the following rules on
custodial investigation:

2
Duties of the police during a custodial investigation
of person arrested/detained
1 Ensure that a person under custodial investigation shall, at all times, be

assisted by counsel, preferably of his or her own choice.
2 Inform the person under custodial investigation of the following rights

under the Miranda Doctrine in a language or dialect known to and
understood by him or her:
q That he or she has the right to remain silent

q That if he or she waives his or her right to remain silent, anything
he or she says can be used in evidence against him or her in court
q That he or she has the right to counsel of his or her own choice
q That, if he or she cannot afford one, he or she shall be provided
with an independent and competent counsel
q That he or she has the right to be informed of such rights.

3 Reduce in writing any statement of the person under custodial investigation.
4 Ensure that before the sworn statement is signed or thumbmarked,

it shall be read and adequately explained to the person under custodial
investigation by his or her counsel of choice, or by the assisting counsel
provided to him or her, in the language or dialect known to him or her.
5 Ensure that any extrajudicial confession made by a person under

custodial investigation shall be:
z In writing
z Signed by him or her in the presence of his or her counsel
z In the latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, in the presence of
any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his or her spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor,
priest, imam, or religious minister chosen by him or her.
Failure of authorities to observe these procedures shall render the extrajudicial

confession inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
2

6 Allow the person under custodial investigation visits by or conferences
with any member of his or her immediate family, any medical doctor,
priest, imam, or religious minister chosen by him or her or by any
member of his or her immediate family or by his or her counsel, or by any
local NGO duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or by
any international NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President.
His or her “immediate family” shall include his or her spouse, parent or
child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew
or niece, and guardian or ward.

7 After interrogation, the person under custodial investigation shall
have the right to be informed of his or her right to demand physical
examination by an independent and competent doctor of his or her own
choice. If he or she cannot afford the services of a doctor of his or her
own choice, he or she shall be provided by the State with a competent
and independent doctor to conduct physical examination. If the person
arrested is female, she shall be attended to preferably by a female doctor.
The physical examination of the person under custodial
investigation shall be contained in a medical report, which shall be
attached to the custodial investigation report.
Detention
Under the PNP Manual on Operational Procedures, the following are the
policies and procedures in the admission, visitation and release of detainees:
Admission
The following can be detained or admitted in the PNP Detention/Custodial

Center:
q Any person arrested due to the commission of a crime

q Arrested suspects covered by a Commitment Order
q Arrested suspects who are under custodial investigation

However, under no circumstances should the arrested suspects
2
under custodial investigation be held in the detention center beyond the
prescribed reglementary period, unless, while in custody, appropriate
charges have been filed and a Commitment Order has been issued by the
court concerned or he or she signed the required waiver of the rights under
the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Requirements for admission
Prior to the admission of arrested suspect, the following requirements shall

be submitted to the chief of the Detention/Custodial Center:
q Request for Custody of the arresting unit or the Commitment Order

from the court
q Proof of medical examination or medical certificate of the detainee to
be provided by the arresting unit requesting for custody
q Case folder of the detainee containing the accomplished booking sheet for
the arrested suspect and the Information filed with the Prosecutor’s Office
Visitation
Any person arrested and detained at the PNP Detention/Custodial

Center shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his or
her immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest, or religious minister
chosen by him or her or by any member of his or her immediate family or
by his or her counsel, or by any local NGO duly accredited by the CHR or
by any international NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President,
subject to the following conditions:
q The Chief, Detention/Custodial Center or his or her duly authorized

representative is authorized to apportion the number of visitors per
detainee at any given time as the space of the visitor’s area may allow.
q With respect to detainee’s family members, public or pertinent
document must be presented to prove their relationship with the detainee.
q Visitors wearing the color of the detainee’s uniform shall be advised to
wear other colors.

q The Custodial Center, an informal and temporary penal facility for
2
arrested suspects, shall not allow conjugal visits for detention prisoners.
q The counsel of the accused has the right to visit the latter subject to the
existing security rules and regulation of the center.
q No camera, video equipment, cellular phone, and similar devices are
allowed inside the visiting area.
q All visitors shall be frisked for deadly weapons, firearms, and other
prohibited items.
Transfer of custody
Upon receipt of the Commitment Order from the court, the Chief,
Detention/Custodial Center shall personally coordinate with the issuing
court to ascertain the validity of the order. Upon confirmation, the Chief,
Detention /Custodial Center must coordinate with the receiving detention
facility for the immediate transfer of custody.
Prior to the transfer of custody, the arrested person shall be subjected
to medical examination by a PNP medico-legal officer or any government
physician in the absence of PNP medico-legal officer. Medical examination
is mandatory before any transfer of custody of arrested person.
Release
The Chief of Office is the sole approving authority in releasing detention

prisoner.
Upon receipt of the Release Order from the court, the chief of the
Detention/Custodial Center shall personally coordinate with the issuing
court to ascertain the validity of the order. Upon confirmation, he or she
must coordinate with the arresting unit if there are other legal impediments
to the release. He or she also needs to check the DIDM’s Arrest and
Warrant Registry to determine if the detainee to be released has other
pending warrants of arrest.
If all documents are in order, the chief of the Detention/Custodial
Center then prepares the memorandum addressed to the Chief of Office for
the approval of the release.
If there are valid grounds to sustain further detention, the Chief of

Office, in coordination with the arresting unit, will prepare the appropriate
2
manifestation to the court containing the grounds for objection.
Prior to the official release of the detainee, the chief of the Detention/
Custodial Center must bring the detainee to the Office of the PNP Health
Service or Rural Health Unit for medical examination, which shall form
part of the records or case folder of the subject detainee.
The Property or Evidence Custodian Officer is responsible for the
custody of all the properties seized from the detainee prior to his or her
detention, as well as the release of these items to the detainee immediately
upon his or her discharge from detention.
Segregation of detainees
As much as practicable, detainees must be segregated according to gender

and the classification of crimes committed.
Transporting detention prisoner
If transported by a patrol jeep, the detention prisoner must be seated on the

right rear seat, and a PNP escort shall sit at the rear on the left side facing
the subject. If transported by a patrol car, the prisoner must be seated on the
right rear seat, and the PNP escort personnel shall sit on the left rear seat.
The detention prisoner’s hands should be secured by handcuffs under
his or her knees when being transported.
The following are prohibited when transporting detention prisoners:
q Use of public utility land vehicles that are not exclusively utilized
for transporting detention prisoners
q Absence of proper escort and handcuffs
q Use handcuffs on female detainees. They are to be transported
only with necessary restraint and proper escort, preferably aided by a
policewoman.
q Travel and escort of a detention prisoner outside the detention cell
to places devoted for recreation, worship, entertainment, meals and
dining, and others of similar and analogous description, unless upon
lawful orders of the court.

Transporting and escorting a detention prisoner shall be limited
2
only from the detention cell to the proper office for inquest, or court for
hearing, or to the nearest hospital or clinic in case of the mandatory medical
examination prior to detention or during actual medical emergency, or in
court-permitted transport.
A detention prisoner shall as much as possible be transported wearing
detention prisoner uniform or proper attire that may identify him or her as
a detention prisoner.
Application of command responsibility

in investigation
PNP investigators assigned to cases involving ELKs and EDs are governed
by the doctrine of command responsibility. As described in LOI Task Force
Usig, it “refers to the duty or obligation of every Police Commissioned
Officer (PCO) to closely supervise, coordinate, control, and monitor the
discharge of duties of his subordinates as well as the responsibility to
control and monitor the activities of other units operating within the PCOs
area of jurisdíction and to take preventive or corrective measures as may be
warranted.” This doctrine is applied against unit commanders, particularly
where high-profile crimes are committed in their areas of responsibility.
The application of the doctrine includes a presumption of knowledge
by a police officer of the commission of crimes. Executive Order No. 226
issued in 1995, entitled “Institutionalization of the Doctrine of ‘Command
Responsibility’ in all Government Offices, Particularly at all Levels of
Command in the Philippine National Police and Other Law Enforcement
Agencies,” provides that a PNP commander is presumed to have knowledge
of the commission of irregularities or criminal offenses in any of the
following circumstances:
q When the irregularities or illegal acts are widespread within his or

her area of jurisdiction
q When the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or
regularly committed within his or her area of responsibility
q When members of his or her immediate staff or office personnel are
involved

Conclusions and
2 Recommendations
I
n the investigation of ELK and ED cases, PNP investigators
encounter many problems: contaminated or tainted evidence, lack of
cooperation of complainants or witnesses, recantation of statements
by witnesses, and lack of security, particularly in NPA-infested
areas. These are compounded by image problems of the PNP in general,
lack of training in investigation, lack of facilities and equipment, and the
perennial lack of investigators. Oftentimes, particularly in the provinces,
only one investigator is able to respond to ELK/ED incidents. Moreover,
there is only one SOCO team per region.
In light of these challenges, the following recommendations are made:
q The definition of who may be victims of ELKs and EDs in LOI Task
Force Usig must be expanded to include even individuals who do not
belong to militant organizations or are not media practitioners. Those
who are with any political or ideological group should also be protected
against ELKs and EDs. This would be consistent with the Supreme
Court’s Administrative Order No. 25-2007 that designated special
courts for killings of political activists and media members and provided
for some factors to consider in determining whether a crime is a “political
killing,” like the (1) political affiliation of the victim; (2) method of attack;
and (3) involvement of state agents.
q There is a need to provide more resources in terms of personnel,
equipment, facilities, and funds to the PNP to strengthen its capacity to
investigate cases involving ELKs and EDs.
q PNP investigators should be given more education and training in
skills and values. Skills training should give more emphasis to forensic
investigation in view of the over reliance of PNP investigators on the
testimony of witnesses.
q There should be greater cooperation between and among the various
agencies of government involved in the investigation of ELKs and EDs to
make the gathering of evidence and investigation of cases more effective.
q The witness protection program should be enhanced.

q Civil society should be educated on the importance of forensic evidence
2
in the investigation of ELKs and EDs to minimize or prevent the
contamination of evidence in ELKs and EDs by members of the public.
q The PNP Human Rights Affairs Office should set up a system to
enable it to effectively monitor, evaluate, and conduct follow-up work
on its programs and thus be able to apply data and information it has
gathered in its work.

Armed Forces of the Philippines
2 General Framework
S
ection 3, Article II of the 1987 Constitution designates the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) as “the protector of the
people and the State” and mandates it “to secure the sovereignty
of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”
As an agency organized to protect the people and the state, the AFP
is also engaged in the investigation of criminal acts or violations of human
rights. However, unlike other investigatory bodies (CHR, DOJ, PNP, NBI,
and Ombudsman), the AFP only investigates incidents involving military
personnel and, except in certain instances, mainly for the purpose of
disciplinary action against them. For this purpose, the military has its own
military justice system.
The AFP offices under the military justice system through which
private individuals may seek redress against erring members of the military
are the following:74
q The Office of the Provost Marshall General (TPMG) is tasked to

receive “complaints and investigate cases involving offenses against person
and property, disturbance of peace and public order, vehicular accidents,
traffic violations, and other offenses vis-a-vis military law and regulations
committed by military personnel.” It also investigates human rights abuses
and complaints and related cases reported or referred to it.85
q The Office of the Inspector General (OTIG) looks into and reports
on matters pertaining to the mission effectiveness, operational readiness,
security preparedness, utilization of resources, as well as the state of
morale and discipline of the AFP through inspections and investigations.
7 Diokno, Jose Manuel I. 2009. Civil and Administrative Remedies as Instruments of

Accountability for Violations of Human Rights, 51. (Information was also drawn from the AFP
website.)
8 Office of the Provost Marshall General. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://www.afp.mil.ph/
special/otpmg/functions.html.

Based on these, it is tasked to recommend to the AFP Chief of Staff the
2
means by which improvements in these aspects may be made.96
q The Office of the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) serves as the
chief legal adviser of the AFP and legal adviser of the DND on military
matters. Its primary task is to supervise the military justice system. It
provides legal assistance to AFP personnel before civil courts, and also
files cases, criminal or administrative, against military personnel before
civil courts, the general courts martial, and the Efficiency and Separation
Board (ESB).107
q The Office of Ethical Standards and Public Accountability (OESPA)
is tasked to promote professionalism and “instill ethical standards and
inculcate a strong sense of public accountability commitment against
graft and corruption in the AFP.” It evaluates, prosecutes, and monitors
civil, criminal, and administrative cases of AFP personnel under the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.118

Outside of this military justice system is the AFP Human Rights
Office (AFPHRO), which was established under the AFP Chief of Staff to
assist him or her on all matters relating to human rights and international
humanitarian law. One of its functions is to receive complaints on alleged
violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by military
personnel and to cause their investigation.
The AFP works together with other law enforcement agencies like the
PNP and the NBI in addressing criminality around the country. It is one
of the agencies directed to actively support the mandate of the Task Force
Against Political Violence (TFAPV) created in 2007 under Administrative
Order No. 211.
9 Office of the Inspector General Accessed March 1, 2001. http://www.afp.mil.ph/pers/otig/

index.htm.
10 Office of the Judge Advocate General. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://www.afp.mil.ph/
special/otjag/index.htm.
11 Office of Ethical Standards and Public Accountability. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://
www.afp.mil.ph/pers/oespa/index.htm.

SPECIFIC MANDATES
2 ON ELK’S AND ED’S
T
he AFP has no specific legal mandate to undertake the criminal
investigation of ELKs and EDs, or crimes in general. Its role in
any criminal investigation is merely supportive of the work of
the PNP as the primary investigating agency. When the AFP
investigates ELKs and EDs, it is primarily for disciplinary purposes.
However, the government and the AFP, in particular, have undertaken
various steps relating to ELKs and EDs as a result of the findings of the Melo
Commission, which pointed to the possible involvement of the military in
the spate of ELKs and EDs in the country. These measures include the
following:
q On September 25, 2007, Administrative Order No. 197 was issued

which called upon the DND and the AFP to work closely with the
Presidential Human Rights Committee (PHRC) subcommittee on
killings and disappearances to speedily act on cases, pursue effective
reforms to avoid abuses, and provide regular reports to the President.
q The AFP Human Rights Office (AFPHRO) was set up.
q A special court martial was created to expedite cases involving ELKs.
q Command Guidance dated April 25, 2007 was issued which directed
the AFP to document incidents of ELKs and other violations, and to
assist the PNP in filing cases against the suspects.
q The AFP Chief of Staff issued a directive dated February 13, 2008
concerning the handling of arrest warrants against military personnel
accused of criminal cases or ELKs (involving political violence).
Process
T
he AFP does not have any procedure specific to the investigation
of ELKs and EDs both as a criminal and administrative concern.
As a general rule, if ever the AFP comes across any ELK or ED, it
will refer the case to the police.

This support role is reflected in a directive issued by the AFP Chief
2
of Staff enjoining AFP commanders to observe the primacy of the rule of
law in conducting military operations. The directive was in response to the
increasing number of cases filed against AFP personnel invoking the new
rules on the writ of amparo and writ of habeas data, which are normally
sought in connection with ELK and ED cases.
Under the directive, the AFP shall seek the active involvement of the
PNP as far as practicable in the conduct of military operations. As a rule,
the PNP unit in the area of operation is tasked to assist in the prompt
investigation of the incident, take statements, collect and preserve evidence
together with the SOCO Team, prepare the case folder, and file the
appropriate charges. AFP units in the area shall cooperate with the PNP.
Steps in the conduct of operations

Pre-planned military operations
The AFP unit involved shall coordinate under confidential cover and
through the chain of command with the nearest PNP local unit to make
available on-scene investigator provided prior coordination does not
compromise operational security or confidentiality.
The commanding officer (CO) in charge of the pre-planned operation
must assist the investigator as follows:
q In the investigation of the extent and status of the operation

q In interrogation of arrested rebels, surrenderees, and other civilians
q Allowing the investigator to process the crime scene with the assistance
of SOCO teams
q Placing the investigator under his or her command during the conduct
of the operation
q In the inventory and safekeeping of evidence collected
q Turnover of custody of arrested persons to the PNP
q In the documentation and evaluation of evidence gathered
q In the case buildup and referral to the DOJ or in direct filing in court
q Monitoring the progress of the case.

Chance encounter
2 In chance encounter during an instantaneous AFP operation, the AFP

commander within the area of responsibility of the PNP shall:
1 Inform the PNP on the chance operation as soon as possible.

2 Brief the PNP investigator on arrival at the scene of the incident.
3 Allow the PNP investigator to gather and preserve evidence.
4 Conduct an inventory of all evidence, mark them, and turn them over
to the PNP investigator, including the result of any initial inquiry made
pending the arrival of the PNP investigator.
5 Assist the PNP in case buildup and referral to the DOJ or in direct
filing in court.
Military units are to assist in the immediate referral of the case to the
proper authorities. The AFP cannot conduct a separate tactical interrogation,
other than the PNP-initiated formal or custodial investigation. All unified
commands, through their judge advocates, are also supposed to coordinate
with the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG)129 components in the
area of operation with respect to assisting on-case investigators.
Moreover, the AFP strictly adheres to the application of the doctrine
of command responsibility in the conduct of its operations, as declared in
a letter directive dated February 26, 2007. The directive defines command
responsibility as the “accountability or responsibility or answerability of
the commander of a military force or unit for the acts of his men, inclusive
of the authority to order, to direct, to prevent, or control the acts of his
men.”1310
12 This has been abolished by President Aquino.

13 People v. Lucero, et al., GR No. 643232-24 (May 31, 1991).

Recommendations
2
T
he role of the AFP in the investigation of ELK and ED cases
is to support the PNP investigation. Sometimes, however, the
AFP may have to conduct the initial inquiry and inventory of
evidence pending the arrival of the PNP investigator in the
scene. To enhance the confidence and capabilities of AFP personnel in the
conduct of its supportive role or of such initial inquiry and inventory of
evidence while waiting for the arrival of the PNP investigator, the following
measures are recommended:
q Concerned AFP personnel should be given the necessary training and

education on investigation work at the scene of the incident or the crime
similar to that given to PNP investigators.
q Among the various units of the AFP which conduct investigations, it
appears that when it comes to human rights violations, including ELKs
and EDs, it is the Office of the Provost Marshal which is at the forefront.
It is therefore important to strengthen the capacity of the office to conduct
these investigations. Such measures should include consideration of
the possibility of making work with the Provost Marshal as a separate
career area to enable officers and personnel to develop their skills as law
enforcers and investigators.

2 General Framework
T
he National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is attached
to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is the principal
law agency of the government. As administrator of the
criminal justice system in country, the DOJ is involved in the
investigation of crimes. Its primary investigatory unit for this purpose is
NBI.
According to its enabling law, R.A. No. 157, the main objective of
the NBI is to establish and maintain “a modern, effective, and efficient
investigative service and research agency.” Its principal functions include
the following:
q Investigate crimes and other offenses against Philippine laws, both on

its own initiative and as public interest may require.
q Assist, when officially requested, in the investigation or detection of
crimes and other offenses.
q Act as national clearinghouse of criminal records and other information
for use of all prosecuting and law enforcement entities in the Philippines.
q Give technical help to all prosecuting and law enforcement offices,
government agencies, and courts that may ask for its services.
q Extend its services in the investigation of cases of administrative or
civil in nature in which the government is interested.
q Establish and maintain an up-to-date scientific crime laboratory and
conduct researches in furtherance of scientific knowledge in criminal
investigation.
q Coordinate with other national or local agencies in maintaining peace
and order.
The NBI normally focuses on high-profile cases of public interest,

particularly when directed by higher authorities. Aside from its main office in
Manila, it has regional and sub-regional offices operating around the country.

Specific Mandates
on ELK’s and ED’s
2
T
here is no law, rule, or regulation that specifically mandates
the NBI to investigate ELKs and EDs. Its involvement in
these types of cases is part of its general function to investigate
crimes. When it does investigate ELKs and EDs, it is usually
in connection with cooperative arrangements with other government
agencies.
However, the NBI, on its own, has created a Death Investigation
Division (DID) through the issuance on August 4, 2010 of
Administrative Order No. 14. The aim of the DID is to “prioritize and
focus investigation of cases of suspicious death, suicide, and foul play
like murder, homicide, and auto-erotic death, including media, militant,
and other killings.”
The NBI is covered by DOJ Order No. 848 issued on December 10,
2010 creating the Special Task Force to Address Extralegal Killings and
Enforced Disappearances in order “to effectively and expeditiously address
all reported and unresolved cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.” One of the functions of the special task force is to “look
into and act on reported cases of harassments, intimidations, and torture,
especially where the alleged perpetrators or violators are law enforcement
officers or agents of the state, and coordinate with the government
investigative agencies, particularly the NBI, for the investigation of the
perpetrators and eventual filing of cases against them.”
Aside from coordinating with the DOJ and other law enforcement
agencies, the NBI provides security assistance to protect high-profile
subjects involved in big cases as witnesses or as role players in the criminal
justice system who are themselves threatened with violence.

Process
2T he lead role in investigating ELKs and EDs belongs to PNP
investigators as first responders and primary investigators.
The NBI merely serves to complement the work of the PNP.
It has no specific mandate to look into ELKs and EDs. Its
power and duty to investigate these crimes falls under its general mandate
to investigate all violations of penal laws of the Philippines. Hence, there
is no special procedure of the NBI for the investigation of ELKs and EDs.
Recommendations
I
t is well known that the NBI has greater expertise and more
resources in investigating crimes like ELKs and EDs compared
to the PNP and other agencies. However, the NBI has no specific
mandate to investigate these crimes, and there is no clear and
effective mechanism through which it is able to share these resources
with other investigatory bodies that may be investigating ELKs and EDs.
Mechanisms to facilitate greater exchange of information and resources
among investigatory bodies like the NBI and the PNP should therefore be
set up or strengthened with utmost priority.

Office of the Ombudsman
General Framework 2
T
he Office of the Ombudsman was created by the Constitution
to serve as the “protector of the people.” As such, “it shall act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against
public officials or employees of the government.”
The Constitution specifies the powers, functions, and duties of the
Ombudsman as follows:
q Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or

omission of any public official, employee, office, or agency when such act
or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
q Direct any official to perform any act or duty required by law, or to
stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance
of duties.
q Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against
an official or employee at fault, and recommend his or her removal,
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution.
q Direct the officer concerned to give it documents relating to
transactions involving use of public funds or properties.
q Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud,
and corruption in the government, and make recommendations for their
elimination.
While most of the cases covered by the Ombudsman’s work deal with
graft and corruption, it has the power to also investigate and prosecute
other cases that amount to nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance of a
public official or employee in all three branches of government.
The Ombudsman shall give priority to complaints filed against high-
ranking government officials, or those occupying supervisory positions,
complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving large
sums of money and/or properties, according to R.A. No. 6770 (The

Ombudsman Act of 1989).
2
The work of investigation and prosecution of cases are conducted
through the following offices of the Office of the Ombudsman:
q Office of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman

q Office of the Special Prosecutor
q Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
q Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas
q Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
q Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices
q Field Investigation Office
q Preliminary Investigation and Administrative Adjudication and
Monitoring Office
q Office of Legal Affairs
Specific Mandates
T
he Ombudsman is primarily known to be an anti-graft body.
As such, it has no special mandate to investigating cases of
ELKs and EDs.
One of its main functions, however, is “to investigate on
its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public
official, employee, office, or agency, when such act or omission appears to
be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.” Hence, while it has no specific
mandate for ELKs and EDs, its power to investigate illegal acts of those in
government is broad enough to cover cases of ELKs and EDs committed by
government officials or employees.

Process
A
s stated earlier, there is no specific mandate for the
Ombudsman to investigate cases involving ELKs and EDs.
However, the Ombudsman’s duty to investigate ELKs and EDs
may be based on its power to investigate illegal acts of government
2
officials or employees. In conducting such an investigation, the Ombudsman
and his or her deputies are mandated to “act promptly on complaints filed in any
form or manner against public officials or employees of the government.” This
means that the Ombudsman does not need a formal complaint as basis for an
investigation. The complaint may be verbal or in writing, and under oath or not.
If upon investigation the Ombudsman determines there is a basis, it may result
in the prosecution of erring public officials or employees.
Based on the Ombudsman Desk Reference, the Field Investigation
Office is the principal fact-finding unit of the Ombudsman’s Central Office.
In the Visayas and Mindanao Offices, fact-finding is carried out by separate
fact-finding units. These fact-finding units may investigate cases involving
ELKs and EDs. The work of the field investigators involves the following
stages:
1 Case initiation
2 Case evaluation
3 Investigation proper
4 Report writing
5 Pleading writing
This chapter discusses only the first three stages: case initiation, case
evaluation, and investigation proper. Preliminary investigation, which
comes after the field investigation, is also not covered in this discussion
since this proceeding is outside the work of the field investigator. At this
stage, it is the investigating prosecutor who conducts the investigation, and
it is for the purpose of determining (1) whether a crime was committed, and
(2) whether the respondent is probably guilty of committing the crime.
According to the Desk Reference, the following are the rules or guidelines
on the investigation of cases by the field investigator:

Case initiation
2 An investigation may be initiated through any of the following:
q Complaints filed in any form

q A news report, which the Ombudsman may investigate on its own
(motu proprio)
q An informant
q The Ombudsman hotline
q Other units of the Ombudsman
Case evaluation
Case evaluation involves a two-step process: (1) determining whether
investigation should proceed; and (2) if yes, determining how to proceed.
In determining whether to proceed, the field investigator must consider,
among others, whether the official involved is high-ranking, since priority is
given to cases involving high-ranking officers.
In determining how to proceed, the investigator must identify the
elements of the offense probably committed, identify the evidence needed,
and plan how to obtain the evidence. The investigator must also conduct
legal research.
Investigation proper
In conducting the investigation, investigators must observe certain
techniques concerning the following:
q Gathering of needed documents, which may be through a subpoena

duces tecum, in which a person is required to attend a hearing and to
bring with him or her documents under his or her control
q Surveillance, which is the secret observation of persons, places, or
vehicles to get information
q Interviews of witnesses, informants, and other sources
q Entrapment, which is an operation designed to trap and capture a

person while committing a crime and carried out in cooperation with law
2
enforcement agencies
The investigator must always keep in mind the prescriptive periods

for offenses under investigation, since prescription extinguishes criminal
liability, and finish his or her investigation well within the period to give
time for preliminary investigation and trial.
Recommendations
T
he Office of the Ombudsman focuses mainly on cases
involving graft and corruption. It does not ordinarily
investigate cases involving ELKs and EDs. However, such
cases may also involve the commission of illegal acts by
government officials or employees, which the Ombudsman has the
power to investigate. Under the Constitution, therefore, there is nothing
that prevents the Office of the Ombudsman from also investigating ELKs
and EDs.
It is therefore recommended that the Ombudsman investigate ELKs
and EDs committed by government officials or employees, and adopt the
necessary rules of procedure for this purpose.

The Commission 3
On Human
Rights
Cecilia R.V. Quisumbing 1
C
reated by the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) is an independent national human
rights institution committed to ensure the protection,
promotion, and fulfillment of all human rights on the
basis of equality and nondiscrimination, in particular for
the marginalized and vulnerable. It takes no instructions from the Chief
Executive or any other government body, and sets its own program of work
and rules of procedure.
The CHR predates the Paris Principles for National Human Rights
Institutions (NHRIs) adopted in 1992 by the United Nations Human
Rights Commission. It is compliant with the Paris Principles and has
received an “A” rating from the International Coordinating Committee
of the National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights.
1 Prof. Carlos P. Medina, Jr. contributed to this chapter.

In his report on his mission to the Philippines in February 2007, UN
3
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Executions
Philip Alston noted that the CHR “stands out as an oversight mechanism
that has safeguarded its independence and mandate.” But the report also
said, “More resources must be devoted to ensure the effectiveness of its
investigations.”
The CHR bases its work on human rights standards and law, both
domestic and international, rather than on criminal law. It monitors
government compliance with international treaty obligations protecting
and promoting human rights, including those defined in international law
applicable to the Philippines.
Consequently, the commission uses the term “extrajudicial, summary,
and arbitrary killings” instead of “extralegal killings” adopted by the
Supreme Court in 2007 in investigating possible violations of the right to
life as provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This explains why the number of cases recorded by the CHR may vary from
those reported by other law enforcement agencies.
There is no single definition of extrajudicial killings (EJK). The human
rights community considers this term to encompass all cases where a person
is deprived of his or her right to life, outside of the exception allowed in the
ICCPR. The exception: “In countries which have not abolished the death
penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes
in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the
crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered
by a competent court.”
As such, all killings committed without a judicial order and sentence
for death penalty as provided by law can be considered extrajudicial killings.
To avoid being inundated by common criminal cases of killings, the
CHR monitors cases where the suspects are government personnel or
agents, or the incident occurs during government operations.
It also monitors cases based on who is the victim. If the victim is a
dissident or an activist for a certain cause, then that might be the motivation
for the killing and would make it different from murder as commonly

understood. The killing of a dissident or activist is likely related to the
3
freedoms of belief, opinion, expression, and assembly that are crucial to
democracy.
The CHR also investigates killings and other human rights violations
committed by nonstate actors, including rebel groups, private security
companies, and similar entities.
GENERAL FRAMEWORK
T
he powers and functions of the CHR are embodied in
Article XIII, Section 18 of the Constitution. They include
the following:
q Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of

human rights violations involving civil and political rights.
q Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for
contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court.2
q Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human
rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing
abroad, and provide preventive measures and legal aid services to the
underprivileged.
q Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities.
q Establish a continuing program of research, education, and
information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights.
q Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights
and to provide compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or
their families.
q Monitor the government’s compliance with international treaty
obligations on human rights.
q Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony
2 For the first time in its history, the CHR, in Resolution No. A-2010-089, on July 10, 2010
cited for contempt two Navy officers for repeated non-appearance and lack of cooperation with an
investigation into the disappearance and detention of Muhamadiya Hamja, a suspected member
of the Abu Sayyaf Group.

or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or
3
convenient to determine the truth in any of its investigation.
q Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in
the performance of its functions.
The CHR does not have its own charter, but bills providing for one
have been filed in Congress. The commission has been operating under
Executive No. Order 163 issued in 1987.
Specific Mandates on
ELK’s, TORTURE, and ED’s
T
he CHR has the mandate and authority to investigate
violations of civil and political rights, including the following:
q Rights of prisoners and detainees against physical,

psychological, and degrading punishment
q Constitutional guarantees against the use of torture, force, violence,
threat, intimation, and other means that force a person to do anything
against his or her will
q Right to life, without due process of law, as in summary or
extrajudicial killing (salvaging)
q Right against unreasonable searches and seizures, resulting in
voluntary or enforced disappearance
q Rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation
Recently enacted laws such as the Anti-Torture Law (Republic Act No.
9745), International Humanitarian Law (R.A. No. 9851), and the Human
Security Act (R.A. No. 9372) also contain provisions that apply to the
CHR.

The Anti-Torture Law (R.A. No. 9745)
Secret detention
The 2009 Anti-Torture Law prohibits secret detention places, solitary
confinement, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention, where
3
torture may be carried out with impunity.
The Philippine National Police (PNP), Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), and other law enforcement agencies are required to update within
the first five days of every month the list of all detention centers and
facilities under their jurisdictions with corresponding data on the prisoners
or detainees, including their names, date of arrest and incarceration, and
the crime or offense committed.
The list should be made available to the public at all times. A copy of
the complete list must not only be available at the national headquarters of
the PNP and AFP but must also be submitted to the CHR.
Similarly, the regional offices of the PNP, AFP, and other law
enforcement agencies should update the list of detainees and detention
facilities within their areas, make this available to the public at all times
at their regional headquarters, and submit a copy to the CHR’s Regional
Offices.
Institutional protection of torture victims

A victim of torture has the following rights when instituting a criminal
complaint for torture:
q A prompt and an impartial investigation—60 working days from

filing of complaint—by the CHR and other concerned government
agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), Public Attorney’s
Office (PAO), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), PNP, and the
AFP. Appeal, whenever available, shall be resolved within the same
period.

q Sufficient government protection against all forms of harassment,
3
threat, or intimidation as a consequence of filing a complaint or
presenting evidence
Writs of habeas corpus, amparo, and habeas data

A writ of habeas corpus, writ of amparo, or writ of habeas data proceeding
filed on behalf of the victim of torture or other cruel, degrading, and
inhuman treatment or punishment shall be disposed of promptly, and any
court order in connection with this should be executed or complied with
immediately.
Assistance in filing a complaint

The CHR and the PAO shall render legal assistance in the investigation
and monitoring or filing of the complaint for a person who suffered torture
and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. The
victim or interested party may also seek legal assistance from the Barangay
Human Rights Action Center (BHRAC) nearest him or her as well as from
human rights nongovernment organizations.
Compensation to victims
Torture victims are guaranteed the right to claim compensation as provided
for under R.A. No. 7309. Compensation shall be no lower than P10,000.
Victims shall also have the right to claim compensation from such other
financial relief programs that may be made available to them under existing
laws and rules and regulations.
Rehabilitation program
The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD),
Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Health (DOH) and other
concerned government agencies, and government-recognized human rights
organizations shall formulate a comprehensive rehabilitation program for

victims of torture and their families. The program should provide for the
3
physical, mental, social, and psychological healing and development of
victims of torture and their families.
Toward restorative justice, a parallel rehabilitation program for persons
who have committed torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading
punishment also has to be formulated by these agencies.
Monitoring compliance
The law created an Oversight Committee to periodically oversee
implementation. It is headed by a commissioner of the CHR, with the
following as members: the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Justice
and Human Rights, the chairpersons of the House of Representatives’
Committees on Justice and Human Rights, and the Minority Leaders of
both chambers of Congress or their representatives in the minority.
Education and information campaign

The CHR, DOJ, Department of National Defense (DND), Department of
the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and other concerned parties
in the public and private sectors are to include education and information
on the prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading
treatment or punishment in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil
or military, medical personnel, public officials, and other persons who may
be involved in the custody, interrogation, or treatment of any individual
subjected to any form of arrest, detention, or imprisonment.
The International Humanitarian Law

(R.A. No. 9851)
Enacted in 2010, R.A. No. 9851 penalizes crimes against International
Humanitarian Law (IHL), genocide, and other crimes against humanity. It
creates special courts to try these crimes.

Protection of victims and witnesses
3 The IHL Law provides additional measures to protect victims and witnesses.
The court is mandated to take appropriate measures to protect the
safety, physical, and physiological well-being, dignity, and privacy of victims
and witnesses.
The law allows an exception to the general principle of public hearings.
To protect the victims and witnesses or an accused, the court may conduct
any part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation of evidence
by electronic or other special means.
Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the court shall
permit their views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of
the proceedings determined to be appropriate by the court in manner that
is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair
and impartial trial.
In proceedings conducted before the start of the trial, the prosecution
may withhold evidence or information that may gravely endanger the
security of a witness or his or her family, and instead submit a summary of
the information.
Reparations to victims
In addition to existing provisions in law and procedural rules for reparations
to victims, R.A. No. 9851 states:
q The court may, upon request or on its own motion in exceptional

circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss, and
injury to, or in respect of, victims and state the principles on which it is
acting.
q The court may make an order directly against a convicted person
specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including
restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation.
q Before making an order, the court may invite and shall take account
of representations from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims, or
other interested persons.
Rule on the writ of amparo
In 2007, the Supreme Court promulgated the rules on the writ of amparo.
Who may file

3
The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person
or entity in the following order:
q Any member of the immediate family (spouse, children, and parents)

of the aggrieved party
q Any ascendant, descendant, or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity
q Any concerned citizen, organization, association, or institution if
there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all
other authorized parties to file similar petitions. The filing of the petition
by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party also suspends the
rights of all others.
Interim reliefs
Upon filing of the petition or at any time before final judgment, the court,
justice, or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
Temporary protection order
The court, upon motion or on its own, may order that the petitioner or the
aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a
government agency or by an accredited person or private institution that can
keep and secure their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association, or
institution, the protection may be extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions
3
that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved
party and any member of the immediate family. The accredited persons and
private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions that may be
imposed by the court.
Inspection order
The court may order any person in possession or control of a designated

land or other property to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting,
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object
or operation.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It
shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal
knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, the court may conduct a hearing in
chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. The movant must show
that the inspection order is necessary to establish the right of the aggrieved
party alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to
make the inspection and the date, time, place, and manner of making the
inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional
rights of all the parties. The order shall expire five days after the date of its
issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
Production order
The court may order any person in possession, custody, or control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, photographs, objects or
tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute
or contain evidence relevant to the petition or return, to produce and permit
their inspection, copying, or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, in which case the court may conduct
a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. The court
3
shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of the
parties.
Witness protection order
The court, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the
DOJ for admission to the Witness Protection, Security, and Benefit
Program, pursuant to R.A. No. 6981. It may also refer the witnesses to
other government agencies or to accredited persons or private institutions
capable of keeping and securing their safety.
Human Security Act (R.A. No. 9372)

The Human Security Act (HSA) gives the CHR concurrent jurisdiction to
prosecute public officials, law enforcers, and other persons who may have
violated the civil and political rights of persons suspected of, accused of,
or detained for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
PROCESS
T
his section discusses the processes by which the CHR
discharges its functions related to extrajudicial killings,
enforced disappearances, and torture, specifically on
investigation, assistance to victims, and witness protection.
Investigation
Investigation refers to the determination of facts and circumstances
surrounding the commission of a crime, offense, or human rights violation
and the identification of the offender or violator. This includes the motive
behind or root cause of the violation and the background of the victims and
the perpetrator.
Figure 3.1 Basic Steps in CHR Investigations
To docket the case
3
Complaint or Reports (Recorded Mareis System)
(Rule 4, Secs. 2,3,4,5 & 6) (Rule 4, Sec. 19)
Call the parties for dialogue, Preliminary Review

if required (Rule 4, Sec. 9 in relation to (Rule 4, Secs. 7 & 8)
Rule 21 on ADR)
Notice to the respondents and victims Start the Investigation

(Rule 4, Secs. 12-14, 16 & 18) (Rule 4, Secs. 10 & 11)
Investigation Reports (Investigator) Investigation

(Rule 4, Sec. 20)
Evaluation and Prepare the CHR

Resolutions (Legal Office) Aprroval and Issue the CHR Resolution
(Rule 4, Secs. 22-23) (RegionalDirector) (Rule 4, Sec. 24)
Notice of the Resolution to the Parties Transmit the case for filing of appropriate
(Rule 4, Sec. 24) action before any competent fora (or
dismiss the case) (Rule 4, Sec. 27)
Appeal Resolution after the appeal

(Rule 4, Secs. 25, 26 & 32) (Rule 4, Sec. 33)
Monitoring of the status of cases
The CHR investigates cases involving ELKs and EDs in much the same
3
way as it investigates other cases of human rights violations.3 There is no
special procedure applicable only to these cases.
Sources of complaint
CHR investigations usually start from any of the following sources:
q Complaints directly filed with the CHR Regional Office

q Motu proprio cases or investigation on its own initiative based on
reports from various sources such as news reports
q Complaints received from the Barangay Human Rights Action
Centers (BHRAC)
q Investigative monitoring of or inquiry on the conditions of vulnerable
groups, generally initiated by the CHR Regional Office
Investigations complaints are done by the CHR’s 15 Regional

Offices, all of which carry out the functions of investigation, protection,
education, advocacy, and monitoring. Even complaints made before the
CHR chairperson are referred to the relevant CHR Regional Office for
investigation.
Upon receiving a complaint or report of a human rights violation, the
investigator shall:

q Assign it a docket number and immediately record it in accordance
with CHR rules on docket system.
q Upload the initial data, including the case docket number, in the
MAREIS (Martus-based Executive Information System) databank
system.
The CHR’s Operations Manual on Investigation and Case Management Process are the
primary references for this section.
Preliminary evaluation
3 The investigator shall make an initial assessment or review in consultation

with the regional director, the chief of the Investigation Unit, or a CHR
lawyer.
If the complaint or report clearly does not involve a human rights
violation, the investigator shall close the case for referral (closed for referral)
to the appropriate agency.
Should the circumstances require an initial field investigation or fact-
finding mission in order to have an accurate initial validation of the complaint
or report, the CHR office concerned shall deploy an investigator, a lawyer,
or a composite team.
Dialogue
Based on the preliminary evaluation or initial investigation, the commission,
the CHR regional director, or the head of the sub-office or desk office may opt
to call the parties for a dialogue or preliminary conference to discuss, among
others, courses of action and protection remedies, or possible submission of
the matter to an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) whenever applicable.
The invitation or notice shall be given at least three days before the
scheduled date of the dialogue or conference.
Investigation proper
The investigation proper shall begin immediately after the preliminary
evaluation of the report or complaint or after the initial investigation
findings which call for a more complete investigation of the incident or issue.
In no case shall it be later than fifteen days from receipt of the complaint or
report. In very urgent situations, the investigation shall start immediately
upon receipt of the complaint or report.
The investigator shall come up with a plan that shall consider the time
frame of the investigation and the resources needed, among others.
The investigation plan is Stage 1 in the investigation process and is
necessary, especially in high-profile cases. It shall be kept in the case files for
reference and guide for the investigators-on-case.
3
The plan may be modified as the investigation progresses, depending on
the needs and leads of the investigation. This may be during the gathering of
information and evidence (Stage 2) or in the analysis of the information and
evidence at hand (Stage 3).
Notice to respondents and victims
A notice or letter of invitation, an order to appear or subpoena, or any

similar mode of informing the parties shall be given to persons implicated
in human rights abuse for them to appear before the CHR investigators to
explain their side and submit reports, documents, and other relevant data.
The victim or complainant shall likewise be notified.
The notice shall be given within ten days from the start of the
investigation. But if the case is of national or international importance, the
notice must be delivered within three days.
Investigation report
Once the investigation is completed, the investigator shall prepare the final
investigation report, which shall contain the following:
q The authority or legal basis of the CHR to conduct the final

investigation
q The complete facts of the case, including the motive or motives behind
the violation
q The profile of the victim, including his or her full name, sex, gender,
age, status, address, affiliation, work or profession, religion, nationality,
tribe or ethnic origin, educational background
q The profile of the human rights violator or alleged perpetrator,
including his or her full name, sex, gender, age, status, nationality,
work or profession, religion, branch of service in government, or the
organization or group of affiliation
q The names and other personal circumstances of the witnesses and a
brief narration of their testimonies
q The particular provisions of international human rights instruments
3
violated or applicable to the case, as well as the pertinent domestic laws
q The evidence submitted by the complainant or aggrieved party, as well
as that submitted by the alleged violator and the resource person to the
CHR
q The evidence and information gathered in the course of the
investigation
q The answer, comment or counter-affidavits, and other evidence
submitted by the respondent, including the sworn statements of his or her
witnesses
q All other relevant data gathered
q Initial analysis and observations
q Findings or outcome of analysis and observations
q Recommendations
The final investigation report shall be completed within ten days from
the termination of the investigation proper.
Resolution
Evaluation and preparation of resolution
The lawyer or legal officer designated by the regional director shall prepare
the final evaluation and resolution of the case within fifteen working days
from the submission of the final investigation report together with the
evidence that has been collected.
The resolution shall state whether or not there exists prime facie evidence
of a human rights violation committed or omission that led to the violation
of a human right and the pertinent provision of the international human
rights law, as well as domestic laws and jurisprudence applicable to the case.
The dispositive portion of the resolution shall also state the
corresponding recommendations, be it an endorsement for filing of
appropriate criminal, administrative, or civil actions before any competent
fora; or transmission for appropriate legislative, administrative, judicial,
policy, and program measures, or the dismissal of the case.
Approval and issuance of resolution
The CHR regional director shall review and approve the resolution within
five days from its receipt.
In case the regional director disagrees with the evaluation and
disposition of the case made by the lawyer, it shall be incumbent upon the
3
director to rewrite and approve the resolution himself or herself.
If and when the CHR Regional Office decides to dismiss the case,
it shall state in the resolution the grounds for dismissal as well as the
applicable laws and jurisprudence.
Notice of resolution
A notice of resolution (Form 1), together with the certified copy of the case
resolution, shall be sent to the parties and their counsel and other persons
or entities concerned within two days from its approval by the regional
director.
A certified copy of all resolutions shall be furnished the Legal Affairs
Office of the CHR Central Office.
Appeal of resolution
Any party to a human rights case, a concerned citizen, or an organization

representing the party who disagrees with the resolution can appeal the
resolution directly to the Commission en banc within fifteen days from
receipt of the resolution. Any motion for reconsideration shall be treated as
an appeal to the Commission en banc.
The resolution issued by the CHR Regional Office shall become final
after the lapse of the fifteen-day period for appeal and no such appeal has
been taken by any party.
The absence of an appeal does not preclude the Commission en banc to,
on its own, review cases resolved by the Regional Offices, particularly those
that are of national or international importance or implication, or involve
heinous forms of human rights violations, including child rights cases.
The Commission en banc shall, not later than three days from receipt
of the appeal or motu proprio action, direct the CHR Regional Office
3
concerned to transmit to the Commission en banc, through the commission
secretary, a certified copy of the complete records of the case within ten days
from receipt of the directive.
Resolution of appeal
The Commission en banc shall clearly state the basis for affirming,
modifying, amending, or reversing the resolution on the Regional Office,
or the reason for its decision to remand the case of the Regional Office for
further investigation.
The decision shall be issued within 90 days from the time the appeal
was received.
Notice of resolution of appeal
The Legal Affairs Office shall release and serve the notice, together with a
copy of the Commission en banc resolution or decision on cases on appeal,
to all parties in the case, as well as to the CHR Regional Office concerned,
within five days from the date of its approval and concurrence by the
Commission en banc.
The aggrieved party has fifteen days from receipt of the notice and
the copy of the resolution or decision within which to file a motion of
reconsideration before the Commission en banc.
Monitoring of status of cases
The CHR’s Investigative Affairs Office, in coordination with the Legal

Affairs Office, shall monitor all cases taken cognizance of by the CHR from
the time the investigation by its Regional Office or special composite team
created by the commission begins.
Figure 3.2 Steps in a Public Inquiry
Motu proprio or complaint filed

at the CHR
3
Initial investigation
Initial investigation report that includes

recommendation for public inquiry
Appropriate order to be sent out to the

resource persons copy furnished the
complainant
Public inquiry proper
Submission of evidence and other

documents related to the case
Termination of the public inquiry

proceedings
Evaluation of all evidences and the

public inquiry proceedings
Drafting of resolution
Evaluation of Commission en banc

or the regional director as the case
may be
Finalization
Release of the resolution to the parties

concerned
Public inquiry
3 In cases of high national importance or severity the Commission en banc

may decide to conduct a public inquiry4 or a public hearing under its
constitutional functions of investigation. This is neither judicial nor quasi-
judicial, but is intended to assist the commission in determining whether or
not there has been a human rights violation.
Human rights cases or issues involving civil, political, economic, social, and
cultural rights are subjects of public inquiry. The inquiry chiefly intends to:
q Promote and protect a wide range of human rights.

q Address and redress human rights violations.
q Monitor human rights situations in the country and of Filipinos
abroad.
q Gather substantial data, information, and evidence.
Proceedings are held at the CHR Central Office, the Regional Office,
or any practicable and safe place.
The Commission en banc has the discretion to determine whether
public inquiry shall be conducted as a collegial body or to delegate it to any
of its members. A member of the commission shall preside over the inquiry
to be conducted by the Regional Office or by a special committee.
The CHR has conducted public hearings and public inquiries into a
number of high-profile cases, including the following:
q Kuratong Baleleng: Eleven members of the crime syndicate Kuratong

Baleleng were killed in a rubout in Quezon City in 1995 by operatives of
the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission.
q Ortigas massacre: Three alleged car thieves were summarily killed
by eleven members of the PNP Traffic Management Group in Ortigas,
Pasig City in 2005.
This section is based on the CHR’s Draft Omnibus Rules of Procedure.
112 Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappareances
q Jonas Burgos: Agriculturist Jonas Burgos has not been seen since
3
gunmen abducted him at a mall in Quezon City in 2007.
q Parañaque massacre: Eighteen policemen, including two police
generals, involved in the shootout of suspected robbers in a subdivision
in Parañaque City in 2008 that left 16 people dead committed multiple
human rights violations.
q Melissa Roxas: While on a fact-finding trip to the Philippines in
2009. She was reported detained by the military, held for six days, and
tortured.
q “Morong 43”: Forty-three health workers arrested in Morong, Bataan
in 2010 by a combined team of the PNP and Army and charged with
illegal possession of firearms and explosives were detained for ten months,
during which they were reportedly tortured.
THE CHR AT WORK
3 The December 2008
Parañaque shootout
T
he CHR’s inquiry into the shootout between police
personnel and suspected robbers on December 5, 2008
in Parañaque City demonstrates how the processes and
rules of the commission are applied to possible violations
of civil and political rights.
The evening shootout in UPS IV Subdivision resulted in the death
of sixteen individuals and the wounding of several others. Rather than
wait for a complaint to be filed, the CHR took immediate cognizance
of the case motu proprio, involving as it does the killing and wounding
of individuals who apparently were not members of any of the armed
groups of protagonists, whether government law enforcers or criminals.
All of them were innocent civilians who happened to be at the wrong
place at the wrong time.
The CHR was also concerned about the conduct of the anti-
crime operation and the PNP’s adherence to human rights standards,
including the rights of suspects or suspected criminals.
Investigation
The day after the incident, CHR investigators conducted an ocular
investigation of the site of the armed encounters and interviewed
witnesses. The investigation team first proceeded to Funeraria Paz
along Sucat Road, Parañaque City where they met Lilian De Vera, wife
of Alfonso S. De Vera and mother of seven-year-old Lia Allana I. De
Vera. Her husband and daughter were the most tragic victims of the
armed encounters. The team also interviewed the guard on duty.
3
On December 10 and thereafter, the investigation team gathered
affidavits and sworn statements of family members and witnesses.
Lilian R. De Vera filed a letter-complaint and CHR Form 9.
Public inquiry
On December 17, the commission issued an order scheduling on
December 23 a public inquiry on the shootout.
Among those who were summoned to the inquiry were then
Director Leopoldo N. Bataoil of the PNP National Capital Region
Police Office (NCRPO); Chief Superintendent Arturo G. Cacdac Jr.,
director of the Crime Laboratory; Chief Superintendent Leocadio
Santiago Jr., director of the PNP Special Action Force (SAF); Chief
Superintendent Perfecto R. Palad, then director of the Highway
Patrol Group (HPG); and a forensic pathologist from the University
of the Philippines.
Resolution

The resolution promulgated by the Commission en banc found
multiple human rights violations committed during the incident,
including arbitrary killings, deprivation of the victims’ right to be
secure in their persons, and failure to respect the right to be presumed
innocent. It reiterated that these rights are guaranteed by the 1987
Constitution and the ICCPR, and all government personnel have the
obligation not only to respect these rights but to protect them as well.
In particular, the CHR declared that:
q Alfonso and Lia Allana De Vera were deprived of their right

to life and their right to security of person “without any lawful
justification and as a result of reckless actions on the part of the
members of the PNP.”
q Ronaldo Eusebio, who was killed in the shootout and whom
police said was a member of a robbery group, was deprived of the
3
right to life and the right to be presumed innocent until proven
otherwise.
q The arrests of several establishment patrons on Waling-Waling
Street and Sampaguita Avenue were arbitrary and illegal.
q The forcible apprehension and seizure of pedestrians begging
for their lives, and the identification by the HPG men of Arnel
Macalawan and Bernard Tungcab as among the criminals violated
both the Constitution and the ICCPR.
In light of these declarations, the commission recommended the

following against the PNP operatives:
q Criminal and administrative charges for the arbitrary killing or

summary execution of Alfonso De Vera, murder of Lia Allana De
Vera, and obstruction of justice
q Criminal and administrative charges for the murder of Ronaldo
Eusebio and the filing of administrative charges
q Criminal and administrative charges for obstruction of justice
and dereliction of duty for failing to produce, if not concealing, the
firearms of HPG Team II used in the killing of Alfonso and Lia
Allana De Vera, and for refraining from instituting prosecution
against the members of HPG Team II
q Administrative charges for gross negligence resulting in the
killing of Alfonso and Lia Allana De Vera, Arnel Macalawan,
Jessiery B. Basmayor, and Bernard Tungcab
The commission also recommended the following:
q Comprehensive review of PNP Operational Procedures to

make them more responsive to and compliant with human
rights requirements, specifically on the protection of civilians
during intervention operations and to highlight the paramount
consideration that such interventions should be aborted at any sign
of endangerment of civilian life, and that no intervention operation,
even considerations of national security, warrants the risking of
3
innocent civilian lives
q Policy reform, including the drafting and passage of new
legislation, on the conduct of mandatory autopsies on victims of
suspected crimes and violent or wrongful death
q Policy reform, including the drafting and passage of new
legislation, to modernize and establish a system for an expansive
and exhaustive computerized firearms and ballistics database
capable of matching bullets recovered from crime scenes to the
specific firearm used
q Clear PNP regulations on firearms accountability of its officers,
with special focus on the system of issuance of firearm memorandum
receipts and mission orders. This system should include the
automatic surrender of all firearms used in an incident under
investigation by any government body.
The CHR also recommended that its findings be included in the

official records of the commission and other relevant offices, including
in the official service records and Performance Service Evaluations of
the PNP members involved in the shootout, with the corresponding
consequences on promotion and human rights clearances.
The resolution illustrates the issues that are considered and
determined by the CHR: human rights standards, laws on human
rights, including international treaties, and other considerations in the
human rights-based approach to justice, in contrast to a court decision
in a criminal case, which is based on criminal law, including special
laws.
Because it has neither the mandate nor the power, the CHR
does not mete out punitive sentences or civil indemnities. It can only
recommend the filing of criminal charges or administrative and civil
actions. When there are findings of human rights violations, the
CHR also uses the occasion to identify systemic gaps or problems in
implementation and recommend solutions as part of its constitutional
mandate to advise government.
Assistance to victims
3 Kinds of assistance
The CHR extends two kinds of assistance to victims of human rights
violations: regular financial assistance and a special congressional
fund with the nongovernmental organization Families of Victims of
Involuntary Disappearance.
Regular financial assistance
The financial assistance package consists of any of the following:
q Survivor’s benefit
q Medical assistance
q Assistance for victims of trafficking of women and children
q Community assistance
q Rehabilitation assistance
Rehabilitation assistance is also extended to (1) any person under

detention who was subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment
by prison authorities or (2) any person under custodial investigation who
was subjected to cruel or inhuman punishment in order to extort confession
or for any other purpose.
Military, police, or paramilitary personnel recognized as hors de combat
or “out of combat” as defined under International Humanitarian Law but
were nevertheless killed, injured, or maimed by the adverse party are also
entitled to financial assistance. These personnel are considered hors de
combat if:
q They have fallen into the power of the adverse party.

q They clearly express an intention to surrender.
q They have been rendered unconscious or are otherwise incapacitated
by wounds or sickness, and therefore are incapable of defending
themselves.
Special congressional fund
Enforced involuntary disappearance refers to deprivation of a person’s liberty

in whatsoever form for political reasons by (1) agents of the state, or a
private person or group of persons acting with the authorization, support,
or acquiescence of the state and (2) nonstate actors.
3
Financial assistance given from FIND’s Fund includes:
q P10,000 to the disappeared that surfaced or to immediate members of

the family of the victims who disappeared
q P15,000 to the family of those who cannot be located or found
Application process
The CHR observes the following procedures in processing claims for
financial assistance:
1 Upon receipt of a case for human rights violation before the CHR
Central or Regional Office, the commission determines the territorial
jurisdiction over the case. This also applies to cases before the CHR’s
Child Rights Center.
2 The commission investigates the complaint.
3 The commission determines whether to grant or deny financial
assistance.
4 After the determination has been made, the claimant is required to
submit the necessary documents.
5 Findings for the grant of financial assistance shall always be contained
in a separate resolution.
6 The same resolution shall constitute the sole basis for the Regional
Office to process and release the claim for financial assistance.
Victims or their families need to bring the following documents to
3
apply for financial assistance:
q Death certificate or autopsy report

q Medical certificate
q Birth certificate, if claimant is single
q Marriage contract, if claimant is the spouse or heir
q Sworn statements of witnesses, if the same have not been made
available by the Regional Office
q Photographs to show the extent of injury inflicted or gravity of the
offense committed
q Investigation report of law enforcement agencies, if any
Witness protection
The CHR is mandated to provide protection and assistance to any witness
whose testimony and possession of documents are of vital importance to
the investigation or prosecution of human rights violation cases. As of
December 2010, the CHR was reviewing its witness protection program
given its limited resources and professional capabilities.5
RECOMMENDATIONS
I
nvestigating cases of human rights violations is fraught with
problems that range from the lack of competence of law enforcers to
the attitudes of stakeholders.
For example, scene of the crime operatives (SOCO) vary in terms
of capability and actual field work. The CHR often has had to comment and
question the methods used by first responders. Because of careless handling
or possible contamination, some pieces of vital evidence became unreliable.
In the case of botanist Leonard Co, who was killed in Leyte province in
2010 by Army soldiers who his family said mistook his research team for
Resolution CHR (IV) No. A2010-058
New People’s Army (NPA) rebels, the SOCO in Leyte spent only one hour
3
at the scene and considered only fired shell casings as possible evidence but
not a raincoat, pieces of clothing, and food containers found at the scene.
The tendency to blame the military and police on the basis of seeing
men in camouflage clothing demonstrates a widespread mistrust of these
agencies, especially when the victims are from dissident groups. In the
Melissa Roxas case, the CHR did not have sufficient evidence to conclude
that members of the AFP or any other state agency were responsible for her
capture, physical and mental maltreatment, and disappearance for five days.
The tendency of the police or the military to first claim that they were
fired upon or the victim was caught in crossfire, or to blame insurgency
groups shows a reluctance to make thorough internal investigations. The
knee-jerk posture is not in the interest of truth and justice.
There also remains some misunderstanding about the nature of the
CHR investigations and its processes. The CHR is not a court and not
bound by procedures of court. In one case, the complainant was upset
that she did not present her allegations first, which she and a supporting
organization thought to be the “proper” procedure because that is how it is
done in criminal courts. One reason this is not always done during public
inquiries or hearings of the CHR is that the respondents named in the
complaint then feel that they are “defendants” and thus tend to respond to
that testimony rather than to the questions of the commission.
The misconception that CHR inquiries are substantially similar
to criminal cases in court has also led to noncooperation of respondents
from military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies. They have even
attempted to stall or stop public inquiries through petitions for temporary
restraining orders in the regional trial courts.
The recent willingness of judges to issue temporary restraining
orders on CHR public inquiries without proper or correct appreciation
of the commission’s constitutional mandate also demonstrates that many
members of the bench mistake CHR investigations and inquiries as
criminal proceedings. Responding to these court orders takes time and
resources that the CHR could better use for investigations.
It is the CHR’s position that such inquiries and other investigative
activities are patently different from criminal complaints and court cases in
character, objective, and role in the pursuit of justice.
Suggestions have been made to grant the CHR prosecutorial powers
3
through its proposed charter pending in Congress. But Alston noted in his
2007 report:
Many advocates and, indeed, many CHRP staff call for the CHRP to be
given prosecutorial powers. This is a very tempting proposition: Today,
CHRP investigators can submit cases to a prosecutor or Ombudsman,
but these cases seldom prosper. However, the proposal’s risks outweigh
its benefits. First, there are already other organs responsible for
prosecuting cases, including one (the Ombudsman) that is independent
of the executive. To give the CHRP prosecutorial powers would not
only be redundant but would compromise a responsibility held solely
by the CHRP: to monitor all of these other organs for human rights
compliance. Second, while a grant of prosecutorial powers might give
the CHRP more teeth, it would also increase the security risks faced by
its investigators and witnesses. Today, the CHRP has the potential to
publicly and authoritatively reveal the reality of widespread abuse despite
the near absence of criminal convictions.
To strengthen the role and work of the CHR, the following steps are
worth considering:
q Advocating for clearer laws to criminalize human rights violations

and harmonize laws with human rights standards
q Clearer understanding of all parties of the CHR mandate and
powers to conduct investigations, and respect for that power, including
cooperation
q Building the capabilities of CHR investigators and lawyers in
gathering, documenting, and analyzing evidence, including taking
statements
q Developing forensic capacities. While the primary investigative
role of a crime belongs to the PNP and NBI, the CHR, as part of its
monitoring function, should have the forensic capability to assess the
effectivity of these organizations and do supplemental work of its own if
it happens to be the first on the scene or if the investigative bodies have
left some areas uncovered in the investigation.
q Clearer role for the CHR in petitions for the writ of amparo,
3
including additional personality to file petition for issuance of the writ
or to at least submit documents in support of a petition filed by an
individual, his or her family, or an organization.
q Need for the AFP, PNP, and law enforcement agencies to recognize
and respect the CHR mandate and power to inspect detention facilities
and to call them for investigation. The UN Committee Against Torture
(UNCAT) has stated that:
(It) is concerned that, in a number of instances, the Commission on

Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP) has been denied entry
into jails and detention facilities mostly under the jurisdiction of the
military. The Committee is also concerned that Section 19 of the
2007 Human Security Act grants the CHRP authority to prolong
detention of suspects. In the view of the Committee, these measures
compromise the capacity of the CHRP to monitor the State party’s
human rights compliance.
The State party should take the necessary steps to strengthen the
mandate, including access to detention facilities, and independence
of the CHRP, including through adoption of the proposed CHRP
Charter as well as allocation of sufficient resources for its effective
implementation. The visitation mandate of the CHRP should
include unhampered and unrestrained access to all detention
facilities, including those under the jurisdiction of the military.6
q Need to strengthen the effectiveness and independence of the CHR.
Legislative bills that would clarify some of the powers and functions of
the CHR to cut down noncooperation of some actors in CHR investigations
are under consideration in Congress. The CHR is lobbying for provisions
6 United Nations. Committee Against Torture. 2009. Concluding Observations. CAT/C/

PHL/CO/2. UNCAT Forty-Second Session, Geneva, April 27 to May 15.
that would also ensure its independence such as full fiscal autonomy.
3
The inability of the commission to reorganize its own personnel to meet
the demands of its work and to fully control its own budget has a direct
negative effect on the protection of human rights, including extrajudicial
killings, enforced disappearances, and torture, which happen all over the
archipelago, sometimes in the most remote areas.
However, bills providing for the CHR Charter are not among the
priority measures of the Office of the President nor are they among those
agreed upon by the Legislative-Executive Development Council (LEDAC).
Yet the Constitution is unequivocal on the obligation to promote human
rights through legislation. Article XIII, Section 1 of the Constitution
states, “Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures
that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity.”
PRACTICAL TIPS FOR
COMPLAINANTS
3
1Prepare a written complaint at the first
possible instance. A written complaint is a permanent
record that can be shared easily and can ensure accuracy when
passed on. Credible when signed and dated, it can be made
anywhere by anyone even if a notary public is not available.
2Execute an affidavit right away. Go to a notary

public you trust. Read the document carefully to make sure
it accurately and clearly reflects your story and details, including
dates and times, before you sign it. Do not rely on the notary or
lawyer to tell the story in his or her own words. If he or she changes
the phrasing, make sure it is still accurate. This is important
because it affects what is most credible, usually the first not later
statements, and usually affidavits rather than oral statements.
In one affidavit prepared by a CHR investigator, the witness’
oral statement “binuksan niya ang pintuan ng bedroom at lumabas
(he opened the bedroom door and went out)” was shortened to
“binuksan niya ang pintuan at lumabas (he opened the door and
went out).” During the public inquiry at the CHR, the respondent’s
lawyers insisted that the witness had left the condo unit (not just
the bedroom) and so could not discuss what had happened inside
the condo after that.
Check the date and time of your signing. This affects the
credibility of the affidavit and its usability in court and other
proceedings. In one CHR case, the witness, a minor, made her
statement on January 15, but the law requires she be accompanied
by a parent. So she came back the following day with her mother and
3
signed the document. But the date on the affidavit was still January
15, and so the respondents questioned the affidavit and tried to make
it inadmissible in the proceedings.
3 Be as specific as you can in your statements.

State the date and approximate time, if possible, even it is
just tanghali (noon) or maagang maaga (really early). Support this
with something that can be verified like a TV show or a meal
time. Example: Nangyari po sa gabi, mga oras ng hapunan. Alam ko
po dahil nanonood kami ng “24 Kuwatro Oras” at nagrereport sila
tungkol sa showbiz news (It happened at night, around supper time.
I know because we were watching “24 Kuwatro Oras” and they were
reporting showbiz news).
4 Describe the victim as specifically as you can.

Include the height, weight, or general body description (mataba
or fat, payat or thin), complexion, racial features (may pagkachinito
ang mata or eyes like Chinese), and hair (hanggang shoulders ang hair
niya, itim siyang natural pero kinulayan niyang light brown, at kulot na
kulot or he had shoulder-length hair that’s naturally black but was
dyed light brown and was really curly).
Describe any injuries, scars, and other distinguishing marks or
characteristics. Example: May scar siya sa kaliwang arm, above the
elbow, galing po sa nung kinagat siya ng aso. May birthmark po siya sa paa
na bilog. Dati po nabali ang kanyang right arm. Malaki po ang kanyang
mga ngipin at mayroon siyang gold na false tooth sa kanan medyo sa loob
na ng bibig (He has a scar on the left arm, above the elbow, that he got
when he was bitten by a dog. He has a round birthmark on his foot.
He once broke his right arm. His teeth are big and he has a gold false
tooth on the right.)
Other descriptions, even though not physical, are helpful,
especially if they are not common. Example: Ang tawa niya ay parang
kabayo. Mayroon siyang kapansanan sa pag-iisip. Ang palayaw niya at
Bukbok. Medyo pilay siya paglumalakad sa kanan (He laughs like a
3
horse and is mentally impaired. His nickname is Bukbok. He limps
on the right leg).
Bring photos and any records that could help identify the victim
such as dental records, a medical report of an injury, or an X-ray of a
broken arm.
Describe him or her as last seen, including his or her clothes.
Sometimes, a person is not found but the clothes are. These become a
clue in the investigation.
5given,
When possible, make an audio or video
recording of statements as they are being
so you can check their accuracy. Also,
should anything happen to the witness that incapacitates him or
her for from testifying, the recorded statement can be used in some
proceedings.7
6Go to the CHR Regional Office nearest you.

Make sure you are given a copy of CHR Form 9, affidavit,
and other documents prepared by the CHR. Write down for your
records the name of the CHR personnel you spoke to and when. For
major cases, also send information or a copy of the complaint to the
commission, the Legal and Information Office, and, most especially,
to all the members of the commission (the chairperson and the
commissioners).
7 The writer has been recommending to the Judiciary since 2007 the adoption of rules
of court that would allow the use of videotaped deposition as evidence in criminal cases of
EJK and ED, especially when a witness has been killed under suspicious circumstances.
7Disappearances are also human rights
3 violations. Follow up and ask for a resolution of

“Disappearance caused/likely caused by state authorities” or even
“Disappearance under suspicious circumstances.” A resolution with
a finding of “Disappearance” has very practical impact. It means the
following:
q The case has some resolution and strength to go to the next

stage.
q The victim or his or her family can qualify for financial
assistance from the CHR and from government.
q There is basis for civil or criminal action or at least to call for
serious investigation by government agencies.
There have been some cases in the CHR where the Regional
Office archives the complaint “because the victim could not be found.”
Archiving means that no further action will be taken and the victim
or his or her family cannot use any CHR document to support further
action in other venues. The case is then in limbo, as opposed to a
“resolution with finding of disappearance.” Contact the Central Office
and the Commission en banc members for such a resolution if the
Regional Office does not issue one.
8Ask for motion of reconsideration of

resolutions as complainants. It is not only
respondents who are entitled to this. Motions for reconsideration can
be filed at the Regional Office or at the Central Office. Address them
to the Commission en banc.
9Keep original copies of documents.
3
Avoid
surrendering these to any organization or government agency
until the evidence is in proper custody. When turning over original
copies, get an official receipt from the person who got them. If
possible, take a photo of the items or documents you gave—
close-up and medium shots—and you handing them over to the
representative of the government agency or private organization.
10 Do not rely on the CHR to provide witness

protection because it does not have the
capacity for witness protection. Instead, request
the CHR to endorse you to an organization that the CHR has
confidence in as being capable of properly protecting any witnesses.
11Beinformation
honest and supply all relevant
asked of you. Do not hold back
information at the early stages, even if they are embarrassing. The
truth does come out. Worse, the respondents will use this truth and
the fact that the victim or witness did not disclose this to discredit
him or her and all the statements he or she made. For example, even
membership in the NPA can be disclosed.
You can ask the CHR to keep certain statements, documents,
or evidence confidential. You can ask to speak to the Commission en
banc in private or in an executive session rather than in a public inquiry
and justify it. You can give some information for public record but say
that it is confidential. You can request no media coverage, video, or
photographs. The CHR balances the desire for confidentiality and
the need for public transparency in the interest of letting the truth
come out.
It is always better to speak to a quorum of commissioners than
just the chairperson. If possible, have a written record of any statement
you make and ask them to sign this. This will ensure continuity: If
the chairperson suddenly leaves the commission, then the commission
3
would be able to continue working rather than having to start from
zero. For example, Chairperson Mary Concepcion Bautista died while
in office; Chairperson Leila de Lima left when she was appointed
Secretary of Justice.
12Always get legal advice.

these characteristics:
Choose a lawyer who has
q Has personal integrity

q Is familiar with criminal law and human rights
q Works well with you, treats you with respect, sincerely intends to
help you and not use you as an “issue” that would help him or her
get publicity, gives you regular updates, and explains things to you
before and after he or she takes action
q Gives priority to your case while working on all his or her other
cases
You can ask a civil society group or the CHR to recommend a

lawyer, but the choice is yours.
13Consider
actions.
other actions beyond criminal
Even though criminal charges are the “sexiest”
government action because they will likely attract media coverage
or gives you some feeling of revenge, administrative cases are faster,
easier to prove, and have punitive impact on the perpetrator even
though it is not a jail sentence.
Likewise, civil cases are faster and easier to prove. They can also have
some punitive impact but, more importantly, address other concerns of
the victim such as economic impact or the need for declaration and
finding out what truly happened.
Prosecution 4
GENERAL FRAMEWORK
T
he right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one
of the attributes that by natural law belongs to the sovereign
power instinctively charged by the common will of the
members of society to look after, guard, and defend the
interests of the community and individual, social rights, the liberties of
every citizen, and the guaranty of the exercise of his or her rights.114
Domestic law
As the Constitution provides, “The executive power shall be vested in the

President of the Philippines.” This power includes findings of probable
cause that the courts do not interfere with unless there is grave abuse of
discretion.215
1 U.S. v. Pablo, G.R. No. L-11676, October 17, 1916, 35 Phil. 94.
2 Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities Inc., G.R. No. 171435, July 30, 208, 560 SCRA 519.
4
134
3
Board of Pardons and Parole Secretary of Justice Figure 4.1 DOJ Organizational Structure3
Supervision Division Technical Services Division Investigation Division Undersecretary of Justice
Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary for Assistant Secretary for

(Legislative Liaison Officer) Personnel Management Finance and Management
and Development
Office of the Chief State Technical Staff Office of the Chief State Administrative Service Financial and Management Management Services
Prosecutor Counsel Service Office
Special Cases/Projects Budget Division Planning and Statistics

Review Division Counseling Division General Services Division Division
Division
Special Appeals and Legal Investigation and Adjudication and Review Accounting Division Management Information
Personnel Division Systems Division
Research/Opinion Division Prosecution Division Division
Management and
Information Division Audit Division
Administrative Discipline Citizenship Division
Personnel Management
and Miscellaneous Division
Special Services Division
Regional Prosecution Offices
Modified from http://www.doj.gov.ph/image/doj-orgchart.jpg.

City/Provincial Prosecution Offices
Legal Documentation and
Library Services Division
Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced DISAPPEARANCES

Commission on the Office of the Solicitor Bureau of Immigration Office of the Government Presidential Commission of
Settlement of Land General Corporate Counsel Good Government
Problems
NATIONAL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE LAND REGISTRATION BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS PAROLE AND PROBATION
INVESTIGATION Regional Offices AUTHORITY Prison and Penal Farms/ ADMINISTRATION
Regional Offices DIistrict/City Offices Regional Offices Regional Prison Regional Offices
SubRegional Offices Registries of Deeds Provincial Offices
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the principal law agency of the
government. Its mandate is based mainly on Executive Order No. 292,
otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987.
Under the law, the DOJ is both the government’s legal counsel and the
4
prosecution arm. It administers the criminal justice system according to
the accepted processes of this system, which includes the investigation of
crimes. This mandate of investigation is carried out by two of its constituent
units: the National Prosecution Service (NPS) and the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) (Figure 4.1). The role of the NBI is discussed in the
chapter on Investigation.
National Prosecution Service
The National Prosecution Service (NPS) is primarily responsible for the

prelimary investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations
of penal laws. It is under the supervision and control of the Secretary of
Justice.
Under Republic Act No. 10071 or the Prosecution Service Act of
2010, the NPS is composed of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the
Secretary of Justice, and regional, provincial, and city prosecution offices.
The Prosecution Staff is headed by the Prosecutor General who is
assisted by the following:
q Five Senior Deputy State Prosecutors

q Five Deputy State Prosecutors
q Thirty-five Senior Assistant State Prosecutors
q Eighty Assistant State Prosecutors
q Twenty Prosecution Attorneys
It has been entrusted with the following functions:
4 q Assist the Secretary of Justice in exercising his or her appellate

jurisdiction.
q Conduct the preliminary investigation and prosecution of criminal
cases involving national security, those for which task forces have been
created, and criminal cases whose venues are transferred to avoid
miscarriage of justice, all when so directed by the Secretary of Justice as
public interest may require.
q Act as counsel for the People of the Philippines in any case involving
or arising from a criminal complaint investigated by any of its
prosecutors and pending before any trial court.
q Investigate administrative charges against prosecutors, other
prosecution officers, and members of their support staff.
q Prepare legal opinions on queries involving violations of the Revised
Penal Code and special penal laws.
q Monitor all criminal cases filed with the Office of the Prosecutor
General, maintain an updated record of the status of each case, and
adopt systems and procedures that will expedite the monitoring and
disposition of cases.
R.A. No. 10071 provides for the creation of Regional Prosecution Offices
for each administrative region, except the National Capital Region, to
be headed by a Regional Prosecutor who shall be assisted by one Deputy
Regional Prosecutor, one Senior Assistant Regional Prosecutor, three
Assistant Regional Prosecutors, and one Prosecution Attorney. The
NCR office has been placed under the administrative supervision of the
Prosecutor General.
The Regional Prosecutor has the following powers and functions
relevant to the prosecution of extralegal killings (ELK) and enforced
disappearances (ED):
q Implement policies, plans, programs, memoranda, orders, circulars,

and rules and regulations of the DOJ relative to the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases in his or her region.
q Exercise immediate administrative supervision over all provincial and
city prosecutors and other prosecuting officers for provinces and cities
4
comprised within his or her region.
q Prosecute any case arising within the region.
q When so delegated by the Secretary of Justice, resolve with finality
appeals from or petitions for review of judgments and orders of
provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants within the region in
cases where the offenses charged are cognizable by the municipal trial
court. The Justice Secretary, however, is not precluded from exercising
his or her power of review over resolutions of the Regional Prosecutor in
instances where lies grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional
Prosecutor, and from determining the extent of the coverage of the power
of review of the Regional Prosecutors.
q Designate a prosecutor from any office of the provincial or city
prosecutor within the region as Acting Provincial or City Prosecutor to
investigate and prosecute a case in instances where parties question the
partiality or bias of a city or provincial prosecutor or where the city or
provincial prosecutor voluntarily inhibits himself or herself by reason
of relationship to any of the parties within the sixth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
The Provincial Prosecutor or City Prosecutor shall be assisted by at

least one Deputy Provincial Prosecutor or Deputy City Prosecutor and such
number of assistant and associate prosecutors. When the exigencies of the
service so require, the Provincial or City Prosecutor has been empowered to
create positions for special counsels whose salaries and benefits shall come
exclusively from local funds.
The powers and functions of the Provincial and City Prosecutor
relevant to the prosecution of ELK and ED are the following:
q Investigate or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes,

misdemeanors, and violations of penal laws and ordinances within
their jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or complaint
prepared or made and filed against the persons accused. In the conduct
of investigations he or she, or any of his or her assistants, shall receive
the statements under oath or take oral evidence of witnesses, and for this
purpose may by subpoena summon witnesses to appear and testify under
oath before him or her, and the attendance or evidence of an absent or
4
recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to any trial court;
q Have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors, and
violations of city or municipal ordinances in the courts at the province
or city and discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal
actions.
The role of the prosecutor
While it is within the power of the prosecutor to determine probable cause,

jurisprudence states that the duty and role of the prosecuting attorney is not
only to prosecute and secure the conviction of the guilty but also to protect
the innocent.4 Thus it is their duty to refrain from improper methods
calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate
means to bring about a just one.5

As such, prosecutors are duty bound to respect the provisions of
the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is designed to
preserve the ideals of liberty, equality, and security “against the assaults
of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small
encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience
with general principles.”6 In particular, prosecutors must adhere to the
following provisions of the Bill of Rights:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without

due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.
4 Timoteo Cruz v. Francisco Salva, G.R. No. L-12871, July 25, 1959, 105 Phil. 1151.
5 Suarez vs. Platon, February 7, 1940, 69 Phil. 556.
6 Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills, G.R.
No. L-31195, June 5, 1973, 151A Phili. 656.
4
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading,
or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with
by law.
Beyond the right not to be killed
Under the Constitution, the right to life is protected under the due process
clause of the Bill of Rights. It is also penalized as murder or homicide under
the Revised Penal Code and penalized as a war crime, a serious violation of
International Humanitarian Law, and as a crime against humanity under
R.A. No. 9851.
The Supreme Court has held that the right to life goes beyond the right
not to be killed:
While the right to life under Article III, Section 1 guarantees essentially
the right to be alive—upon which the enjoyment of all other rights
is preconditioned—the right to security of person is a guarantee of
the secure quality of this life, viz: “The life to which each person has
a right is not a life lived in fear that his person and property may be
unreasonably violated by a powerful ruler. Rather, it is a life lived with
the assurance that the government he established and consented to, will
protect the security of his person and property. The ideal of security in
life and property…pervades the whole history of man. It touches every
aspect of man’s existence.” In a broad sense, the right to security of
person “emanates in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of
his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. It includes the
4
right to exist, and the right to enjoyment of life while existing, and it is
invaded not only by a deprivation of life but also of those things which are
necessary to the enjoyment of life according to the nature, temperament,
and lawful desires of the individual.”7
The same principles on prosecution applies to the Office of the Ombudsman,

an independent office mandated by the 1987 Constitution to be created by
Congress, which it did under R.A. No. 6770 as amended. The discussion on
the Ombudsman is found in the chapter on Investigation.
Public Attorney’s Office
In order to protect the rights of an accused even if the latter is an indigent,

R.A. No. 9406 or the law reorganizing the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO)
provides:
The PAO shall independently discharge its mandate to render, free

of charge, legal representation, assistance, and counselling to indigent
persons in criminal, civil, labor, administrative, and other quasi-judicial
cases. In the exigency of the service, the PAO may be called upon by
proper government authorities to render such service to other persons,
subject to existing laws, rules and regulations.
This includes the protection of the right of the indigent accused during
preliminary or inquest investigation, according to the office’s Operations
Manual.
To further ensure that the rights of both the accused and victim are
equally protected, an independent and effective judiciary is a requirement.
Thus, the Philippine government, through a loan with the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) under its Governance in Justice Sector Reform
Program, established the Justice Sector Coordinating Council. The bank’s
7 Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo. G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008, 568 SCRA
52, 20.
October 2009 progress report on the loan states:
In August 2009, the various justice sector agencies met to begin

formalizing a coordinating body. The initial agreement was to set up
a system of working groups to support their principals in reporting
and bringing up issues and recommendations to further justice sector
reform. These arrangements were confirmed in a subsequent meeting
4
in September 2009 where representatives from each agency were
nominated and implementation arrangements further detailed and
agreed upon including the establishment of a secretariat located in the
Department of Justice.8
Prosecuting killings under the Revised Penal Code

and special laws
Revised Penal Code
In prosecuting cases of extralegal killings, the prosecutor should be able to

distinguish crimes of murder and homicide under the Revised Penal Code
from offenses penalized under R.A. No. 9745 (The Anti-Torture Act), R.A.
No. 9851 (The International Humanitarian Law or The IHL Act), and
R.A. No. 9372 (The Human Security Act).
Murder and homicide
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a killing is classified as

murder if it is committed with any of the following circumstances:
q With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of

armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity
q In consideration of a price, reward, or promise
8 Accessed April 21, 2011. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Tranche-Releases/PHI/41380-

PHI-PRTR.pdf.
q By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding
4
of a vessel, derailment, or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall
of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin
q On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity
q With evident premeditation
q With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering
of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
Murder is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period

(seventeen years, four months, and one day to twenty years) to death.
Killings that are committed outside of these circumstances are classified
as homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and punished by
reclusion temporal (from twelve years and one day to twenty years).
Special laws
To distinguish the killing of a person from a murder or homicide to one

under the three special laws mentioned, the prosecutor must be able to first
identify if the killing was attended by the sixth circumstance under Article
248 (“with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering
of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse”), who was
committing the said circumstance, and the purpose of the act. Cruelty is
to be taken into consideration for Article 248 where the multiple wounds
were inflicted on the victim unnecessarily while he or she was still alive, to
prolong his or her physical suffering.9
Torture
In contrast, torture under R.A. No. 9745 (Section 3) and its implementing
rules and regulations is an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
9 People v. Curiano, G.R. No. 15256-57, October 31, 1963, 9 SCRA 323.
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person by or at the instigation
4
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person
in authority for any of the following purposes:
q Obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a

confession
q Punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has
committed or is suspected of having committed
q Intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person
q Any reason based on discrimination of any kind
If such torture results in death, the perpetrators are penalized with

reclusion perpetua.10 R.A. No. 9745 (Section 14) considers torture as a
separate and independent crime. For purposes of prosecution, R.A. No.
9851 (Section 3) defines torture “as the intentional infliction of severe pain
or suffering, whether physical, mental, or psychological, upon a person in
the custody or under the control of the accused.”
Crimes against humanity
R.A. No. 9851 also defines war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against
humanity. Under Section 4, war crimes or crimes against International
Humanitarian Law means:
q Grave breaches of the August 12, 1949 Geneva Conventions in case

of an international armed conflict, including willful killing of a person
protected under the conventions
q Serious violations of common Article 3 to the four Geneva
Conventions of August 12, 1949 in case of a non-international armed
conflict, including violence to life and person, in particular willful killing,
against a person taking no active part in the hostilities, including member
of the armed forces who has laid down his or her arms and placed hors
de combat11 by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause
10 Sections 26 to 28 of R.A. No. 9745’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) define
the Principal, Accomplice, and Accessory to the crime of torture.
11 This is discussed in the chapter on Investigation.
q Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in
4
armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law,
including:
z Internationally directing attacks against the civilian population
as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in
hostilities
z Launching an attack in the knowledge that the attack will cause
incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian
objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural
environment which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and
direct military advantage anticipated
z Killing or wounding a person in the knowledge that he or she is
hors de combat, including a combatant who, having laid down his or
her arms or no longer having means of defense, has surrendered at
discretion
z Killing, wounding, or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy
z Declaring that no quarter will be given
Under R.A. No. 9851, perfidy refers to acts that invite the confidence of
an adversary to lead him or her to believe he or she is entitled to, or is obliged
to accord, protection under the rules of International Humanitarian Law,
with the intent to betray that confidence, including feigning (1) an intent to
negotiate under a flag of truce, (2) surrender, (3) incapacitation by wounds
or sickness, (4) civilian or noncombatant status, and (5) protective status by
use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of the United Nations or of a neutral or
other State not party to the conflict.
No quarter will be given means refusing to spare the life of anybody, even
of persons manifestly unable to defend themselves or who clearly express
their intention to surrender.
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9851 defines genocide as killing members of a
national, ethnic, racial, religious, social, or any other similar stable and
permanent group with intent to destroy in whole or in part.
Under Section 6 of the law, other crimes against humanity means acts
committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any
civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, including willful killing.
4
Terrorism
With regard to R.A. No. 9372 (Section 3), the act of murder as defined by
Article 248 is considered as an act of terrorism when the accused commits
an act of “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary
fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand.”
Prosecuting abductions or disappearances

Under domestic law, enforced disappearances also violate the due process
clause as it is arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It further violates the right of
the people to be “secure in their persons” under the Bill of Rights.
Revised Penal Code
The Revised Penal Code penalizes various forms of abduction and illegal
detention.
A public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a
person has committed arbitrary detention under Article 124. The penalties
range from arresto mayor to reclusion temporal. However, commission of a
crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital, can be legal grounds for detaining
a person.
Article 125 penalizes a public officer or employee who detains a person
for some legal ground but fails to deliver the person to the proper judicial
authorities within twelve hours for crimes punishable by light penalties;
eighteen hours for those punishable by correctional penalties; and 36 hours
for those punishable by afflictive or capital penalties. In every case, the
detainee shall be informed of the cause of his or her detention and allowed
upon his or her request to communicate and confer at any time with his or
her attorney or counsel.12
12 As amended by Executive Order No. 59 issued on November 7, 1986 and E.O. No. 272 on
July 25, 1987.
Also punishable is the act of a public officer or employee who delays
4
for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial
or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or
unduly delays the service of the notice of the order to the prisoner or the
proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of the person (Article 126).
For kidnapping and serious illegal detention, Article 267 metes out the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death to any private individual who kidnaps
or detains another, or in any other manner deprives him or her of his or her
liberty under any of the following conditions:
q If the kidnapping or detention has lasted more than five days

q If it has been committed simulating public authority
q If any serious physical injuries have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him or her have been made
q If the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public
officer
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was

committed to extort ransom from the victim or any other person, even if
none of the circumstances mentioned above were present in committing the
offense.
A person who kidnaps or detains another outside of the five conditions
or who furnishes the place for the perpetration of the crime shall be charged
with slight illegal detention and faces reclusion temporal and a fine (Article
268). If the offender voluntarily releases the kidnapped or detained person
within three days from the commencement of the detention, without
having attained the intended purpose, and before criminal proceedings are
instituted against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor and a fine.
Any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without
reasonable ground, arrests or detains another for the purpose of delivering
him to the proper authorities is said to have committed unlawful arrest and
shall be meted out the sentence of arresto mayor and a fine (Article 269).
Under Article 270, reclusion perpetua and a fine shall be imposed for
kidnapping and failure to return a minor. This applies to a person who, being
entrusted with the custody of a minor person, deliberately fails to restore
the child to his or her parents or guardians.
The penalty of prision correccional and a fine shall be meted out to
4
anyone who induces a minor to abandon the home of his or her parent or
guardians or the persons entrusted with his or her custody (Article 271). If
the person committing any of the crimes covered by Articles 270 and 271 is
the father or the mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and
a fine.
A person who buys, sells, kidnaps, or detains a human being in order
to enslave him or her—or slavery— faces the penalty of prision mayor and a
fine (Article 272). If the crime is committed for the purpose of assigning the
offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be in its maximum
period.
Under Article 273 on exploitation of child labor, anyone who, under the
pretext of reimbursing himself or herself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian, or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the
latter’s will, retains the child in his or her service shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine.
A person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt,
compels the debtor to work for him or her, against his or her will, as
household servant or farm laborer faces the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period (Article
274).
The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs, or
forcible abduction, is punishable by reclusion temporal. The same penalty shall
be imposed in every case, if the female abducted is under twelve years old
(Article 342).
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
shall be imposed for abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under
eighteen years old, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, or
consented abduction (Article 343).
Special laws
The prosecutor must be able to distinguish if the abduction or detention,

or both, is covered by the Revised Penal Code or falls under enforced
disappearance under R.A. No. 9851.
4
Table 4.1 Comparison of Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code
and R.A. Nos. 9372, 9745, and 9851
Article 248 Article 249
(if the killing does not fall under Article 246) (if the killing does not fall under Article 246)
Penalty Reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death if com- Reclusion temporal
for the Principal if found guilty mitted with any of the following attendant circumstances:
Elements if there is a victim q With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, Killing without the elements of Article 248
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken
the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.
q In consideration of a price, reward, or promise
q By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment, or assault
upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means
of motor vehicles
q With the use of any other means involving great waste
and ruin
q On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in
the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of
a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or other public
calamity
q With evident premeditation
q With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his or
her person or corpse
Elements if the killings have more than one same same

victim
13
R.A. No. 9372 Section 3
R.A. 9372
Forty years of imprisonment, without

the benefit of parole as provided for
under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as
R.A. 9745
Reclusion perpetua if it results in death

of the tortured victim;
Section 6 of the Implementing Rules
R.A. 9851
Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts Sections 4, 5, and 6 of this Act
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium to maximum period and a
fine ranging from P100,000 to P500,000.
4
the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Regulations provides the acts
considered as torture.
Under Section 15, torture is a separate
AND independent crime.
To be considered as an act of terrorism, An act by which severe pain or suf- Section 3 (o) defines torture “as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering,
requires the accused to commit an act fering, whether physical or mental, is whether physical, mental, or psychological, upon a person in the custody or under
of “sowing and creating a condition of intentionally inflicted on a person for the control of the accused.”
widespread and extraordinary fear and such purposes as obtaining from him/
panic among the populace, in order to her or a third person information or a
coerce the government to give in to an confession; punishing him/her for an act
unlawful demand”13 he/she or a third person has committed
or is suspected of having committed; or
intimidating or coercing him/her or a
third person; or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such
pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority
same same Section 4.War Crimes.
a. International armed conflict, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions
1. Willful killing
b. Non-international armed conflict, serious violations of common Article 3 to the

four Geneva Conventions any of the following acts committed against persons taking
no active part in the hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid
down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention,
or any other cause;
Violence to life and person, in particular, willful killings
c. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts,
within the established framework of international law, namely:
1. Internationally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against

individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities
xxxx
5. Launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of
life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and
severe damage to the natural environment which would be excessive in relation to
the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated
xxxx
8. Killing or wounding a person in the knowledge that he or she is hors de combat,
including a combatant who, having laid down his or her arms or no longer having
means of defense, has surrendered at discretion
xxxx
12. Killing, wounding or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy
xxxx
13. Declaring that no quarter will be given
xxxx
R.A. No. 9851 (Section 3) defines enforced disappearance as the arrest,
4
detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization support or
acquiescence of, a state or a political organization followed by a refusal to
acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate
or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
For the act of kidnapping and serious illegal detention to be considered
as an act of terrorism, R.A. No. 9372 (Section 3) requires the accused
to commit an act of “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.”
The prosecutor must also be able to distinguish the act of deprivation of liberty
whose purpose falls under R.A. No. 9745. Under Section 4, torture includes mental
or psychological torture, or acts committed by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority that are calculated to affect or confuse the mind or undermine a
person’s dignity and morale such as any of the following:
q Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places

q Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of liberty from one
place to another, creating the belief that he or she shall be summarily executed
q Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with any member
of his or her family
International law
Duty to ‘protect and promote’; duty to ‘investigate, prosecute,
and punish’
Prosecutors play a crucial role in discharging the country’s obligation under
international human rights law to protect and promote the right to life
and the individual’s rights to liberty and security of his person. They also
play an important role in discharging the state obligation to investigate,
prosecute, and punish individuals who may commit grave breaches and
serious violations of International Humanitarian Law, or the law and
customs applicable in times of armed conflicts.
The state’s obligation under human rights law is both a positive and
4
a negative obligation. The duty to “protect” is a negative obligation not to
infringe on the exercise of a fundamental right. The duty to “promote”, on
the other hand, is a positive duty to ensure full observance of a right. This
includes the duty to legislate, if need be, and the duty specifically for the
pillars of the criminal justice system to provide an effective legal remedy for
any violation of those rights.
Human rights norms came about initially in the form of a nonbinding
declaration, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
intended to provide minimum standards of treatment that states must
accord to all individuals found in their territory. This has since been restated
in binding treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The corpus
of International Humanitarian Law, on the other hand, is restated in the
Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols. Since the Philippines
is a party to the UDHR, ICCPR, Geneva Conventions, and the Second
Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention, these treaties have the
effect of statutes in Philippine jurisdiction.
The right to life and the rights to liberty and security in their persons
are protected under Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian
Law, to which the Philippines adheres as general principles of international
law. These provide the legal basis for why extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances are criminal under both international law and Philippine
domestic law. These also define the scope of the prosecutors’ duty to
investigate and prosecute these crimes.
Extralegal killings
Extralegal killings are killings done without due process of law. They are
prohibited and made criminal under international law by Article 6 of the
ICCPR that provides for the “absolute” and “inherent right of the individual
to life.”
Extralegal killings are penalized as the crime of genocide where the
4
killings form part of an intent, in whole or in part, to destroy a nationality,
ethnic, or religious groups of persons. The UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Article 2) further
defines genocide as any of the following acts:
q Killing members of the group

q Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
q Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
q Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
q Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Article 3 of the convention considers the following acts as punishable:
q Genocide
q Conspiracy to commit genocide
q Direct and public incitement to commit genocide
q Attempt to commit genocide
q Complicity in genocide
Extralegal killings are penalized as a crime against humanity when they

form part of a widespread and systematic attack against civilian populations
knowing that it is directed against civilian populations. Provisions found in
Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on war
crimes are writ into R.A. No. 9851.
Likewise, extralegal killings, when committed in the context of an
armed conflict, are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions (Common
Article 3) as willful killings, murder, and the passing of sentences without
judicial proceedings that complies with minimum standards recognized by
civilized nations.
Enforced disappearances
Enforced disappearances are defined by international law14 and, like extralegal

killings, constitute a violation of the Article 9 of the ICCPR providing for
the “right to liberty and security of persons.”
They are also a violation Article 16, or the right to recognition as a
4
person before the law, and Article 2 on providing an effective remedy for
violations of human rights. They have also been characterized to be a form
of torture, and cruel and inhumane punishment.15
Discharging the ‘duty to investigate’

Prosecutors are duty bound to investigate and prosecute cases of both
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Under international
law, this duty to investigate is not confined to the conduct of preliminary
investigations that would lead either to the filing of criminal information in
court or its dismissal. Instead, this duty was construed as a duty of the state
to investigate, prosecute, and punish the actual perpetrators of these crimes
under domestic law.
UN Human Rights Committee
This was the “view” of the UN Human Rights Committee in the slaying of
Eden Marcellana, then secretary general of the Southern Luzon chapter
of the human rights organization Karapatan, and peasant leader Eddie
Gumanoy. 16
The Human Rights Committee was created by the Optional Protocol
of the ICCPR the Philippines has ratified. It is tasked with monitoring
compliance of states with the ICCPR.
Facts culled by the committee showed that Marcellana and Gumanoy
14 International Criminal Court. Rome Statute, Article 7, 2, (i). UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9;
37 ILM 1002 (1998); 2187 UNTS 90.
15 Quinteros v. Uruguay, UN Doc CCPR/C/19/D/107/1981, par. 12.
16 Marcellana v. Philippines, CCPR/C/94/D/1560/200717 UN Human Rights Committee
(November 17, 2008). Accessed September 5, 2010. http://www.ccprcentre.org/doc/ICCPR/
AR/A_64_40(Vol%20I)_Eng.pdf.
were leading a fact-finding mission in Mindoro Oriental from April 19 to
4
21, 2003 to look into the abduction of three individuals in Gloria town
allegedly committed by elements of the 204th Infantry Brigade under the
command of Col. Jovito Palparan and the killing and disappearance of
civilians and burning of properties by the military in Pinamalayan town.
The military was said to have threatened Marcellana several times
for her work. In addition, while conducting their work, she and other
mission members were under the impression that they were under constant
surveillance. At some point, when trying to see the detainees inside the
infantry brigade, they were photographed against their will.
At 7 p.m. on April 21, Marcellana, Gumanoy, and other members of
the mission were traveling on the highway about 5.5 kilometers from the
204th Infantry Brigade headquarters when ten armed men stopped their
van. The assailants asked for Marcellana, who was forced to reveal her
identity. All their belongings, including mobile phones, documents, and
photos of the mission, were seized. After the armed men tied them up, they
were forced into a jeepney. Not all the armed men were hooded, and some of
them were identified as Aniano “Silver” Flores and Richard “Waway” Falla,
former rebels who were associated with the military at the time.
Marcellana and Gumanoy were later ordered to get out of the vehicle
while their co-members stayed inside and were later dropped along the
roadside in Bongagbong town. Marcellana and Gumanoy were found dead
the following day—from gunshot wounds.
A complaint for kidnapping and murder was filed before the DOJ. But
on December 17, 2004, the department dismissed the complaint and the
charges against one of the alleged perpetrators on the ground of insufficient
evidence. A petition for review was filed on February 22, 2005, but this was
dismissed on November 20, 2006. A motion for reconsideration filed on
December 7, 2006 was also dismissed, on April 17, 2007.
Later, in response to the UN committee, the government answered
that the complainants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, citing an
appeal of the DOJ’s dismissal order pending in the Office of the President.
Furthermore, the government demurred that the complainants had failed
to identify the identities of the perpetrators, hence precluding the filing of
cases against them.
In its counter-submissions, the government also said the communication
from the complainants to the UN committee did not sufficiently
4
substantiate allegations that it violated the ICCPR. It said the narration of
the facts only established that Marcellana and Gumanoy were kidnapped
and murdered, some armed men were the perpetrators, and three of those
men were allegedly identified. The killings were not attributable to the
Armed Forces or to the state but to individuals acting in their own interest,
it said.
The government also stressed it was doing its best to ensure that
the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens are respected and
pursue remedies concerning alleged extrajudicial killings. It referred to
Administrative Order No. 157 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo on August 21, 2006, which created an independent commission (the
“Melo Commission”) to probe the killings of media workers and activists as
proof of its “resolve to respond to the problem.”
It pointed out that the Melo Commission released on February 22,
2007 an 86-page preliminary report that was being studied by various
branches of the government, and the Supreme Court of the Philippines
had drafted guidelines for the special courts that would handle cases of
extralegal killings. It also quoted from the 2007 preliminary report by UN
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions
Philip Alston recognizing the efforts the government had made to fight
these killings.
The government also acknowledged that if it “fails to investigate,
prosecute, or redress private, nonstate acts in violation of fundamental
rights, it is in effect aiding the perpetrators of such violations for which it
could be held responsible under international law.”
Noting that the DOJ’s December 17, 2004 decision recognized that
Marcellana and Gumanoy were indeed kidnapped, robbed, and killed by an
armed group, the UN committee said:
In this regard, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that criminal

investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for
violations of human rights such as those protected by Article 6. The
Committee further recalls its General Comment No. 31 [80], which lays
down that where investigations reveal violations of certain Covenant rights,
States parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
The UN body also observed that government authorities had not
4
indicted, prosecuted, or brought to justice anyone in connection with the
slayings even after more than five years had elapsed.
The Committee notes that the State party’s prosecutorial authorities

have, after a preliminary investigation, decided not to initiate criminal
proceedings against one of the suspects due to lack of sufficient evidence.
The Committee has not been provided with any information, other than
about initiatives at the policy level, as to whether any investigations were
carried out to ascertain the responsibility of the other members of the
armed group identified by the witnesses.
As a result of these and the absence of other pertinent explanations on

the matter by the State party, the committee concluded, “(T)he absence of
investigations to establish responsibility for the kidnapping and murder of
the victims amounted to a denial of justice. The State party must accordingly
be held to be in breach of its obligation, under Article 6, in conjunction with
Article 2, paragraph 3, properly to investigate the death of the victims and
take appropriate action against those found guilty.”
The government was ordered to accord the victims “an effective remedy,
including initiation and pursuit of criminal proceedings to establish
responsibility for the kidnapping and death of the victims, and payment of
appropriate compensation.” It was also ordered to take measures to ensure
that these violations do not recur.
The Philippines was subjected anew to a “view” by the Human Rights
Committee arising from a communication filed by the family of Navy
Ensign Philip Pestaño, who was found dead on his vessel on September 27,
1995 with a bullet wound in his head.17
Authorities had declared Pestaño’s death a suicide, but his family
pointed to forensics evidence indicating it was a homicide. The family
further argued that the motive behind the killing was because the deceased
had indicated, prior to his death, his willingness to give testimony that his
vessel was being used for illegal activities, including drug running and the
17 Pestaño v. The Philippines, CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007, UN Human Rights Committee

(May 11, 2010). Accessed September 3, 2010. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c19e3692.
html.
illegal trade in forest products.
4
In the Pestaño case, the UN committee stressed that the duty to
investigate includes all acts necessary to punish the perpetrators of
extralegal killings within a reasonable time. In fact, the duty, according to
the committee, was to ensure that there would be no impunity:
(T)he Committee recalls that the right to life is the supreme right, from
which no derogation is permitted. It further recalls that States parties
have a positive obligation to ensure the protection of individuals against
violations of Covenant rights, which may be committed not only by its
agents, but also by private persons or entities. The Committee also refers
to its jurisprudence, according to which both a criminal investigation
and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of
human rights such as those protected by Article 6. A violation of the
Covenant may therefore arise as a result of a State party’s failure to take
appropriate measures to punish, investigate, or redress such a violation.
The committee said Pestaño’s killing on board a government vessel

“warranted a speedy, independent investigation on the possible involvement
of the Navy in the crime.” It said further:
The Committee recalls that the deprivation of life by the authorities of the
State is a matter of utmost gravity, and that the authorities have the duty
to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant
made against it and its authorities. To simply state that there was no
direct participation of the State party in the violation of the victim’s right
to life falls short of fulfilling such positive obligation under the Covenant.
The UN body noted that almost fifteen years after Pestaño’s death,
government had not initiated an independent investigation; no suspect had
been prosecuted, tried, or convicted; and his family was still ignorant of the
circumstances surrounding his death and had not been compensated for
his death. While it noted that the Office of the Ombudsman on August
10, 2007 ordered further proceedings in the case, the committee said it was
not aware of any preliminary proceedings subsequently undertaken by the
Ombudsman.
Said the UN Committee on Human Rights:
4 When a person dies in circumstances that might involve a violation of

the right to life, the State party is bound to conduct an investigation and
ensure that there is no impunity. The State party must accordingly be
held to be in breach of its obligation, under Article 6, read in conjunction
with Article 2, Paragraph 3, to properly investigate the death of the
authors’ son, and prosecute. Under Article 2, Paragraph 3(a), of the
Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors
with an effective remedy in the form, inter alia, of an impartial, effective
and timely investigation into the circumstances of their son’s death,
prosecution of perpetrators, and adequate compensation. The State party
is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future and
ensure redress.
In brief, the committee declared that the duty to investigate ultimately

includes the duty to punish. It said the right to life requires states to take
effective steps to investigate the killings, bring the killers to justice, pay
compensation to the victims, and ensure that the right to life is protected.
Other international tribunals
Similarly, other international tribunals have defined in almost identical

terms the scope of the state obligation to investigate and prosecute. In a
case of enforced disappearance in Honduras, the Inter-American Court on
Human Rights ruled that:
The State is obligated to investigate every situation involving a violation

of the rights protected by the Convention. If the State apparatus acts
in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim’s full
enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has
failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those
rights to the persons within its jurisdiction. The same is true when the
State allows private persons or groups to act freely and with impunity to
the detriment of the rights recognized by the Convention.18

4
In another case involving the murder of an anthropologist who, while
alive, concluded that the killings and enforced disappearances of indigenous
communities were attributable to Guatemalan Security Forces, the Inter-
American Court held:
In cases of extralegal executions, it is essential for the States to effectively

investigate deprivation of the right to life and to punish all those
responsible, especially when State agents are involved, as not doing so
would create, within the environment of impunity, conditions for this
type of facts to occur again, which is contrary to the duty to respect and
ensure the right to life.19
The European Court of Human Rights used similar language in

defining the scope of the state obligation to ensure accountability for those
that may resort to extralegal killings and disappearances:
The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the

Convention, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under
Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within [its]
jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention,”
requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official
investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use
of force…. The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the
effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to
life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their
accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. What
form of investigation will achieve those purposes may vary in different
circumstances.20
Thus it is the state, acting through investigators and the prosecutors,

and not the victims, that has the burden of proving the elements of crimes
where there is a violation of the right to life, liberty, and security of persons.
18 Velásquez Rodríguez case, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Series C No. 4 (July 29, 1988).
19 Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, Inter-Am Ct. Series C No. 101 (November 25, 2003).
20 Finucane v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 29178/95, Strasbourg (July 1, 2003).
Likewise, it is clear that the duty to investigate includes the duty to
4
compensate and ensure that similar acts will not happen in the future.
Standard of an effective investigation

The standards that should be observed in conducting an effective
investigation on alleged unlawful killing by state agents have been
summarized by the European Court of Human Rights:21
q The investigators must be independent from those implicated in the

events, which means “not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional
connection but also a practical independence.”
q The investigation can lead to a determination of whether the
force used was or was not justified in the circumstances and to the
identification and punishment of those responsible. Explained the
European Court of Human Rights:
This is not an obligation of result, but of means. The authorities

must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the
evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness
testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy
which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an
objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death….
Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to
establish the cause of death or the person or persons responsible will
risk falling foul of this standard.
q The investigation must be prompt and expeditious. “A prompt

response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force may
generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in
their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of
collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts,” the court said.
21 Ibid.
q A sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results
4
to secure accountability in practice as well as in theory is needed. The
next-of-kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure in all cases to
safeguard his or her legitimate interests.
The Inter-American Court, meanwhile, said the duty to investigate

“must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality
preordained to be ineffective.” It further said that an investigation “must
have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a
step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim
or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the
truth by the government.”22
UN principles
The United Nations has adopted Principles on the Effective Prevention and
Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary, and Summary Executions.23
Investigation
The UN principles require thorough, prompt, and impartial investigation

of all suspected cases of extralegal, arbitrary and summary executions,
including cases in which complaints by relatives or other reliable reports
suggest unnatural death. Governments are to maintain investigative offices
and procedures to undertake inquiries.
The principles also provide the following:
Objective. The investigation shall determine the cause, manner, and time of
death, the person responsible, and any pattern or practice that may have
brought about the death. It shall include an adequate autopsy, collection
and analysis of all physical and documentary evidence and statements
from witnesses. The investigation shall distinguish between natural death,
23 Accessed September 5, 2010. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/executions.htm#1.
accidental death, suicide, and homicide.
4 Power of investigators. Investigators shall enjoy the following:
q Power to obtain all the information necessary to the inquiry

q All the necessary budgetary and technical resources for effective
investigation
q Authority to oblige officials allegedly involved in any such executions
and witnesses to appear, testify, and produce evidence
Independent commission. An independent commission of inquiry should be

established when routine investigative procedures are inadequate for the
following reasons:
q Lack of expertise
q Lack of impartiality
q Importance of the matter
q Apparent existence of a pattern of abuse
q Complaints from the family of the victim about the above
inadequacies or other substantial reasons
Members of the commission shall be chosen for their impartiality,

competence, and independence as individuals, and shall be independent of
any institution, agency, or person that may be the subject of the inquiry.
Autopsy. The victim’s body shall not be disposed of until a physician,

preferably an expert in forensic pathology, has conducted an autopsy. It
shall be available to those conducting the autopsy for a sufficient amount of
time to enable a thorough investigation to be carried out.
Those conducting the autopsy shall have the right of access to all
investigative data, the place where the body was discovered, and the place
where the death is thought to have occurred. To ensure objective results,
those conducting the autopsy must be able to function impartially and
independently of any potentially implicated persons or organizations or
entities.
Exhumation. If the body has been buried and it later appears that a
4
political killings investigation is required, the body shall be promptly and
competently exhumed for an autopsy.
If skeletal remains are discovered, they should be carefully exhumed
and studied according to systematic anthropological techniques.
Autopsy report. At the minimum, the autopsy must attempt to establish the
identity of the victim and the cause and manner of death. The time and
place of death shall also be determined to the extent possible.
Detailed color photographs of the victim shall be included in the
autopsy report in order to document and support the findings of the
investigation. The report must describe any and all injuries to the deceased,
including any evidence of torture.
Protection from violence. Complainants, witnesses, those conducting the

investigation, and their families shall be protected from violence, threats of
violence, or any other form of intimidation.
Those potentially implicated in extralegal, arbitrary, or summary
executions shall be removed from any position of control or power, whether
direct or indirect, over complainants, witnesses, and their families, as well
as over investigators.
Rights of the victim’s family. Families of the victim and their legal
representatives shall be informed of, and have access to, any hearing as well
as to all information relevant to the investigation, and shall be entitled to
present other evidence. They shall also have the right to insist that a medical
or other qualified representative be present at the autopsy.
When the victim’s identity has been determined, a notification of
death shall be posted, and his or her family or relatives shall be informed
immediately. The body shall be returned to them upon completion of the
investigation.
Written report. A written report shall be made within a reasonable period

and made public immediately. It shall include the following information:
q Scope of the inquiry
4
q Procedures and methods used to evaluate evidence
q Conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on
applicable law
q Detailed description of specific events that were found to have
occurred
q Evidence upon which the findings were based
q List of names of witnesses who testified, with the exception of those
whose identities have been withheld for their own protection
The government shall reply to the report of the investigation or indicate

the steps to be taken in response to it within a reasonable period of time.
Legal proceedings
The UN principles require governments to bring to justice persons

identified by the investigation as having participated in extralegal killings in
any territory under their jurisdiction or to cooperate to extradite any such
persons to other countries wishing to exercise jurisdiction. This principle
shall apply regardless of who and where the perpetrators or the victims are,
their nationalities, or where the offense was committed.
No blanket immunity. An order from a superior officer or a public authority

may not be invoked as a justification for extralegal, arbitrary, or summary
executions. Superiors, officers, or other public officials may be held
responsible for acts committed by officials under their authority if they
had a reasonable opportunity to prevent such acts. In no circumstances,
including a state of war, siege, or other public emergency, shall blanket
immunity from prosecution be granted to any person allegedly involved in
these executions.
Compensation. The families and dependents of victims are entitled to fair

and adequate compensation within a reasonable period of time.
4
Minnesota Protocol
The UN Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal,

Arbitrary, and Summary Executions, also known as the “Minnesota
Protocol,” provides for the creation of special inquiries if there are
reasonable grounds to believe that state agents perpetrated a killing or an
enforced disappearance.24
This special inquiry may be constituted separately by the Secretary of
Justice or be performed by existing bodies mandated to investigate these
killings and enforced disappearances, such as Task Force 211.
Factors triggering a special investigation
According to the Minnesota Protocol, the special inquiry must be formed

if the victim’s political views, religious, or ethnic affiliation, or social status
give rise to a suspicion of government involvement or complicity in the
death because of any one or combination of the following factors:
q The victim was last seen alive in police custody or detention.

q The modus operandi is recognizably attributable to government-
sponsored death squads.
q Persons in the government or associated with the government have
attempted to obstruct or delay the investigation of the execution.
q The physical or testimonial evidence essential to the investigation
becomes unavailable.
Command responsibility
Rome Statute
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides for the
responsibility of commanders and other superiors.25
24 U.N. Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991).

25 International Criminal Court. Rome Statute, Article 28. UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9; 37
ILM 1002 (1998).
It holds a military commander or person effectively acting as a military
4
commander criminally responsible for crimes committed by forces under
his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control
as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly
over such forces, where:
q The military commander either knew or, owing to the circumstances

at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about
to commit such crimes.
q The military commander failed to take all necessary and reasonable
measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission
or to submit the matter to competent authorities for investigation and
prosecution.
A superior, on the other hand, shall also be criminally responsible for

crimes committed by subordinates under his or her effective authority and
control, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such
subordinates, where:
q The superior knew, or consciously disregarded information which

clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to
commit such crimes.
q The crimes and concerned activities that were within the effective
responsibility and control of the superior.
q The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures
within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or
to submit the matter to competent authorities for investigation and
prosecution.
R.A. No. 9851
R.A. No. 9851 contains a similar provision on the responsibility of superiors

(Section 10):
In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined
and penalized under this Act, a superior shall be criminally responsible
4
as a principal for such crimes committed by subordinates under his/ her
effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the
case may be, as a result of his/her failure to properly exercise control over
such subordinates, where:
(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the
time, should have known that the subordinates were committing or
about to commit such crimes;
(b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable
measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their
commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for
investigation and prosecution.
Executive Order No. 226
Prior to this, the Executive Branch issued Executive Order No. 226 in 1995
indoctrinating command responsibility in all government offices.
Under the doctrine of “command responsibility,” a government official
or supervisor, or officer of the PNP or of any other law enforcement agency
shall be held accountable for neglect of duty if he or she knows that a crime or
offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by
his or her subordinates, or by others within his or her area of responsibility
and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective action
either before, during, or immediately after its commission.
He or she is presumed to have knowledge of the commission of
irregularities or criminal offenses in any of the following circumstances:
q The irregularities or illegal acts are widespread within his or her area
of jurisdiction.
q The irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or regularly
committed within his or her area of responsibility.
q Members of his or her immediate staff or office personnel are involved.
Any government official, supervisor, or officer of the PNP and of any
law enforcement agency who violates the executive order shall be held
4
administratively accountable.
Specific Mandates
Administrative Order No. 157
On August 21, 2006, then President Arroyo issued Administrative Order
No. 157 creating an Independent Commission to Address Media and
Activist Killings. Also called the “Melo Commission” after its chairman,
Retired Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo, the commission was also
composed of the NBI director, Chief State Prosecutor, University of the
Philippines Regent Nelia Gonzalez, a representative from civil society
appointed by the President, and Atty. Rogelio Vinluan as general counsel.
The commission was given the following duties and functions:
q Prioritize and focus investigation on media and activist killings.

q Be the government’s sole voice on the issue of media and activist
killings.
q Make a report to the President outlining its action and policy
recommendations, including appropriate prosecution and legislative
proposals, if any, aimed at eradicating the root causes of extrajudicial
killings and breaking such cycle of violence.
The government members of the commission—the NBI director and

the Chief State Prosecutor—were mandated to form a team to prioritize
the prosecution of media and activist killings and put the murderers behind
bar at the soonest possible time.
The commission was clothed with the following powers:
q Summon witnesses, administer oath, take testimony or evidence

relevant to the investigation, and issue compulsory processes to produce
documents, books, records, and such other matters in the performance of
4
its functions. In short, all the powers of an investigative body under the
Administrative Code of 1987.
q Clear or disapprove all pertinent media statements by any member of
the administration.
q Promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulations as may
be necessary to carry out the provisions of the administrative order.
q Call upon any government agency for assistance it needs to discharge
its functions.
q Engage the services of resource persons, professionals, and other
personnel that may be necessary to carry out its functions.
q Deputize the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), NBI,
PNP, DOJ, and any other law enforcement agency to assist it in the
performance of its functions.
q Perform any other acts as may be necessary and appropriate to
implement the order.

Issued on July 3, 2007, Administrative Order No. 181 directed the
National Prosecution Service (NPS) to work closely with the PNP and
NBI from the beginning of a criminal investigation until the termination of
cases involving political and media killings that fall under the jurisdiction
of the special courts created by Supreme Court Administrative Order No.
25-2007. This was to ensure prompt, efficient, and successful investigation
and prosecution of the cases.
The PNP and NBI were ordered to cooperate with NPS by consulting
with public prosecutors at all stages of the investigation and prosecution
by ensuring, among other things, that their personnel are available to
testify, gather, or submit additional evidence when required by the public
prosecutor.
The NPS is required to assign a public prosecutor at the start of
a criminal investigation who shall assist or handle a case involving a
political or media killings throughout the criminal proceedings, except in
the conduct of the preliminary investigation of the case. The preliminary
investigation shall be conducted by a separate and different prosecutor from
4
the prosecutor assigned to assist or handle the case through most of the
criminal proceedings.

The Task Force Against Political Violence (TFAPV) was created through
Administrative Order No. 211 issued on November 26, 2007 for the
following purposes:
q Harness and mobilize government agencies, political groups, the

religious, the civil society and sectoral organizations, and the public for
the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of political
violence.
q Care for and protect people and communities victimized and
threatened with violence
q Promote a culture opposed to violence and for the advancement of
reconciliation and peace.
The task force shall be composed of representatives from the following

departments and agencies:
q Department of Justice (DOJ)

q Department of National Defense (DND)
q Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
q Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA)
q Office of the Political Adviser (OPA)
q Office of the Presidential Adviser on Peace Process (OPAPP)
q Presidential Human Rights Committee (PHRC)
q Philippine Information Agency (PIA)
The members of the task force shall elect from among themselves a
head.
The order directed the AFP, PNP, NBI, and the National Intelligence
Coordinating Agency (NICA) to actively support and participate, through
their principal agencies, in carrying out the task force’s mandate.
DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 4-2010

In July 2010, two weeks into the presidency of Benigno S. Aquino III,
the Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum Circular No. 4 directing
4
provincial and city prosecutors to work closely with the PNP and other law
enforcement agencies investigating incidents of political and media killings
or attempted killings by providing assistance or conducting consultations
with them from the beginning to the termination of the criminal
investigation, except in the conduct of preliminary investigation.
That month alone, seven such cases were recorded: those of Jose Daguio
in Tabuk, Kalinga, on July 3; Dexter Legaspi in Palanas, Masbate, on July 6;
Fernando Baldomero in Kalibo, Aklan, on July 6; Miguel Belen in Nabua,
Camarines Sur, on July 9; Mark Francisco in Palanas, Masbate, on July 9;
Pascual Guevarra, on July 9; and Josephine Estacio in Balanga City, Bataan,
on July 12.
The DOJ circular declared the mechanism of coordination and
cooperation between the prosecutors and the local law enforcement agencies
as the standard operating procedure in the investigation and resolution of
cases involving political and media violence.
DOJ Department Order No. 848

On December 10, 2010, the Secretary of Justice issued Department Order
No. 848 creating a special task force to address extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances in order “to effectively and expeditiously address
all reported and unresolved cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.”
The special task force has the following mandates, functions, and
responsibilities:
q Review all reported and unresolved cases of extralegal killings and

enforced disappearances.
q Recommend measures for and cause the effective and expeditious
investigations and prosecutions of said cases, especially in those cases
4
where state security forces or agents of the state are implicated.
q Speed up the prosecution and resolution of cases with sufficient
evidence.
q Cause the reopening of investigations of “cold file” cases.
q Use the mandates of Administrative Order No. 211 (series of 2007)
and closely coordinate with Task Force 211, the task force created
through the order, to better carry out its mandates and functions,
particularly tapping government investigation agencies for technical and
other forms of investigative support and assistance and for the funding
support for its operations.
q Seek technical or financial assistance from other government
or international nongovernmental organizations for the effective
investigation and prosecution of cases.
q Look into and act on reported cases of harassments, intimidations,
and torture, especially where the alleged perpetrators or violators are
law enforcement officers or agents of the state, and coordinate with
the government investigative agencies, particularly the NBI, for the
investigation of the perpetrators and eventual filing of cases against them.
q Take all measures necessary to ensure the safety of survivors,
witnesses, and families of victims before, during, and after investigation
or trial.
q Coordinate with the Commission on Human Rights, PHRC, Task
Force 211, and other government and nongovernment organizations
in disseminating information and education of victims of crimes that
explain their legal rights and encourage them to file complaints
q Inform families of victims of the status of investigation or prosecution
of their cases.
The special task force builds on the work of an earlier task force, Task
Force 211 or Task Force Against Political Violence, which was created
on November 26, 2007 by virtue of Administrative Order No. 211 of the
Office of the President. The DOJ was among various government agencies
that compose Task Force 211.
The special task force is mandated to coordinate with the NBI in
investigating and prosecuting those involved in cases of harassments,
intimidations, and torture, especially by state agents. However, the NBI
4
itself has no specific mandate on the investigation of ELKs and EDs. Its
involvement in these cases is in connection with cooperative arrangements
with other government agencies. Aside from coordinating with the DOJ, it
is well known that the NBI provides security assistance in protecting high-
profile subjects involved in big cases as witnesses or as part of the criminal
justice system and who are in danger of becoming victims of ELKs or EDs.
Process
Cooperation between police and prosecutor
A
dministrative Order No. 181, which directed the
NPS to work closely with the PNP and NBI in the criminal
investigation of cases involving political and media killings,
entrusted to the technical working group (TWG) the job
of developing proposals suitable to improve the cooperation between the
prosecution and the law enforcement agencies.26 The goal: To directly
and actually involve the prosecution in the police initiation and conduct
of crime investigations at an early stage—immediately after the offense is
committed—when the first investigation activities take place.
EPJust findings
The Technical Working Group formed by the European Union-Philippines
Justice Support Program (EPJust-TWG) found that except in the special
procedures of inquest proceedings, the prosecution got involved in the
investigation proceedings only in rare exceptional cases.
In cases where no suspect could be arrested immediately after the
offense was committed, the prosecution would only be officially informed
about the offense and the investigations conducted after the case had been
26 The main reference for this section is the Final Report of the European Union-Philippines
Justice Support Program (EPJust) Working Group A10.EP.
filed with the Office of the Prosecutor. Consequently, the prosecutor could
4
exert no influence or involvement on the police investigation.
However, when a certain crime was handled by a task force team of the
DOJ, such as in controversial cases, the prosecutor was occasionally called
to the crime scene at the request of the police. Still, the prosecutor would
not be involved in police decisions at that stage, especially in discussing and
taking investigation-strategic or -technical measures.
The police considered the prosecutor’s presence at the crime scene as
a “suitable measure” to avoid the suspicion that the police would carry out
acts of manipulation, particularly the concealment or “planting” of evidence.
“Beyond that, a further involvement of the prosecutor still takes place in the
context of the police investigation insofar that he furnishes legal particulars
and advises at the police’s request,” the EPJUST-TWG said.
EPJust described participation of prosecutors in police investigation
or case conferences as “rare or only on exceptional cases.” It was only in
controversial cases of ELK and ED and in which Task Force Usig was
involved would this be occasionally practiced.
To sustainably counteract the phenomenon of numerous unresolved
cases of ELK and ED, the EPJUST-TWG said, “(A) purposeful cooperation
between police and prosecution has to start already immediately after the
offense is committed.” This becomes all the more necessary because the
prosecutor has to advocate the results of the investigation and present and
advocate the evidence in a later court proceeding.
But it stressed that cooperation does not mean a transfer of the work
from the police to the prosecution, or the prosecutor taking police tasks in
his or her own hands.
The involvement of the prosecution during the initial stage of the
investigation proceedings will ensure that all necessary investigation
measures are performed, including seeing to it that the means of collecting
evidence are legally permissible and the evidence will be used in court,
according to the working group.
It said many cases failed to get a conviction or were abandoned because
police investigators relied “exclusively or predominantly” on witness reports
or testimonial evidence. “(T)his result could be avoided and a conviction
of the culprit would have been quite possible, if other physical means of
evidence would have been gathered and presented to the court,” the
EPJUST-TWG said.
4
The working group said witnesses in many cases were reluctant to
testify comprehensively to the police, apparently a sign of the public’s
distrust of the police force. It said, “(T)he involvement of the prosecutor in
the police investigation could contribute to reduce the existing distrust of
such witnesses and motivate them to give a comprehensive testimony.”
The EPJUST-TWG also said the involvement of the prosecutor in
interrogating witnesses makes sense because he or she has the authority
to enforce the appearance of the witnesses in front of the investigating
authorities. The prosecutor can also guarantee witnesses the confidentiality
of their statements to ensure their safety of and, in the process, encourage
them to give a comprehensive testimony, it said.
Witness protection measures can be collectively discussed and
conducted by the prosecution and the police, including recording on video
the testimonies and statements of witnesses.
The EPJUST-TWG also said the prosecutor should work and
coordinate with a judge handling the case when circumstances arise on the
availability of witnesses or when the court proceedings are questionable.
While EPJust was careful to restrict itself to political and media
killings, it called for a presidential directive that would apply to “all cases of
willful killing.” It reasoned:
It is because at the onset, a case of killing could not immediately be

characterized as extrajudicial killing and a case of kidnapping could
not immediately be characterized as enforced disappearance within the
context of the definitions of EJK and ED under AO 181. The elements
of EJK and ED can only be possibly assessed and determined at the
crime scene. Simply put, the applicability of AO 181 necessitates that a
thorough investigation of the surrounding circumstances of the killing or
disappearance should first be made.
For example, in cases of “political killings” the motive for an offense can,
according to experience, usually only be verified in the course of further
investigations. In such instance, the presence of the prosecutor, invoking
AO 181, should be mandatory already at the onset of the investigation.
Similarly, based on the PNP Field Manual it is provided that in cases
4
of “shooting killings” a prosecutor has to be involved at the crime scene.
Such provision supports the mandatory presence of the prosecutor in
the crime scene. Thus, it becomes sufficiently obvious that also the police
should advocate further-reaching regulations procedures. Additionally,
under both the DOJ Circular 61 on inquest and the Manual for
Prosecutors, the inquest prosecutor may go to the scene of the crime and
direct the investigation of the case whenever a dead body is found and
there is reason to believe that the death resulted from foul play, or from
the unlawful acts or omissions of other persons and such fact has been
brought to the attention of the inquest prosecutor.
Cooperation in practice
The exercise of the cooperation imposed on the prosecutor and the police
by Administrative Order No. 181 is in practice particularly relevant for the
following subject areas:
Crime
q Legal classification of the crime and the presence of all its elements
q Solution of the circumstances, backgrounds
q Profiling of suspect and victim
q Serial recognition
Crime scene
q Securing the crime scene

q Professional and thorough cordoning
q Consideration of the crime scene in the more specific and wider sense
q Comprehensive documentation, also with photographs, of who, where,
what has been or was secured with which method
Evidence
q Securing the integrity and storage of all available forensic evidence

as well as their examination under citation and commissioning of experts
q Documentation of gathered evidence in the records (chain of custody)
Avoiding contamination of the evidence
4
Measures concerning the victim
q Securing the body and ordinance of an autopsy, including a

photographic documentation as well as the instigation of further required
forensic examinations
q Identification of the victim, particularly through the illumination of
the personal, professional, and social environment, in order to receive
first hints at the possible motive for the deed and to recognize the further
backgrounds
q Prompting a search of the victim’s house, effecting a required search
warrant from the competent court if applicable
Securing witnesses
q Determination of all witnesses coming into consideration through

canvassing or house- to-house operations (background check)
q Prompting the separation of witnesses
q Working toward the required legal instruction (duties and rights) and
documentation of the instructions
q Determination and recording of who has already left the crime scene
when and to where and instigation of line-ups
q Instigation of required witness protection measures
q Examination and granting of confidentiality reassurances
q Complete documentation of the narrations of the witnesses
4
Measures concerning the suspects
q Forensics at the person and the person’s belongings (personal record

with securing of the fingerprints, securing DNA, clothing at the time of
the crime, fiber report, powder burns)
q Investigations about the whereabouts
q Prompting of arrests
q Instigating of international search
q Issuance of other rogatory letters
q Conduct of investigations concerning serial recognition
q Forcing of investigations concerning possible accomplices and
masterminds
q Ensuring that his constitutional rights are afforded to him or her and
respected
Manhunting operations
Collective coordination of the initiation and conduct of required search

measures
q Instigation of purposeful, intensive, and operative search measures

concerning single or groups of persons already identified, whose arrest
is of special importance. This should apply to all identified and fugitive
suspects in cases of ELK and ED.
q Open information gathering through public search also by means of
all internal and external sources of information like criminal records,
registers, register offices, and CCTV
q Covert information gathering (observation, levy of informants, bank
inquiries, health insurances, schools, clubs)
q Instigation and coordination of searches abroad, including the
issuance of rogatory letters and support of the investigating foreign search
forces
Press and public relations
The cooperation should also include press relations. Media coverage is

suitable for the identification of further, previously unknown witnesses.
However, the forwarding of information to the media should not lead to
endangering witnesses or the success of the investigation.
4
The prosecutor should determine confidential information that cannot
be publicly released or are not legally allowed to anybody but the courts.
He or she should decide together with the police which information is
forwarded.
Names and professions of persons concerned should not be mentioned.
Also, culprit knowledge should be exempted from press coverage in order
to enable the verification of possible false confessions. The working group
could, for example, determine that in pending investigation proceedings
with ELK background, the ammunition used for the crime was named in
caliber, though this is irrelevant for the public’s informational needs and
should be omitted in the future.
Prosecutor’s urgency ordinance competence
q In case of measures, in whose context imminent danger is to assume,

particularly in case of search measures at the culprit (destruction of
evidence)
q Application of jurisprudence on case-to-case basis
File management
q Documentation of all essential steps of investigation in the records in

form of interrogation protocols, indemnity protocols, notes
q Complete, chronological, paginated file management
q Issuance of interim and final reports summarizing the course and
essential results of the investigation
Preliminary investigation and prosecution
4 Summative checklist
Step 1: How do you know that it is an extralegal killing?

The Supreme Court’s Administrative Order No. 25 issued on March
1, 2007 defines extralegal killings, in particular the killings of media
practitioners or activists.
The Minnesota Protocol takes into account the victim’s political views,
religious, or ethnic affiliation, or social status that gives rise to a suspicion of
government involvement or complicity in the death because of any of these
factors:
q The victim was last seen alive in police custody or detention.

q The modus operandi is recognizably attributable to government-
sponsored death squads.
q Persons in the government or associated with the government have
attempted to obstruct or delay the investigation of the execution.
q The physical or testimonial evidence essential to the investigation
becomes unavailable.
Extralegal killings are also any of the following:
q Killings as a result of torture

q Killings as a result of genocide
q Killings as a result of war crimes
q Killings as a result of crimes against humanity
q Enforced disappearances
This is a modified version of what appears in the DOJ’s Manual for Prosecutors.
4
Step 2: Look at the circumstances of the case.
Human rights are of such fundamental character that anyone can readily
acknowledge their inherence in every human person. As a result, almost
anyone can readily recognize when a violation of human rights has been
committed.
These are some defining characteristics of human rights violations:

q They involve a wanton violation of the integrity of the human person’s
body.
For example, physical injuries inflicted on a person are undoubtedly

on a lower threshold compared to acts of torture where the intent to
inflict pain is supplanted by the intent to cause intense physical suffering,
trauma, and agony beyond the limits of human tolerance. Anyone can
readily recognize the difference in the quality of evil that impels a person
who merely intends to injure and a person who takes advantage of the
fragility and limits of what the human body can take in order to totally
subdue the will of another.
q They involve an infliction of intense psychological anguish, emotional

suffering, and moral helplessness.
For example, families of victims of enforced disappearance had

to contend with the lifelong agony of not knowing what became of their
loved ones, and being deprived of the opportunity to give them a decent
burial. This kind of suffering adds an entirely new layer of evil to
what would otherwise be a plain case of deprivation of life and liberty.
Deliberately withholding information on the whereabouts of a person
involuntary disappeared makes the loss of a loved one assume an entirely
different dimension.
q They deviate from universally accepted minimum standards of

treatment of every human person.
Society may be divided on the issue of the imposition of death
4
penalty in criminal justice system, but social norms dictate that nobody
deserves to die in an excruciatingly painful manner. The relatives of
the dead should have the opportunity to bury their dead with dignity.
When a wrongful act deprives a human person of what is due him or
her according to the minimum standards of humanity, then there is an
assault against fundamental human rights.
Step 3: How do you prove that there has been a human rights violation?
The following are among the pieces of evidence that can prove a human
rights violation has been committed:
q Medico-legal reports (for physical trauma)

q Autopsy reports (for causes of death and internal or external injuries
sustained immediately prior to, or contemporaneous with, the point of
death)
q Psychiatric and psychological evaluations (for mental, emotional, and
psychological trauma on the part of the victim and his or her relatives)
q Affidavits of witnesses (focusing on the circumstances that would
qualify an act as a human rights violation)
q Object evidence such as pictures, DNA, ballistics, bones, blood
splatters
Nature of evidence in enforced disappearances
By their very nature, enforced disappearances are often times difficult to

prove through direct and positive evidence. This has led to various rulings
by international tribunals and the Philippine Supreme Court recognizing
that proof of these particular crimes should be based on the totality of
evidence which may include circumstantial evidence.
The Inter-American Court ruled:
The Commission’s argument relies upon the proposition that the policy of
disappearances, supported or tolerated by the Government, is designed
4
to conceal and destroy evidence of disappearances. When the existence
of such a policy or practice has been shown, the disappearance of a
particular individual may be proved through circumstantial or indirect
evidence or by logical inference. Otherwise, it would be impossible to
prove that an individual has been disappeared.28
The court also said:
The practice of international and domestic courts shows that direct

evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, is not the only type of
evidence that may be legitimately considered in reaching a decision.
Circumstantial evidence, indicia, and presumptions may be considered,
so long as they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts.
Circumstantial or presumptive evidence is especially important

in allegations of disappearances, because this type of repression is
characterized by an attempt to suppress all information about the
kidnapping or the whereabouts and fate of the victim.
The Supreme Court has also had the occasion to rule that owing to
the secret nature of enforced disappearances, the testimony of the victims,
when properly corroborated by both testimonial and physical evidence,
can be relied upon. Debunking the claim of Secretary of National Defense
that the testimony of Raymond Manalo, who was abducted together
with his brother in February 2006 by the 7th Infantry Division and held
incommunicado for months by the military unit then under Palparan, was
not corroborated, the court said:
With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture

perpetrated on the victim during detention, it logically holds that
much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from the
victims themselves, and the veracity of their account will depend on
their credibility and candidness in their written and/or oral statements.
Their statements can be corroborated by other evidence such as physical
4
evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify
in the places where they were detained. Where powerful military officers
are implicated, the hesitation of witnesses to surface and testify against
them comes as no surprise.”29
Resort to material evidence
The book Extrajudicial Killings And Enforced Disappearances: A Forensic

Manual for Legal and Judicial Professionals defines the concept of material
evidence and underscores its importance.30
Events, it said, “leave behind material correlates or evidence that refer to
anything that is made or altered by human hand or with machinery.” In a
murder, material evidence could be the gun used in the crime or a piece of
cloth that was worn by the killer.
The book reminds prosecutors, however, that objects are not the only
things that should be considered as material evidence. “(T) he marks left by
the machine that dug a mass grave, imprints of vehicle tires or shoeprints,
or the traces of gunshots on a wall are important evidence too,” it said.
Describing material evidence as “fossilized” human behavior, the
manual said the goal of a forensic investigation is to reconstruct and
interpret behavior. “When human behavior repeats itself and is patterned,
it reflects specific activities. Activities are actions with goals; they are not
random,” it said. “The evidence from a crime scene can be analyzed for
recurrent phenomena with which to reconstruct the events. Evidence can
also be used to link a suspect or a victim to the scene of a crime.”
To make a correct interpretation of the event, investigators must
carefully and thoroughly recover and document the crime scene and the
evidence. “This does not mean that everything has to be recovered; there is
a focus on what is relevant to the investigation,” according to the manual.
29 Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008, 568 SCRA
52.
Watson, Lucia, Maria del Carmen Vega, Carmen Rosa Cardoza, and Alain Wittman.
Extrajudicial Killings and Forced Disappearances: A Forensic Manual for Legal and Judicial
Professionals, 25-26. n.d.
The book also emphasized the need to follow a standard protocol, such
4
as the Minnesota Protocol, to see to it that the investigative procedure is
systematic and unbiased.
Istanbul Protocol
For cases of EJK and ED that fall under the UN Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a
manual or international guideline of minimum standards has been created
“to enable States to address one of the most fundamental concerns in
protecting individuals from torture—effective documentation.”
The Istanbul Protocol states, “The broad purpose of the investigation
is to establish the facts relating to alleged incidents of torture, with a view
to identifying those responsible for the incidents and facilitating their
prosecution, or for use in the context of other procedures designed to obtain
redress for victims. The issues addressed here may also be relevant for other
types of investigations of torture.”31
Under the protocol, those carrying out the investigation must, at a
minimum, do the following:
q Obtain statements from the victims of alleged torture.

q Recover and preserve evidence, including medical evidence, related to
the alleged torture to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible.
q Identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them
concerning the alleged torture.
q Determine how, when, and where the alleged incidents of torture
occurred as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about
the torture.
31 Accessed April 21, 2011. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/

training8Rev1en.pdf.
4
DNA evidence
There will be instances that there are no eyewitnesses or the material

evidence available is limited to organic material from the victim that can be
subject to DNA testing. In which case, the Rules on DNA Evidence issued
by the Supreme Court on October 2, 2007 would apply. In order for the
prosecution to be able to admit the DNA evidence, Sections 7 to 9 of the
Rules on DNA evidence must be complied with.
For example, in order to admit the testimony of the DNA laboratory
technician and the DNA examination results, the prosecution must do the
following:
1 Establish credentials.
Q: Please state your personal circumstances:

A: I am Inspector Dakota Harrison, DNA analyst of the PNP Crime
Lab.
Q. How are you employed?

A. I am employed as DNA analyst at PNP Crime Lab.
Q: How long have you held that position?

A: For six years.
Q. Could you tell this Honorable Court what your duties are as DNA
analyst at the PNP Crime Lab?
A. My duties are to accept the evidence as it is delivered to the lab, to
process the evidence, and to perform the analysis on the evidence.
Q. What is your educational background?

A. I have a Biochemistry degree from Harvardian College. (Include
relevant post grad degree if any)
32 Adapted from 8 American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, 3d, 749, among others.
4
2 Establish experience with DNA testing.
Q. Are you familiar with a test known as the DNA print identification
test?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Have you performed that test before?

A. Yes.
Q. About how many times?

A. For the purpose of identification, about 200 times.
Q. Are you familiar with the way the tests are performed?
A. Yes.
Q. And does the PNP Crime Lab have an established protocol for that
test?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. Are you familiar with that protocol?

A. Yes, I am.
3 Identify exhibits.
Q. Did you perform a test on some specimens sent to you in connection

with this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Showing you what have been marked Exhibits A, B, and C for

identification, I ask you to look at them and see if you recognize them as
those specimens.
A. Yes. Exhibit A is a tube of blood that was labeled as coming from the
victim, and Exhibit B is a vaginal swab again labeled as coming from victim.
Exhibit is a tube of blood that’s identified as coming from defendant.
Q. Did you perform a test on these three exhibits?
4
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was that the DNA print identification test?

A. Yes, it was.
4 Explain steps of test.
Q. If you could, just take us step by step through the protocol from the
time you received the specimens.
A: (Explains test)
5 Tie the steps to description by the independent expert (If an expert witness was
presented).
6 Explain quality control (step by step).
Q. Are there certain quality control measures that you use to make
sure that the tests are done properly and that the results are, therefore,
accurate?
A. Yes. We definitely have.
Q. Can you explain what kind of quality control you have and how it works?
A. Fine. (Explains step by step the quality controls)
Q. Do you have specific quality controls for the substances or elements

that you use in the tests?
A. Yes, we do.
Q. Please explain what you do in order to make sure of the quality

control on those items.
A. (Explains steps)
4
7 Key into opponent’s cross-examination and respond on redirect examination.
Step 4: What do you do about it?
The prosecutor should determine whether the human rights violation (1) is
continually being perpetrated or (2) has already been perpetrated.
The human rights violation is continually being perpetrated such as in
the case of a person:
q Who is involuntary disappeared and whose fate and whereabouts are

still unknown
q Whose life or liberty is under threat by reason of his or her political
beliefs
q Who is under the custody of state authorities under circumstances
that would warrant a well-engendered fear of his or her being subjected to
torture or other forms of suffering
In this situation, the most pressing need is to gather information on the

condition or whereabouts of the person to achieve the appropriate remedy.
This can include any of the following courses of action:
q Claim for the victim the right of visitation of and conference with
counsel, a right granted to every detainee or person under custodial
investigation. Torture or other forms of prosecution can speedily be
discovered and addressed through this means.
q Utilize inquest proceedings so that violations of human rights will be
disclosed early on.
q Bring to the attention of the court actual knowledge, or well-founded
suspicion of torture or other forms of human rights violations. The courts,
under Administrative Matter No. MTJ 90-4001, have the positive duty to
“proceed with caution” during trial whenever allegations of violations of the
fundamental rights of the accused are brought to their attention.
q Gather information through the usual channels of inquiry, taking into
account whether or not information being sought is open to public access,
or privileged, or withheld from the public by reason of national security.
If the effort to gather information fails, or if information needed to
4
ascertain the location of a person of his or her condition is privileged or
classified, avail of the writ of habeas data, taking care to satisfy the requisites
regarding (1) proper parties, (2) required allegations, and (3) remedies
prayed for.
If information-gathering discloses a person’s whereabouts, or if these
are already known at the outset, or if the source of the threat to one’s life or
liberty has been clearly determined, an aggrieved party can:
q Compel officials having custody of the person to bring such person

to court so that his or her condition can be examined and his or her
detention can be justified through a writ of habeas corpus.
q Compel the state to extend such protection as may be adequate to
safeguard his or her rights through a writ of amparo.
The human rights violation has already been perpetrated, for example, in
case of:
q A person who has already been subjected to torture

q A person who was involuntarily disappeared and subsequently found
to have been killed through “salvaging”
q Persons who were forced to leave their homes en masse through
intimidation and violence
In these cases, seeking redress for the violation that has already been
committed is paramount. This can be done through remedies that expressly
and indirectly recognize human rights violations.
Remedies that expressly recognize human rights violations
Although only few legal remedies specifically tackle and address human
rights violations, they are nonetheless effective because they directly
acknowledge the existence of a wrongful act that may be classified as
a human rights violation. The primary objective of these measures is
indemnification for the resulting damages arising from the violation. These
remedies include:
q Action for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code

q Claims under the Victim Compensation Act
q In cases of torture or death of a suspected terrorist, an action for
criminal liability of a State official having custody over the suspected
terrorist under Section 25 of the Human Security Act
4
Remedies that indirectly recognize human rights violations
These are ordinary criminal actions involving felonies that may be considered
the closest equivalents of the human rights violations—torture, enforced
disappearances, extralegal killings, ad involuntary displacement—that are
yet to be legislated as felonies or crimes in themselves.
But this does not mean that these violations cannot be prosecuted. They
can and should be prosecuted, but must be couched in existing criminal law
terms, taking care that all their elements are obtaining. For example:
q The component felonies that may be equated to torture such as

maltreatment of prisoners, serious physical injuries, administration of
injurious substance, mutilation
q Equivalent felonies to enforce disappearance such as arbitrary
detention and kidnapping
q Felonies parallel to involuntary displacement such as grave coercion
and expulsion
Step 5: Is there a way forward?
Make human rights violations akin to aggravating circumstances.
The perpetration of felonies committed in a manner that qualifies them

as human rights violations deserves condemnation. The proposition that
perpetrators of such acts must be subjected to graver penalties finds intuitive
validity in the consciousness of well-meaning individuals. However, existing
penal laws do not operate in that manner. Laws must be enacted to punish
particular crimes, impose heavier penalties, or add to the exclusive list
4
of aggravating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code. The absence of
those laws constitutes a violation of due process for victims of human rights
violations.
However, the need for new laws does not preclude the commencement of
practice (that will hopefully ripen into tradition) among Public Prosecutors
and Public Attorneys of recognizing human rights violations at the outset,
acknowledging them accordingly in the information, and equating them
when possible to existing aggravating circumstances.
The fact that human rights violations have been committed should be reflected in
the information.
Information that is complete and correct in substance and in form will not
be invalidated simply because it supplied other information apart from that
usually seen in such processes. It is a giant first step for the vindication
of human rights violations that they have acknowledged and recognized
in the information, for then the courts can be better apprised of the exact
quality of evil that attended the commission of the felony beyond its
essential elements. In those cases where the judge is given enough latitude
to pronounce the proper period or the penalty to be imposed (as in the case
of the application of the “Indeterminate Sentence Law”), these facts can and
should be given adequate consideration.
Resort may be made to the principles of public international law.
As stated by United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human

Rights:
Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume

obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect
and to fulfill human rights. The obligation to respect means that States
must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human
rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals
and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means
that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic
4
human rights. At the individual level, while we are entitled our human
rights, we should also respect the human rights of others.33
Thus, states, whether through the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (UDHR), together with the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its two Optional Protocols, and
the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR)—considered collectively as the International Bill of Human
Rights—and other international human rights instruments they ratified or
through gross human violations such as genocide, torture, and slavery that
violate jus cogen or peremptory norms have the duty to prosecute human rights
violations.
The Philippines, as enunciated in the Incorporation Clause34 and the
Treaty Clause,35 must prosecute human rights violators. The Philippine
Supreme Court has decided cases that bolster the argument that so long
as the violation is an act against generally accepted of international law,
there is no need for a domestic law to be enacted in order for the act to be
prosecuted.
In the piracy case against Moro marauders Lol-lo and Saraw, the Court
declared:
Pirates are in law hostes humani generis.36 Piracy is a crime not against
any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or
into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other
crimes has no territorial limits.
33 Accessed April 26, 2011. http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.

aspx
Article II Section 3 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Article VII Section 21 1987 Philippine Constitution
36 Latin for “enemies of mankind”
People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922, 43 Phil. 19.
The Court, in granting jurisdiction of the Military Commission over
4
the war crimes committed by Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, held:
From the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and
applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which
prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status rights and duties and of
enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War,
and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it
may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction
to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate
cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our
Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish
offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional
limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons and
offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations,
and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals.38
In denying the petition of another Japanese general, Shigenori Kuroda,

stating, among others, that Executive Order No. 68 is illegal on the ground
that the Philippines was then neither a signatory nor an adherent to the
Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare, the
Court stated:
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international

law of the present day including the Hague Convention the Geneva
Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence
established by the United Nation all those person military or civilian who
have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of aggression and
of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental
thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and
civilization are held accountable therefor.
Yamashita v. Styer, G.R. No. L-129 December 19, 1945, 75 Phil. 563.
39 Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949, 83 Phil 171.
Field investigation of ELKs and EDs
In the field investigation of ELKs and EDs, the lead role belongs to
investigators of the PNP. The DOJ and the NBI only complement their
work. DOJ prosecutors in particular are involved more at the prosecution
stage rather than at the investigation stage. However, they are mandated to
4
cooperate with the PNP under DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 4.
More specifically, the circular provides the following standard operating
procedure in investigating and resolving cases involving political and media
killings or violence:
q Provincial and City Prosecutors must assign a prosecutor at the start

of a criminal investigation to assist or handle, as far as practicable, a case
involving political or media killing or violence throughout the criminal
proceedings, except in the preliminary investigation.
q Another prosecutor, different from the one assigned to assist in the
criminal investigation, shall conduct the preliminary investigation.
Inquest proceedings
During inquest proceedings of a case involving ELKs and EDs, however,
DOJ prosecutors play the lead role. According to the DOJ’s Revised Manual
for Prosecutors released in 2008, an inquest is an informal and summary
investigation by a prosecutor in a criminal case involving a person who has
been arrested without a warrant to determine whether he or she should be
released or charged in court.
Prosecutors with inquest duties discharge their functions at any time of
the week at the PNP police stations headquarters or at the office of inquest
prosecutor to facilitate the disposition of inquest cases.
The revised manual provides for the procedure in conducting inquest
proceedings.
Commencement of inquest proceedings
4 Inquest proceedings begin upon receipt by the prosecutor of the following

documents:
q Affidavit of arrest by the arresting officer

q Investigation report
q Sworn statements of complainants and witnesses
q Other supporting evidence
The inquest prosecutor shall determine whether the warrantless arrest

was valid. If not valid, he or she shall recommend release of the person
In the following cases, which are the type of cases involving ELKs
and EDs, the following documents are further required:
Murder, homicide and parricide:
q Certified true or machine copy of victim’s certificate of death

q Autopsy report and certificate of post-mortem examination, if
available
q Marriage certificate in parricide cases.
Frustrated or attempted homicide, murder,

parricide and physical injuries:
q Medical certificate of complaining witness showing nature of

injury and duration of healing
q Certification or statement on duration of treatment
q Certificate or statement on duration of incapacity for work
q Marriage certificate in parricide cases
detained. If valid, the prosecutor shall ask the detained person if he or she
4
wants a preliminary investigation, in which case he will be asked to waive
the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Inquest proper
1 The inquest prosecutor shall proceed with the inquest proceeding if the
person detained does not opt for a preliminary investigation or refuses to
make the required waiver. He or she shall examine the sworn statements or
affidavits of the complainant and witnesses and other supporting evidence.
2 If necessary, the prosecutor shall require the presence of the
complaining witnesses and examine them informally to determine the
existence of probable cause.
3 If he or she finds probable cause, he or she shall prepare the
resolution with the corresponding complaint or information with the
recommendation that it be filed in court.
4 The record of the case, with the resolution and the complaint or
information, shall be forwarded to the Chief State Prosecutor or
Provincial or City Prosecutor for approval and filing in court.
The inquest proceedings must be terminated within twelve hours

for light offenses, eighteen hours for less grave offenses, and 36 for grave
offenses, counted from the time of arrest.
Presence of inquest prosecutor at the crime scene

Whenever a dead body is found by the police at the crime scene, the inquest
prosecutor shall:
1 Go to the crime scene.

2 Cause immediate autopsy of the dead person.
3 Direct the police investigator to take pictures of the crime scene.
4 Supervise the crime scene investigation by the police.
5 Submit a report of his or her findings to the Chief State Prosecutor or
Provincial or City Prosecutor.
4
Figure 4.2 Inquest Proceedings
AFFIDAVIT OF ARREST + IR + SS + OTHER DOC
ARREST not PROPERLY EFFECTED ARREST PROPERLY EFFECTED
RECOMMENDS REGULAR P.I. + RELEASE WITH WAIVER NO WAIVER

DISMISSAL OF
COMPLAINT
+ RELEASE OF
RESPONDENT
WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE WITH PROBABLE CAUSE
ACTION BY CP/PP/CSP PRELIMINARY RECOMMEND

INVESTIGATION FILING OF INFO
PROPER IN COURT
no yes ACTION BY CP/

PP/CSP
DISMISSAL OF CONTINUE PRELIMINARY SEE PROCEDURE OF reverse sustain

COMPLAINT WITH INQUEST INVESTIGATION P.I. BUT WITHIN 15
+ RELEASE OF DAYS
RESPONDENT
ACTION BY CP/
PP/CSP
Abbreviations: FILING OF INFO DISMISSAL OF FILING OF INFO

CP City Prosecutor IN COURT COMPLAINT IN COURT
PP Provincial Prosecutor & RELEASE OF
CSP Chief State Prosecutor RESPONDENT
IR Investigation report
SS Sworn statement
P.I. Preliminary investigation
Recommendations
U
N Special Rapporteur Alston, the Melo Commission,
and the Philippine Judicial Academy have come up with
recommendations on how to strengthen the investigation
and prosecution of cases of extralegal killings and enforced
4
disappearances and on witness protection. This section compiles the most
significant ones, which are produced verbatim in a slightly modified form.
Alston preliminary report

In conjunction with the executive branch of government, the Supreme
Court should use its constitutional powers over the practice of law to
impress upon prosecutors that they have a duty to the public to uphold and
protect human rights by acting to ensure the effective investigation of cases
and protection of witnesses.
The Ombudsman’s office should begin to take seriously its independent
constitutional role in responding to extrajudicial killings plausibly
attributed to public officials.40
Alston final report

Poor cooperation between police and prosecutors impedes the
effective gathering of evidence.
The current system so discourages cooperation between prosecutors and
police that each is tempted to simply blame the other for failing to achieve
convictions. Prosecutors rather than judges make the determination
whether the evidence provides probable cause for the charges to be brought.
During this preliminary hearing, prosecutors are expected to show
absolute impartiality. Prosecutors thus perceive themselves unable to guide
the police with respect to the testimony and physical evidence that must be
Alston, Philip. 2007. Preliminary note on the visit of the Special Rapporteur on
Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, to the Philippines, February
12-21, 2007. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/20/Add.3, para. 15, (b) (c).
obtained to make a case.
4
Even when prosecutors find the evidence presented by the police
at the preliminary hearing insufficient, they seldom provide a reasoned
explanation for that insufficiency for fear of appearing biased. Police thus
lack expert guidance in building cases.
While this problem is deeply embedded in the culture of the criminal
justice system, changes in the role of the prosecutor could be effected by
amending the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which are promulgated by the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court should use this power to require prosecutors to
provide reasoned decisions for probable cause determinations and to insist
that prosecutors take a more proactive role in the ensuring the proper
investigation of criminal cases.
The witness protection program is inadequate.

The absence of witnesses is a key explanation for why extrajudicial
executions hardly ever lead to convictions. One expert suggested to (Alston)
that the absence of witnesses results in eight out of ten cases involving
extrajudicial killings failing to move from the initial investigation to the
actual prosecution stage.
In a relatively poor society, in which there is heavy dependence on
community and very limited 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 present
message is that if you want to preserve your life expectancy, don’t act as a
witness in a criminal prosecution for killing.
The witness protection program is administered by the NPS. This is
problematic only because the impartial role prosecutors are expected to
play in the early phases of a criminal case can make them loath to propose
witness protection. This problem might be remedied by establishing a
separate witness protection office independent of the prosecutors but still
within the DOJ. That office would then be free to take a proactive role in
providing witness protection.
Implementation of the statute establishing the witness protection program
is deeply flawed. It would seem to be truly effective in only a very limited number
4
of cases. The rights and benefits mandated by law are too narrowly interpreted
in practice to make participation possible for some witnesses.
Another widely cited shortcoming, likely caused by inadequate
resources, is that at-risk family members are not admitted into the program,
although in theory “any member of his family within the second civil degree
of consanguinity or affinity” who is at risk may be admitted.
A more fundamental problem is that, even when a witness is available,
cases seldom move quickly through the justice system, and when a case fails
to prosper, the witness is expelled from the program, although he or she
may still be at risk.
Limited forensic resources lead

to over-reliance on witness testimony.
A greater capacity to use physical evidence would allow more cases to go
forward without witness testimony. The information that (Alston) received
from officials was that, while there are some forensic laboratories and
experts in Manila, there is very limited access to these resources throughout
most of the country.
The Ombudsman lacks independence.

The Office of the Ombudsman is responsible for investigating and
prosecuting crimes and other misconduct committed by public officials.
However, the Ombudsman’s office has done almost nothing in recent
years to investigate the involvement of government officials in extrajudicial
executions. Despite having received a significant number of complaints
alleging extrajudicial executions attributed to state agents, no information
was provided by the Ombudsman’s office indicating that it had undertaken
any productive investigations.
The Office of the Ombudsman has surrendered its constitutionally
mandated independence from the executive branch. First, it has adopted an
untenably narrow interpretation of its jurisdiction, choosing not to initiate
an investigation into an extrajudicial execution unless there is already very
4
strong evidence that a public official was responsible in the particular case.
Second, the Office of the Ombudsman often operates as a de facto
subsidiary of the DOJ. The NBI conducts most of its investigations.
Pursuant to a memorandum of agreement between the DOJ and the Office
of the Ombudsman, the relevant Regional State Prosecutor and other senior
members of DOJ’s NPS monitor and oversee the “successful prosecution
and speedy disposition of Ombudsman cases.” “Deputized prosecutors”
from the NPS “have the primary responsibility of prosecuting Ombudsman
cases,” and prosecutor-investigators from the Office of the Ombudsman “assist,
if practicable, the Deputized Prosecutor in the prosecution of the case” and
“may, with prior clearance from the Ombudsman or his Deputy, take over the
prosecution of the case at any stage.” As a practical matter, these arrangements
serve to all but completely subordinate the Ombudsman to the DOJ.
The Ombudsman insists that her office can take over a case being
handled by the DOJ at any time, but it is unclear how the Ombudsman
would even be aware that such a measure was necessary given her Office’s
lack of involvement. One NPS prosecutor at the local level explained
that, in his locality, the local representative of the Ombudsman sits in the
DOJ office, reviews the work of DOJ prosecutors and passes this on to
the Ombudsman in Manila. It is, in his words, a “chummy” relationship,
because the person from the Office of the Ombudsman is disinclined to
criticize the conduct of what are, in effect, his colleagues.41
Melo Commission report

Political will
In the field of extralegal killings, it is urged that the President reiterate
in the strongest possible manner her expressions or pronouncements of
determination and firm resolve to stop the same. If extrajudicial executions
are to be stopped, the political will to do what is right however great the cost
41 Alston, Philip. 2008. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or

Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/3/Add.2, April 16, para. 51-58.
must pervade all levels of government so that our beloved country can move
4
towards the greater ideals of democracy and justice; it must start with the
President who must pursue the prevention and prosecution of extrajudicial
killings with urgency and fervor.
As recommended by Amnesty International, the government must
consistently and at all levels condemn political killings. The President and
all the departments of the government should make clear to all members
of the police and military forces that extrajudicial executions will not be
countenanced under any circumstances.
Investigation
To ensure that all reports and complaints of extrajudicial killings against
the military are investigated promptly, impartially, and effectively, the
investigation must be conducted by a body or agency independent from the
armed forces.
This civilian investigative agency should be independent of, and not
under the command, control, or influence of the Armed Forces, and it
must have control of its own budget. The personnel must be civilian agents
well trained in law enforcement and investigative work and equipped with
the necessary array of technical devices to enhance their investigative
capabilities. They must be authorized to execute warrants and make arrests.
They must be provided with an adequate forensic laboratory and other
technical services.
On the part of the PNP, the law that created the National Police
Commission (R.A. No. 6995) should be amended and strengthened to
ensure the thorough and impartial investigation of erring police officers by
personnel not under the control of the PNP command.
In the conduct of the investigation of extrajudicial killing of activists,
or of any case for that matter, the PNP must be enjoined to ensure that the
evidence must be strong and sufficient for conviction. The present policy
of the PNP—as confirmed by Police Deputy Director General Avelino
Razon Jr. in his testimony before the Commission—to consider their job
done or finished from the moment they have filed the complaint with the
office of the public prosecutor has inevitably encouraged sloppy and shoddy
investigations; it is not infrequent that police investigators, especially in
4
remote areas, would file a case with the office of the public prosecutor, no
matter how inadequate the evidence is, just so they can say that the case
has been solved and if it is later dismissed for insufficiency of evidence they
blame the prosecutor for incompetence or for being corrupt.
The office of the public prosecutor in each province or city must assign
prosecutors to review all complaints filed by the police to evaluate the
sufficiency of evidence not only to determine the existence of probable cause
but also for conviction. If the reviewing prosecutor is of the opinion that the
evidence is insufficient, then he must reject the complaint and return it to
the police, indicating what additional evidence is needed.
Once a complaint is accepted after such review, it means that there is
enough evidence for a successful prosecution. This will avoid finger pointing
on who is to blame for the dismissal of a case or acquittal of the accused
and, more importantly, compel the police to do a thorough job in the
investigation of every case.
If after the lapse of six months from the commission of the extrajudicial
killing of an activist or media personality the investigation by PNP has not
yielded any positive result, the police personnel in charge must request the NBI
to take over the investigation. For this purpose, the NBI must be provided with
the necessary funds and allowed to hire additional personnel if necessary.
Prosecution
To ensure that those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of activists
and media people are brought to justice and that the prosecution is handled
with efficiency and dispatch, the DOJ must create a special team of
competent and well-trained prosecutors to handle the trial of said cases.
Also, the DOJ should request the Supreme Court to designate special
courts to hear and try said cases and to require the courts so designated to
give the highest priority to them, conduct daily hearings, and resolve them
within six months.
With respect to pending cases the prosecution of which has not
been moving for lack of judges or because of the fault or negligence of the
public prosecutor, the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor should make
representations with the Office of the Court Administrator to detail judges
to the vacant salas, or to designate special prosecutors to take over the
4
prosecution, as the case may be.
As regards killings in areas where witnesses are afraid to testify because
of fear of reprisal, steps should be taken to transfer the venue to Manila.
Protection of witnesses
As part of the need to ensure the successful prosecution of those responsible
for extrajudicial killings, the present Witness Protection Program created
under R.A. No. 6981 should be enhanced and made more effective so as
to guarantee the safety of witnesses to the killings. The existing program
is suffering from lack of funds and necessary manpower. The government
must give the highest priority to the improvement, strengthening, and
funding of said program, preferably patterned after the US federal witness
protection program.
The program should also be made available to persons who have received
death threats or who are otherwise in danger of extralegal, arbitrary, or
summary execution.
Special law for strict chain-of-command responsibility
The President should propose legislation to require police and military

forces and other government officials to maintain strict chain-of-command
responsibility with respect to extrajudicial killings and other offenses
committed by personnel under their command, control, or authority. Such
legislation must deal specifically with extralegal, arbitrary, and summary
executions and forced “disappearances” and provide appropriate penalties
which take into account the gravity of the offense. It should penalize a
superior government official, military or otherwise, who encourages, incites,
tolerates, or ignores, any extrajudicial killing committed by a subordinate.
The failure of such a government official to prevent an extrajudicial
killing if he had a reasonable opportunity to do so, or his failure to
investigate and punish his subordinate, or to otherwise take appropriate
action to deter or prevent its commission or punish his erring subordinate
4
should be criminalized. Even “general information”—e.g., media reports—
which would place the superior on notice of possible unlawful acts by his
subordinate should be sufficient to hold him criminally liable if he failed to
investigate and punish his subordinate.
There should be no requirement that a causal relationship be established
between a superior’s failure to act and the subordinate’s crime; his liability
under the doctrine of command responsibility should be based on his omission
to prevent the commission of the offense or to punish the perpetrator.
Enhancement of investigative capabilities of the PNP and NBI

The investigative capabilities of the PNP and NBI should be improved and
enhanced through the following measures, among others:
q Improvement of the forensic laboratories and equipment of the PNP

and NBI and further training of forensic technicians
q Establishment of a national automated ballistic information system
q Procurement of a software program for composite sketches of suspects
q Adoption of crime mapping in all police stations and NBI offices
q Strengthening of the information reward system
Proper orientation and training of security forces

Perhaps much of the failure of the proper and accountable officers to
prevent, investigate, or punish criminal acts by their subordinates stems
from a lack of proper understanding and emphasis on the present concept
of command responsibility. The AFP should be encouraged and supported
to conduct intensive seminars, orientations, or training for mid- to high-
ranking officers, to make them conscious of the prevailing doctrines of
command responsibility, and the ramifications thereof. This will hopefully
foster responsibility and accountability among the officers concerned, as
well as the men they command.
Understandable is the military’s wariness in dealing with the party-
list organizations. However, unless otherwise declared outside the law by
4
competent authority, these organizations should be treated with fairness and
their members should not be unilaterally considered as “enemies of the state.”
As suggested in Amnesty International’s fourteen-point program for
the prevention of extralegal executions:
The prohibition of extrajudicial executions should be reflected in the training

of all officials involved in the arrest and custody of prisoners and all officials
authorized to use lethal force and in the instructions issued to them. These
officials should be instructed that they have the right and duty to refuse to
obey any order to participate in an extrajudicial execution. An order from a
superior officer or a public authority must never be invoked as a justification
for taking part in an extra-judicial execution.42
PhilJA Department of International Law

and Human Rights
q Amendment of the DOJ procedures in the conduct of preliminary
Investigation
q Calling for motu proprio investigation where information exists that a
possible extralegal killing or enforced disappearance has been committed
q Continuing cooperation between investigators and prosecutors until evidence to
prove probable cause has been established. Meanwhile, there should be no order of
dismissal of a complaint for ELK’s and ED’s for lack of evidence.
q Institutionalizing cooperation between the NPS and the investigating
agencies as outlined in the EP Just recommendations
q The Ombudsman giving priority to cases involving ELKs and
EDs where the perpetrator is a state agent and promulgating rules of
procedure in this regard
q Applying the rules of continuous trials in all court cases involving
ELKs and EDs.
q Calling on Congress to enact a law criminalizing EDs as a special offense
Melo, Jose A. R. et al., 2007. Report of the Independent Commission to Address Media
and Activist Killings (Created under Administrative Order No. 157(s. 2006), January 22.
DOJ and the NBI
4 In issuing Department Order No. 848, which created the Special Task Force
to Address Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances, and DOJ
Memorandum Circular No. 4, which directs cooperation and coordination
between Provincial and City Prosecutors and local law enforcement
agencies in the investigation and prosecution of cases involving political and
media killings or violence, the DOJ has undertaken very concrete measures
to address ELKs and EDs in the Philippines. The results of these efforts,
however, have yet to felt by the concerned public.
To enhance the impact of these initiatives, it is recommended that the
following measures be considered:
q A campaign should be undertaken to explain clearly to prosecutors

the importance of Memorandum Circular No. 404. It is reported that
many prosecutors have yet to be persuaded to become actively involved,
in cooperation with the police, in the investigation of ELKs and EDs.
Many continue to believe that prosecutors should remain impartial in
a criminal investigation since their role in a preliminary investigation
requires them not to take sides. There is a need, therefore, to explain to
them the importance of the memorandum circular.
q Like police investigators, prosecutors must be given more training
in the gathering of forensic evidence in order to address the problem of
too much reliance on testimonial evidence by investigators. This in turn
will entail improvements in equipment and facilities in order to conduct
forensic investigation.
q A mechanism to facilitate greater exchange of information and
resources among investigatory bodies like the PNP, DOJ, and NBI
should be set up. For instance, the NBI may have greater expertise
and more resources in investigating ELKs and EDs compared to other
agencies. However, the NBI has no specific mandate to investigate ELKs
and EDs, and there is no clear and effective mechanism through which it
is able to share these resources with other investigatory bodies.
Figure 4.3 From Investigation to Prosecution
There is an act
that is possibly an
EJK or ED
It is an EJK/ED if it falls under:
n SC Admin Order 25-2007
n R.A. NO. 9745/Anti Torture Law
n R.A. NO. 9372/Human Security Act
n R.A. NO. 9851/ IHL Law
If the act is not an EJK
or ED, then proceed as
if it were an ordinary
criminal proceeding
4
n Minnesota Protocol
In investigating the EJK/ED the following circumstances must be determined:

n Wanton violation of the integrity of the human person’s body
n An infliction of intense psychological anguish, emotional suffering, and
moral helplessness
n Deviation from universally accepted minimum standards of treatment of
every human person
Note: Various rulings by international

Evidence tribunals and the Philippine Supreme
n Medico-legal reports (for physical trauma) Court recognizing that proof of these
n Autopsy reports (for causes of death and internal/external injuries sustained particular crimes should be based on
immediately prior to, or contemporaneous with, the point of death) the totality of evidence which may
n Psychiatric and psychological evaluations (for mental, emotional, and include circumstantial evidence
psychological trauma on the part of the victim and his or her relatives)
n Affidavits of witnesses (focusing on the circumstances that would qualify an act
as a human rights violation, as discussed above)
n Object evidence- pictures, DNA, ballistics, bones, blood splatters Refer to:
n Istanbul Protocol on Torture Cases
n Rules on Evidence
If after investigation, it has been
determined that the act is an EJK/ED, then
the prosecutor must do the following
If the act of ED is continuing: If the act of EJK/ED had been perpetrated, file:
n Gather information; when this fails avail of the writ of habeas data n An information charging the perpetrator/s for any
n Claim for the victim the right of visitation of and conference with violation/s of the following laws: R.A. Nos. 9851, 9745, and
counsel 9372. Take care that the facts and elements alleged are not the
n Utilize inquest proceedings same as those found in the Penal Code
n Compel officials having custody of the person to bring such person n An action for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code
to court through a writ of habeas corpus n Claims under the Victim Compensation Act
n Compel the state to extend such protection as may be adequate to n An action for criminal liability of a state official having
safeguard his or her rights through a writ of amparo custody over the suspected terrorist under Section 25 of R.A.
No. 9372
Judicial Process 5
Sedfrey M. Candelaria 1
I
n the Report on the Philippine Extrajudicial Killings (2001-August
2010), lawyer Al A. Parreño highlighted several judicial
conclusions.
Only 169 of the 305 incidents (56.29 percent) from 2000 to 2010
covered by the study reached the prosecutorial level, and only
101 cases or 33.22 percent were successfully prosecuted. This means that
only 59 percent of the total number of criminal complaints was found to
have probable cause that a crime had been committed and the accused was
probably guilty. But only 1 percent of the 305 cases for the nine-year period
ended up in convictions—a dismal rate, to say the least.
It took an average of five years, two months, and eleven days for a case
to undergo the criminal process—assuming it went through it at all. The
figure is based on cases undergoing criminal prosecution at the time of the
study: 20 percent were being tried in court and 6 percent under preliminary
investigation. This average may still increase if cases are not resolved
speedily.
1 This chapter is a collective effort of the writer and the following judges: Judge Silvino
Pampilo, Jr., Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 26; Judge Edgardo Caldona, Makati City
RTC Branch 65; Judge Jonel S. Mercado, Guagua, Pampanga RTC Branch 52; Judge Albert A.
Kalalo, Batangas City RTC Branch 4; and Judge Florencia Abbu, Cagayan de Oro City RTC
Branch 17.
Prosecution was still lengthy even after the Supreme Court on March
5
1, 2007 designated 99 regional trial courts across the country to “specially
and preferentially” hear, try, and decide cases involving extralegal killings
(ELK) and enforced disappearances (ED). Administrative Order No. 25-
2007 mandated the special courts to conduct continuous trial for at most
60 days, then render judgment within 30 days.
Trials took three years, seven months, and 25 days on average. An audit
of the 62 cases being tried at the time of Parreño’s research identified a range of
reasons for the delay. Half the time, the accused was at large. Seventeen percent
of the time, the case failed to progress because witnesses were not available.
The withdrawal of the counsel for the accused also contributed to delays. The
prosecution’s request for a change of venue was another reason (6 percent).
Cases were dismissed either at the prosecutorial or trial level chiefly
because the prosecution presented insufficient evidence (39 percent).
Thirty-four percent of the time, prosecutors failed to prove the accused
perpetrated the crime. Noncooperation of material witnesses was also to
blame (17 percent).
A staggering 32 percent of the cases remained unsolved—no case was filed
at all for prosecution. The main reason was investigative failure. The assailants
remained unknown, and no witness could possibly identify the suspects.
Parreño’s report was released at a time the Supreme Court had already
been taking steps to address increasing cases of extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances, particularly the adoption of the new rules on the
writ of amparo and writ of habeas data. This section aims to provide insights
on the application of the new rules on these two writs.
General Framework:
Institutional Mandate
T
his section introduces the mandate of the judiciary insofar as
extralegal killings (ELKs) and enforced disappearances (EDs)
are concerned. Substantive constitutional rights and the rule-
making authority of the Supreme Court are identified for
the purpose of laying down the parameters for effectively addressing these
crimes. At the international level, norms have been adopted to ensure the
independence of the judiciary, especially in highly sensitive political issues.
5
Jurisprudence generated by the Supreme Court and international tribunals
is discussed to guide the courts in the resolution of ELK and ED cases.
Constitution
The 1987 Constitution provides specific limitations on the exercise
of governmental power. State agents, primarily, have to comply with
the standards set by Article III, or the Bill of Rights, in exercising their
governmental functions.
Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill of Rights enumerate substantive rights that
have been the subject of the new rules on the writs of amparo and habeas data.
Bill of Rights
Right to life
In the case of Secretary of National Defense versus the Manalo brothers,

who were abducted in February 2006 by the Army’s Seventh Infantry
Division and held incommunicado for months, the Court emphasized the
relationship between the right to life and to security of every person:
Article III, Section 1 guarantees essentially the right to be alive—upon

which the enjoyment of all other rights is preconditioned—the right
to security of person is a guarantee of the secure quality of this life…
In a broad sense, the right to security of person emanates in a person’s
legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his
health, and his reputation. It includes the right to exist, and the right
to enjoyment of life while existing, and it is invaded not only by a
deprivation of life but also of those things which are necessary to the
enjoyment of life according to the nature, temperament, and lawful
desires of the individual.2
52, 20.
5
Right to security
On the other hand, the scope of the right to security is in Article III,
Section 2:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge.
In the Manalo case, the Court explained that the immunity of one’s
person, including the extensions of his or her person—houses, papers, and
effects—against government intrusion and protection of the privacy and
sanctity of the person are at the core of this guarantee.
At the international level, two human rights instruments to which the
Philippines is a signatory are worth noting in relation to the right to security.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
provides: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
In furtherance of this right, Article 9(1) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides:
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his
liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as
are established by law.
In relation to the writ of amparo, the Court in the Manalo case explained:
In the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, “ freedom from fear”

is the right and any threat to the rights to life, liberty or security is the
actionable wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; threat is a stimulus,
a cause of action. Fear caused by the same stimulus can range from being
baseless to well-founded as people react differently. The degree of fear
can vary from one person to another with the variation of the prolificacy
of their imagination, strength of character or past experience with the
5
stimulus. Thus, in the amparo context, it is more correct to say that the
‘right to security’ is actually the “ freedom from threat.” Viewed in this
light, the “threatened with violation” clause in the latter part of Section
1 of the Amparo Rule is a form of violation of the right to security
mentioned in the earlier part of the provision… In other words, there
need not necessarily be a deprivation of liberty for the right to security of
person to be invoked.
Judiciary
In addressing ELK and ED cases, the Supreme Court has relied upon its
constitutional power to promulgate rules to protect constitutional rights.
Rule-making power
Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5), the Supreme Court has, among others,
the following powers:

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts...
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
International law
International law provides further guidance to state authorities and
institutions in dealing with ELK and ED cases. As an institution, the
judiciary is governed by international norms on judicial independence.
International norms on judiciary

At the United Nations Congress in 1985, the Basic Principles on
Independence of the Judiciary was adopted outlining the following
fundamental principles:
5 q Independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the state.

q The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially.
q The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature
and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted
for its decision is within its competence as defined by law.
q There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference
with the judicial process… without prejudice to judicial review.
q Everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts.
q It is the duty of each member state to provide adequate resources to
enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions.
q The judiciary shall be bound by professional secrecy with regard to
their deliberations and to confidential information acquired in the course
of their duties other than in public proceedings.3
Role of courts in ELK and ED cases

In his final report of his fact-finding mission in 2007 that looked into
the spate of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, UN Special
Rapporteur Philip Alston underscored the role of courts and judges in
effectively resolving these cases. He identified the crucial challenge to the
judiciary:
When most cases stall at the investigation or prosecution stage, it

is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the judiciary. Two issues
specific to the judiciary were, however, raised by my interlocutors. First,
trials are routinely delayed and are generally not held on consecutive
days, increasing the opportunities for witness intimidation. If fully
implemented, the Supreme Court’s decision to establish “special
courts” for “cases involving killings of political activists and members
3 The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary were adopted by the Seventh
United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in
Milan from August 26 to September 6, 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly Resolutions
40/32 of November 29, 1985 and 40/146 of December 13, 1985.
of the media” should remedy this problem for those cases. Second,
5
witnesses often relocate to avoid retaliation, but judges seldom grant a
change of venue on that basis. The judiciary should ensure that docket
management and venue decisions facilitate witness participation and
protection.”4
International jurisprudence
In the Manalo case, the Supreme Court relied upon judicial developments
in other jurisdiction to address the specific nature of ELK and ED cases.
Specifically, it took into account two cases of importance rendered by the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. These could guide judges.
Secret nature of enforced disappearances
In Ortiz v. Guatemala, a case decided by the Inter-American Commission

on Human Rights, the commission considered similar evidence, among
others, in finding that Sister Diana Ortiz was abducted and tortured by
agents of the Guatemalan government in early November 1989.
The commission’s findings were mostly based on the consistent and
credible statements, both written and oral, by Ortiz about her ordeal. These
statements were supported by her recognition of portions of the route they
took when she was being driven out of the military installation where she
was detained.

She was also examined by a medical doctor whose findings showed
that the 111 circular second-degree burns on her back and abrasions on
her cheek coincided with her account of cigarette burning and torture she
suffered while in detention.
With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture
perpetrated on Ortiz during detention, it logically holds that much of
4 Alston, Philip, 2008. “Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political,
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development.” In Report of the
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions. United Nations, Eighth
Session Human Rights Council, UN Document A/HRC/8/3/Add.2, April 16.
the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims
5
themselves, and the veracity of their account will depend on their credibility
and candidness in their written or oral statements, or both. Their statements
can be corroborated by other evidence such as physical evidence left by the
torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in the places where
they were detained. Where powerful military officers are implicated, it
comes as no surprise that witnesses hesitate to surface and testify.
Duty to investigate
The nature and importance of an investigation are captured in the

Velasquez Rodriguez case, in which the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights pronounced that the duty to investigate must be undertaken in a
serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.
An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the state as its
own legal duty, not a step taken by private interests that depends upon the
initiative of the victim or his or her family or upon offer of proof, without an
effective search for the truth by the government.
Specific Mandate
on ELK’S AND ED’S
I
n an effort to address the high incidence of ELK and ED, the
Supreme Court convened in 2007 the National Consultative Summit
on Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances involving the
three branches of government.
This section focuses on the results of the summit, more particularly
the adoption of new rules, such as those on the writs of amparo and habeas
data. A distinction has been made between the traditional remedy of the
writ of habeas corpus and the new writs.
As early as March 1, 2007, the Supreme Court, through Administrative
Order No. 25-2007, designated special courts to hear, try, and decide cases
involving killings of political activists and members of media.
The summit identified specific mandates for the Supreme Court, thus
5
paving the way toward the adoption of the new rules on the writs of amparo
and habeas data.
Summit conclusions and recommendations

Recommendations
The summit submitted the following recommendations to the High Court:
q Ensure investigations in the presence of the Commission on Human

Rights (CHR) and police.
q Adopt a rule allowing persons threatened with EJKs to apply for a
protection order from the courts.
q In habeas corpus proceedings, allow the petitioner to ask the court for
an order to search specific private and public premises under guidelines
prescribed by the court in the presence of the CHR and police.
q Allow the transfer of venue to prevent undue influence, perceived or real.
q Revise provisions of Rule 102 on habeas corpus to grant a more
permissible presentation of evidence and counter-evidence.
q Encourage judges to use perpetuation of testimony rules or the rules
on conditional examination of witnesses.5
Overview of new rules

Writ of amparo
Exercising its rule-making authority, the Supreme Court promulgated on

September 25, 2007 a resolution in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC on the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo. This, in effect, revoked Administrative Order No. 25-
2007 and mandated all regional trial courts to take cognizance of ELK and
ED cases.
5 Supreme Court. Information Office. 2008. A Conspiracy of Hope: Report of the National
Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances, 210.
The Court traced the historical antecedents in other jurisdictions of
5
the new rule on the writ of amparo and distinguished it from the existing
writ of habeas corpus. Two subsections, derived from the landmark case of
Manalo, are instructive.
History
The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. Amparo literally means

“protection” in Spanish.

In 1837, French political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville’s
Democracy in America became available in Mexico and stirred great interest.
Its description of the practice of judicial review in the US appealed to
many Mexican jurists. One of them, Manuel Crescencio Rejon, drafted a
constitutional provision for his native state, Yucatan, which granted judges
the power to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional
and legal rights. This idea was incorporated into the national constitution
in 1847:
The federal courts shall protect any inhabitant of the Republic in

the exercise and preservation of those rights granted to him by this
Constitution and by laws enacted pursuant hereto, against attacks by
the Legislative and Executive powers of the federal or state governments,
limiting themselves to granting protection in the specific case in litigation,
making no general declaration concerning the statute or regulation that
motivated the violation.

Since then, the protection has been an important part of Mexican
constitutionalism. If, after hearing, the judge determines that a
constitutional right of the petitioner is being violated, he or she orders
the official, or the official’s superiors, to cease the violation and to take the
necessary measures to restore the petitioner to the full enjoyment of the
right in question.
Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived
from the US with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the
civil law tradition that prevails in Mexico. It enables courts to enforce
the Constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases, but
5
prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation.
The writ of amparo spread throughout the Western Hemisphere,
gradually evolving into various forms, in response to the particular needs
of each country. It became, in the words of a justice of the Mexican Federal
Supreme Court, one piece of Mexico’s self-attributed “task of conveying
to the world’s legal heritage that institution which, as a shield of human
dignity, her own painful history conceived.”
What began as a protection against acts or omissions of public authorities
in violation of constitutional rights later evolved for several purposes:
q Amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedom, equivalent

to the habeas corpus writ
q Amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality
of statutes
q Amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality and
legality of a judicial decision
q Amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative
actions
q Amparo agrario for the protection of peasants’ rights derived from
the agrarian reform process
In Latin American countries, except Cuba, the writ of amparo has

been constitutionally adopted to protect against human rights abuses,
especially committed in countries under military juntas. In general, these
countries adopted an all-encompassing writ to protect the whole gamut of
constitutional rights, including socioeconomic rights. Other countries like
Colombia, Chile, Germany, and Spain, however, have chosen to limit the
protection of the writ of amparo only to some constitutional guarantees or
fundamental rights.
Distinguished from habeas corpus
While constitutional rights can be protected under the Grave Abuse Clause
through remedies of injunction or prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court and a petition for habeas corpus under Rule 102, these remedies may
5
not be adequate to address the pestering problem of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances. However, with the swiftness required to resolve
a petition for a writ of amparo through summary proceedings and the
availability of appropriate interim and permanent reliefs under the Amparo
Rule, this hybrid writ of the common law and civil law traditions—borne out
of the Latin American and Philippine experience of human rights abuses—
offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
and threats thereof.
The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary
proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
reliefs available to the petitioner. It is not an action to determine criminal
guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, liability for damages
requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility
requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive
proceedings.
The writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in
addressing the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. It
is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission
of these offenses; it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment
of perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation
and action. In the long run, the goal of both the preventive and curative
roles is to deter the further commission of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.
Writ of habeas data
The Supreme Court supplemented the writ of amparo with another writ
intended to provide a remedy to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty, or security is either violated or threatened. In terms of structure, the
writ of habeas data derives substantially from the writ of amparo but with a
number of distinctive provisions specifically applicable to the circumstances
subject of the petition.
Following is the full text of the resolution dated January 22, 2008 in
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC with appropriate notes:
Section 1. Habeas Data. – The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to
5
any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting
or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
Section 2. Who May File. – Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the
writ of habeas data. However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely:
the spouse, children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in
default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Note: Two types of petitioners are contemplated in this section. Only in ELK and
ED cases may a party, other than an aggrieved party, file a petition for the writ of
habeas data.
Section 3. Where to File. – The petition may be filed with the Regional
Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered,
collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.
The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of
government offices.
Section 4. Where Returnable; Enforceable. – When the writ is issued by a

Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, it shall be returnable before such
court or judge.
When issued by the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of
its justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or
to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent
resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be
5
returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices, or to any Regional Trial
Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which
has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered,
collected or stored.
The writ of habeas data shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines.
Section 5. Docket Fees. – No docket and other lawful fees shall be required
from an indigent petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docketed
and acted upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission
of proof of indigency not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the
petition.

Note: There is a qualified exemption from payment of fees, unlike in a petition
for a writ of amparo in which there is absolute exemption from payment of any
fees.
Section 6. Petition. – A verified written petition for a writ of habeas data

should contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data
or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government
office, and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data
or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept
by the respondent.
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining
the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
Section 7. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court,
5
justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face
it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the
court and cause it to be served within three (3) days from its issuance; or, in
case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or
her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than ten (10) work days from the date of its
issuance.
Section 8. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. – A clerk of court
who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who
refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for
contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
Note: Same as Section 7 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo
Section 9. How the Writ Is Served. – The writ shall be served upon the
respondent by the officer or person deputized by the court, justice or judge
who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ
cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted
service shall apply.
Section 10. Return; Contents. – The respondent shall file a verified written
return together with supporting affidavits within five (5) work days from
service of the writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the Court
for justifiable reasons. The return shall, among other things, contain the
following:
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets,
privileged communication, confidentiality of the source of information of
media and others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the
data or information subject of the petition:
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the
nature of such data or information, and the purpose for its collection;
5
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security
and confidentiality of the data or information; and
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
Section 11. Contempt. – The court, justice or judge may punish with
imprisonment or fine a respondent who commits contempt by making
a false return, or refusing to make a return; or any person who otherwise
disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court.
Section 12. When Defenses May Be Heard in Chambers. – A hearing in

chambers may be conducted where the respondent invokes the defense
that the release of the data or information in question shall compromise
national security or state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be
divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.
Section 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The following pleadings and
motions are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file opposition, affidavit, position
paper and other pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief
orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
5
interlocutory order.
Note: Same as Section 11 of the Rule of the Writ of Amparo
Section 14. Return; Filing. – In case the respondent fails to file a return, the
court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting
the petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unless the court in its
discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence.
Section 15. Summary Hearing. – The hearing on the petition shall be

summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary
conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining
stipulations and admissions from the parties.
Section 16. Judgment. – The court shall render judgment within ten (10)
days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations
in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin the
act complained of, or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of the
erroneous data or information and grant other relevant reliefs as may be just
and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ shall be denied.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any
lawful officer as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within five
(5) work days.
Section 17. Return of Service. – The officer who executed the final judgment
shall, within three (3) days from its enforcement, make a verified return
to the court. The return shall contain a full statement of the proceedings
under the writ and a complete inventory of the database or information,
or documents and articles inspected, updated, rectified, or deleted, with
copies served on the petitioner and the respondent.
The officer shall state in the return how the judgment was enforced
and complied with by the respondent, as well as all objections of the parties
regarding the manner and regularity of the service of the writ.
Section 18. Hearing on Officer’s Return. – The court shall set the return for
5
hearing with due notice to the parties and act accordingly.
Section 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from the judgment or final
order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions
of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) work days from the date of notice
of the judgment or final order.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as habeas corpus and
amparo cases.
Section 20. Institution of Separate Actions. – The filing of a petition for the
writ of habeas data shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or
administrative actions.
Section 21. Consolidation. – When a criminal action is filed subsequent to

the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the
criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent
to a petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with
the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to
govern the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
Section 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. – When a criminal action has
been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs
under the writ shall be available to an aggrieved party by motion in the
criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs
available under the writ of habeas data.
Section 23. Substantive Rights. – This Rule shall not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights.

5
Section 24. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. – The Rules of Court
shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
Section 25. Effectivity. – This Rule shall take effect on February 2, 2008
following its publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
PROCESS
D
uring the series of multi-sectoral trainings on ELKs and
EDs, concerns have been raised on the handling of these cases
at the court level. This section outlines and discusses the role
of the courts in ensuring that cases on ELK and ED are dealt with more
expeditiously, including the protection of those appearing before the courts.
Commentaries on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo have been
summarized to guide judges and other practitioners in applying the new
rule. Whenever applicable, problem areas have been identified to arouse
discussion and encourage creative means to fill the gaps in the rule and the
process of managing ELK and ED cases. In the annexes are the manual
by which the court deals with the media and the guidelines on security
concerns of judges handling ELK and ED cases.
Steps in handling ELK and ED cases
5 Preliminary matters
The distinction between certain interim reliefs available under the Amparo
Rule and ordinary law enforcement remedy, such as a search warrant, has
been clarified in the Manalo case.
Search warrant
The Court stressed:
The production order under the Amparo Rule should not be confused
with a search warrant for law enforcement under Article III, Section 2
of the 1987 Constitution. This constitutional provision is a protection
of the people from the unreasonable intrusion of the government, not a
protection of the government from the demand of the people...
Instead, the amparo production order may be likened to the production

of documents or things under Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure which provides in relevant part, viz:
Section 1. Motion for production or inspection order.
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in
which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and
permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf
of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books of
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged,
which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in
the action and which are in his possession, custody or control...6
52, 65-66.
5
Problem area
There might be a need to treat applications for search warrants pertaining

to ELKs and EDs differently from those for such warrants in regular cases.
Consider the following circumstances:
q It is difficult to gather intelligence about or evidence against offenders

of such killings and disappearances.
q There are advantages and disadvantages in liberally granting such
warrants to police authorities to be used against offenders or those people
suspected of harboring and giving material support to offenders in ELKs
and EDs, with or without strict court supervision.
Warrants of arrest
Problem area
Given the nature of ELKs and EDs, warrants of arrest oftentimes remain
unserved against offenders who are criminally charged with violations of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) or other laws. Witnesses and families of victims
of ELKs and EDs are reluctant to report these incidents to the police or
cooperate with the latter in implementing warrants of arrest against alleged
offenders. For witnesses and families may feel the following:
q Distrust the police or lack confidence in their ability to resolve ELKs

and EDs
q Fear reprisals from the offenders or the latter’s supporters
q Consider the killing or disappearance as a private matter and nothing
could be done about the same
Initial stage: Filing of petition for issuance of a writ of amparo
5
Nature of petition
Section 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy

available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated
or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
Note: Actual or threatened violations of the right to life, liberty, and security are
covered. This applies to public officials or employees and private individuals or
entities.
Applicant
Section 2. Who May File. – The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party
or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:
(a) Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children
and parents of the aggrieved party;
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in
default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
(c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution,
if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all
other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the
petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends
the right of all others, observing the order established herein.
Note: There are two types of petitioners: the aggrieved party or the authorized
person or entity.
Condition for an authorized person or entity to file: In cases when
the whereabouts of the aggrieved party is unknown or there is no known
5
member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party,
any concerned citizen, organization, association, or institution that is
authorized by any member of the immediate family or any relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
may file the petition.
Venue
The petition may be filed at the Regional Trial Court, Sandiganbayan,

Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.
Choice of venue
Section 3. Where to File. – The petition may be filed on any day and at
any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act
or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of
such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ
shall be returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of
their justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof,
or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission
was committed or any of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may
be returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the
Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any
Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred.
Section 4. No Docket Fees. – The petitioner shall be exempted from the

payment of the docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition. The
court, justice or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it immediately.
Note: The extraordinary nature of the writ is that it may be filed any day,
5
including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; and at anytime, from morning until
evening.
Contents of petition
Section 5. Contents of Petition. – The petition shall be signed and verified

and shall allege the following:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent
responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or
uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with
the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
together with any report;
(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the
person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
(f) The relief prayed for the petition may include a general prayer for
other just and equitable reliefs.
Problem areas
Characterization of acts

Elements. In the Manalo case, the Supreme Court declared:
As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem

of “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances,” its coverage, in
its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof.
“Extralegal killings” are “killings committed without due process of law,
5
i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings.” On the other hand,
“enforced disappearances” are attended by the following characteristics: an
arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized
groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of
the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the
person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which
places such persons outside the protection of law.7
Context or complexion. In light of the extraordinary circumstances attending

ELK and ED cases, judges have to be informed of the political nature of
these cases.
Of current relevance also is the situation of armed conflict in the
Philippines. Often, ELK and ED cases relate allegedly to the involvement
of the victims in the armed conflict. In this regard, the application of the
new law, Republic Act No. 9851, or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against
Humanity, is instructive:
Section 3. For purposes of this Act, the term:

xxxx
(c) “Armed conflict” means any use of force or armed violence
between States or a protracted armed violence between governmental
authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups
within that State: Provided, That such force or armed violence gives
rise, or may give rise, to a situation to which the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, including their common Article 3, apply. Armed
conflict may be international, that is, between two (2) or more States,
including belligerent occupation; or non-international, that is, between
governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such
groups within a state. It does not cover internal disturbances or tensions
such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a
similar nature.
7 Ibid., 38-39.
xxxx
5
(g) Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons” means the arrest,
detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization support
or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization followed by a
refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information
on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of
removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.”
Determining sufficiency of form and substance of application
Applicant’s personality. In evaluating the petition or affiliation, it is useful

for judges to be informed of political or sectoral affiliation of applicant
considering the background of ELK and ED cases.
Contents of petition. Consistent with Section 1 of the Rule, judges have to

be aware that respondents in ELK and ED cases, subject of a petition for a
writ of amparo, may refer to non-state armed groups.
Process of issuance of the writ

Issuance
Section 6. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court,
justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face
it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the
court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the
writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to
serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its
issuance.
Note: Distinction between the writ and the privilege of the writ: The court issues
the writ when on the face of the petition it ought to issue while the privilege of
the writ shall only be granted after hearing.
Section 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. – A clerk of court
5
who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who
refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for
contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
Section 8. How the Writ is Served. – The writ shall be served upon the
respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court,
justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service.
In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on
substituted service shall apply.
Note: Substituted service is resorted to, to avoid excuses by respondent, such

as the age of detailing, reassignment, or secret missions, to frustrate personal
service.
Section 9. Return; Contents. – Within five (5) working days after service of
the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return together with
supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following:
(a) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate
or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
(b) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons
responsible for the threat, act or omission;
(c) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining
to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; and
(d) If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall
further state the actions that have been or will still be taken:
(i) to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
(ii) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or
disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may
aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
(iii) to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them
concerning the death or disappearance;
(iv) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have
brought about the death or disappearance;
5
(v) to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in
the death or disappearance; and
(vi) to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
The period to file a return cannot be extended except on highly
meritorious ground.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its
resolution and the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
Note: General denial is disallowed. This addresses the problem in habeas corpus
proceedings wherein the respondent merely reasons out that he or she has no
custody over the missing person resulting in a dismissal of the petition.
Section 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. – All defenses shall be
raised in the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.
Section 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The following pleadings and
motions are prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file opposition, affidavit, position
paper and other pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief
orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
interlocutory order.
Note: A motion for new trial or petition for relief from judgment is allowed. But
5
a motion to dismiss is disallowed, even on ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties. Instead, these grounds should be included in the
return to be resolved by the Court.
Problem areas
Identification of respondents
A problem often encountered in prosecuting ELK and ED cases is the

periodic reassignments of personnel belonging to units of state armed force.
No return
A judge may resort to issuing an order to superior officers to assure

attendance of respondent.
Presidential immunity
In the case filed against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and top

AFP and PNP officials by Lourdes Rubrico, who was forcibly abducted
and disappeared in April 2007 but released later by her perpetrator later
identified to be military personnel,8 the Supreme Court reiterated the rule
on nonsuability of the President during tenure:
Scope
The presidential immunity from suit remains preserved under our

system of government, albeit not expressly reserved in the present
Constitution. Addressing a concern of his co-members in the 1986
Constitutional Commission on the absence of an express provision on the
matter, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. observed that it was already understood
in jurisprudence that the President may not be sued during his or her
8 Rubrico et al. v. Arroyo et al., G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010, 613 SCRA 233.
tenure. The Court subsequently made it abundantly clear in David v.
5
Macapagal-Arroyo, a case likewise resolved under the umbrella of the
1987 Constitution, that indeed the President enjoys immunity during
her incumbency, and why this must be so:

Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure
of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil
or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the
Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high
office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged
into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it
is important that he be freed from any form of harassment,
hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to
the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike
the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the
executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness
in the discharge of the many great and important duties
imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the
operation of the Government.
And lest it be overlooked, the petition is simply bereft of any allegation

as to what specific presidential act or omission violated or threatened to
violate petitioners’ protected rights.
R.A. No. 9851
The rule on presidential immunity is emphasized even in the context

of violations of the new legislation on International Humanitarian
Law.
Section 9. Irrelevance of Official Capacity. – This Act shall apply

equally to all persons without any distinction based on official
capacity. In particular, official capacity as a head of state or
government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected
representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a
person from criminal responsibility under this Act, nor shall it, in
and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence. However:
5
(a) Immunities or special procedural rules that may be
attached to the official capacity of a person under Philippine
law other than the established constitutional immunity
from suit of the Philippine President during his or her
tenure, shall not bar the court from exercising jurisdiction
over such a person; and
(b) Immunities that may be attached to the official capacity of
a person under international law may limit the application
of this Act, but only within the bounds established under
international law.
Command responsibility
The theory of command responsibility and its applicability to amparo

proceedings has been clarified by the Supreme Court in the Rubrico case.
Superiors. The Supreme Court addressed the correctness of the dismissal

by the Court of Appeals of the petition against AFP Chief of Staff Gen.
Hermogenes Esperon, Police Director General Avelino Razon, Police
Supt. Edgar Roquero, Police Insp. Arsenio Gomez, and the Office of the
Ombudsman.
None of the four individual respondents were implicated as being
connected to or being behind Rubrico’s alleged abduction and harassment.
Their names were mentioned neither in Rubrico’s April 2007 Sinumpaang
Salaysay or sworn statement nor the Sinumpaang Salaysay and the
Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay of her daughters Jean and Mary Joy,
respectively.
As explained by the CA, Esperon and Razon were included in the case
on the theory that they, as commanders, were responsible for the unlawful
acts allegedly committed by their subordinates against petitioners. The
appellate court, however, denied the petitioners “the privilege of the writ of
amparo as against the two generals because, it said, the petitioners failed to
present evidence showing that those who abducted and illegally detained
Rubrico and later threatened her and her family were members of the
military or the police force. But the High Court also noted that the CA’s
5
ruling broadly hinted that Esperon and Razon would have been accountable
for the abduction and threats if the actual malefactors were members of the
AFP or PNP.
According to the Supreme Court:
While in a qualified sense tenable, the dismissal by the CA of the

case as against Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razon is incorrect if
viewed against the backdrop of the stated rationale underpinning the
assailed decision vis-à-vis the two generals, i.e., command responsibility.
The Court assumes the latter stance owing to the fact that command
responsibility, as a concept defined, developed, and applied under
international law, has little, if at all, bearing in amparo proceedings.

The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context
in the development of laws of war and armed combats. According to
Fr. Bernas, “command responsibility,” in its simplest terms, means the
“responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate
members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control
in international wars or domestic conflict.” In this sense, command
responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague
Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility,
foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable
for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his
duty of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility
is “an omission mode of individual criminal liability,” whereby the superior
is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing
to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered).

The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is
signatory. Sec. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on
military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control.
The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the terms and
provisions embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to
extend concurrence in its ratification.

5
xxxx
It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal

basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extralegal killings,
enforced disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to this
jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility doctrine now
constitutes a principle of international law or customary international
law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution.
Still, it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine
of command responsibility, as the CA seemed to have done, as a form
of criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents’
criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. In
other words, the Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of
criminal culpability, even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an
administrative rule may have been committed. As the Court stressed in
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (Manalo), the writ of amparo
was conceived to provide expeditious and effective procedural relief
against violations or threats of violation of the basic rights to life, liberty,
and security of persons; the corresponding amparo suit, however, “is not
an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable
doubt…or administrative liability requiring substantial evidence that
will require full and exhaustive proceedings.” Of the same tenor, and by
way of expounding on the nature and role of amparo, is what the Court
said in Razon v. Tagitis:

It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for
the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]; it
determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced
disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings] for purposes
of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance
[or extra-judicial killings].
xxxx
As the law now stands, extrajudicial killings and enforced

disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized
separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out
5
these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized
under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. The simple reason is
that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the determination
of what acts are criminal…are matters of substantive law that only
the Legislature has the power to enact….
If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these

proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine the author who,
at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address, the
disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court
to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises
to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier,
however, the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability
on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to
administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative
issuances, if there be any.9
R.A. No. 9851. In the context of the new legislation on International

Humanitarian Law, the emphasis on command responsibility leaves no
more doubt on its applicability to this jurisdiction.
Section 10. Responsibility of Superiors. – In addition to other grounds of

criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized under this Act,
a superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal for such crimes
committed by subordinates under his or her effective command and control,
or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her
failure to properly exercise control over such subordinates, where:
(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time,
should have known that the subordinates were committing or about to
commit such crimes;
(b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures
9 Ibid.
within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to
5
submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and
prosecution.
Hearing
Ex parte
Section 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. – In case the respondent fails to file
a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.
Summary nature
Section 13. Summary Hearing. – The hearing on the petition shall be summary.
However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to
simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations
and admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same
priority as petitions for habeas corpus.
Problem areas
In order to comply with the rule on continuous hearings and address

securing attendance of witnesses, judges may take into account the following
guidelines:
Practical considerations
The police, prosecutors, and judges may be reminded to immediately help

victims and witnesses deal with the criminal justice system. They should
prepare victims and witnesses by informing them how to testify in court and
what to do if offenders make a threat. Undoubtedly, lack of such knowledge
can cause confusion and fear, making some victims or witnesses reluctant to
report incidents of ELKs and EDs or to testify in court proceedings.
Consider how to handle the following instances:
5
q Victims and witnesses have no adequate transportation to and from
the court.
q There is a need to provide court escorts for those who have been
intimidated by the offender.
q An offender charged in court seeks to avail of the provisions of
Sections 17 and 18 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, on the discharge of
an accused to be a state witness, and the effect of such discharge.
It may also be helpful to consider the instances when the public may be
excluded from the courtroom, aside from hearing a motion for an inspection
order opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature
of the information when the court is allowed to conduct a hearing in
chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
It may be correct to suggest that the court may upon motion or motu
proprio order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons, including
members of the press, who do not have a direct interest in the case, so as (1)
to secure the safety of witnesses and members of the public and (2) not to
hinder the ascertainment of the truth when there is a threat to the life of the
witnesses.
Using as a guide some of the provisions of the Rule on Examination of a
Child Witness, consider the following:
q The parties may apply for an order that a deposition be taken of

the testimony of a witness and that it be recorded and preserved on
videotape.
q If the court finds that the witness will not be able to testify in open
court at trial because of the threat to his life or other justifiable reasons,
the court may order the deposition of the witness taken and preserved by
videotape.
q The presiding judge may preside at the videotaped deposition of the
witness if the place where the deposition is to be taken is within his or her
territorial jurisdiction.
q When the deposition is to be taken outside the territorial jurisdiction
of the presiding judge, he or she may request the executive judge
exercising territorial jurisdiction over the place where the deposition is to
be taken to assign a judge to preside over the taking of the deposition.
5
q Objections to deposition testimony or evidence, or parts thereof, and
the grounds for the objection shall be stated and shall be ruled upon at
the time of the taking of the deposition.
q The judge may determine before the date of the taking of the
deposition the persons who may be permitted to be present at the
proceedings, including but not limited to the following:
z the prosecutor
z the defense counsel
z the accused
z other persons whose presence is determined by the court to be
necessary to the security and well being of the witness and persons
present
z court stenographer
z persons necessary to operate the videotape equipment
q The rights of the accused during the trial, especially the right to
counsel, and to confront and cross-examine the witness shall be complied
with to the extent consistent with the principles laid down in Gen.
Razon et al. v. Tagitis.
q The videotaped deposition shall be preserved and stenographically
recorded, and the videotape and stenographic notes shall be transmitted
to the clerk of court where the case is pending for safekeeping and shall be
made part of the record.
q The court may set other conditions on the taking of the deposition that
it finds just and appropriate, taking into consideration the safety of the
witness, the constitutional rights of the parties, and other relevant factors.
Moreover, to safeguard the life of the witness, the videotape may be

placed under a protective order that provides that:
q The tape may be viewed only by parties, their counsels, and their
expert witnesses.
q No tape or any portion of it shall be divulged by any person except as
necessary for the proceedings.
q No person shall be granted access to the tape, its transcription, or any
5
part of it unless he or she signs a written affirmation that (1) he or she has
received and read a copy of the protective order; (2) he or she submits to the
jurisdiction of the court with respect to the protective order; and (3) in case of
violation thereof, he or she will be subject to the contempt power of the court.
q No tape shall be given, loaned, sold, or shown to any person except as
ordered by the court.
q The protective order shall be in full force and effect until further order
of the court.
Likewise, there may be instances in which a witness may (1) refuse to

testify if he or she will be required to give his or her personal identifying
information, including his or her name, address, telephone number, and
other information that could endanger his or her physical safety or his or
her family; and (2) be willing to submit his or her judicial affidavit to serve
as his testimony in court but refuse to be subjected to cross examination.
In this regard, consider the evidentiary value of the statements of a witness
who did not give the identifying information, or filed his or her judicial
affidavit without being subjected to cross examination.
Application for interim reliefs

Temporary protection order
Section 14. Interim Reliefs. – Upon filing of the petition or at any time before
final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following
reliefs:
Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or
motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any
member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by
an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing
their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association, or institution
referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the
officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions
that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved
5
party and any member of the immediate family, in accordance with
guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the
rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
Note: No verification is required for the issuance of a temporary protection

order. It can be issued ex parte or motu proprio.
Inspection order
Section 14. (b) Inspection Order. – The court, justice or judge, upon verified
motion and after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control
of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It
shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal
knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may conduct
a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to
establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or
violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to
make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the
inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional
rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its
issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
Note: An inspection order is available to both petitioner and respondent.

Verification is needed, however. Certiorari is available before the Supreme Court
when a judge gravely abuses his or her discretion in issuing an inspection order
(for example, compromising national security).
5
Production order
Section 14. (c) Production Order. – The court, justice or judge, upon verified
motion and after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody
or control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic
form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the
return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by
or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, in which case the court, justice or judge
may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all the parties.
Note: Both petitioner and respondent may avail of a production order.
Witness protection
Section 14. (d) Witness Protection Order. – The court, justice or judge,
upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department
of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit
Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981. The court, justice or judge may
also refer the witnesses to other government agencies, or to accredited
persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.
Relief by respondent
Section 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. – Upon verified

motion of the respondent and after due hearing, the court, justice or judge
may issue an inspection order or production order under paragraphs (b) and
(c) of the preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported
by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the
defenses of the respondent.
5
Note: The respondent’s possible defense: The aggrieved party is located
elsewhere, or vital documents proving their defenses are in the possession of
other persons.
Contempt
Section 16. Contempt. – The court, justice or judge may order the
respondent who refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return, or
any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of
the court to be punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned
or imposed a fine.
Problem areas
Understanding the concerns of the victims’ families
In encouraging the victims’ families to report ELKs and EDs and to help the
police arrest the offenders, it may be proper to briefly note the importance
of understanding the role of the victims’ families’ the crime process and how
society has responded to their needs.
Without doubt, the killing of a head of a family will result in the family
suffering long-term losses in earnings. The suffering endured by the families
does not always end after the ELKs and EDs, as they may suffer:
q “Victimization” by the justice system by insensitive police investigation
q Economic hardships due to wages lost while they testify in court

Moreover, they may find that authorities are indifferent to their fear of
retaliations from offenders in ELKs and EDs if they cooperate in the arrest
or prosecution of the offenders. It may thus be proper to:
q Provide witnesses and victims with protection from intimidation.

q Give them fair treatment.
q Understand the difficulties they face because of economic hardships.
q Explain to them the provisions of the Witness Protection, Security,
and Benefits Act (R.A. No. 6981), specifically Section 8 pertaining to
the rights and benefits that may be accorded to witnesses.
5 Confidentiality and national security
Executive privilege
In Chavez v. PCGG, this Court held that there is a “governmental

privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding
military, diplomatic and other security matters.” In Chavez v.
PEA, there is also a recognition of the confidentiality of presidential
conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door
Cabinet meetings. In Senate v. Ermita, the concept of presidential
communications privilege is fully discussed.

As may be gleaned from the above discussion, the claim of executive
privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates
to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President, such
as the area of military and foreign relations. Under our Constitution,
the President is the repository of the commander-in-chief, appointing,
pardoning, and diplomatic powers. Consistent with the doctrine of
separation of powers, the information relating to these powers may enjoy
greater confidentiality than others.

The above cases, especially, Nixon, In Re Sealed Case and Judicial Watch,
somehow provide the elements of presidential communications privilege, to
wit:
(1) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and

nondelegable presidential power.”
(2) The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a
close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is
that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.
(3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified
privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such
that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and
by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate
5
investigating authority.10
Inadequate protection: Use of safe havens or sanctuaries
Judges need to be informed of nongovernment organizations or sectors with

safe havens.
Evidentiary matters
Burden of proof
Section 17, as complemented by Section 18 of the Amparo Rule, expressly

prescribes the minimum evidentiary substantiation requirement and norm
to support a cause of action under the rule.

Section 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. – The parties
shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. The respondent who is a
private individual or entity must prove that ordinary diligence as required by
applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of
duty. The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations
was observed in the performance of duty. The respondent public official or
employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed to evade responsibility or liability.
Note: This section provides that the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed is not applicable.
in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the
10 Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R.

No. 180643, March 25, 2008 549 SCRA 121-122.
privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate;
5
otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
Note: In the Rubrico case, substantial evidence has been defined as more than
a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding
of liability against the person charged; it is more than a scintilla of evidence. It
means such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds
might opine otherwise.11
Problem areas
It may be helpful to briefly focus on the principles enunciated in Razon v.

Tagitis,12 particularly pertaining to:
q The use of substantial evidence as the required level of proof

q Consideration of circumstantial and hearsay evidence, indicia, and
presumptions, when they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts
q The need to guard against being:
(1) Arbitrary in the admission and appreciation of evidence

(2) Very strict in the application of evidentiary rules
q Non-observance of technical rules of evidence

q The importance of:
(1) Considering all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality,

including evidence otherwise inadmissible under the usual rules to be
admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced
(2) Reducing the rules to the most basic test of reason; that is, to the
relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with
all other pieces of adduced evidence
12 Razon et al. V. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009, 606 SCRA 598.
Similarly, it may be appropriate to consider the following:
q Degree of control the court may exercise over the questioning of

witnesses by counsels and extent of clarificatory questions the judge may
ask the witnesses, for the purpose of facilitating the ascertainment of the
truth, protecting the witnesses from harassment, and avoiding waste of
time
5
q Instances when the court may allow leading questions in the
examination of witnesses
q Need to prohibit questions that tend to mislead, confuse, frighten, or
intimidate the witnesses
q Extent of corroboration of the testimony of a witness which may be
necessary to prove by substantial evidence the allegations in the petition
q Instances when the testimony of a single witness may be considered
sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject
to the standard of proof required in petitions for writs of amparo and
habeas data.
Judgment and appeal

Form and content
in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the
privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate;
otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
5
Appeal
Section 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from the final judgment
or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise
questions of fact or law or both. The period of appeal shall be five (5)
working days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment. The
appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.
Archiving
Section 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. – The court shall not dismiss the
petition, but shall archive it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for
a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to
threats on their lives.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo
court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their
revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed
with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2)
years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator
a consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the first
week of January of every year.
Problem area
In the Rubrico case, the Supreme Court made the following observation
and ruling:
At this juncture, it bears to state that petitioners have not provided

the CA with the correct addresses of respondents Cuaresma, Alfaro,
Santana, Jonathan, and Sy/Reyes. The mailed envelopes containing the
petition for a writ of amparo individually addressed to each of them have
all been returned unopened. And petitioners’ motion interposed before
the appellate court for notice or service via publication has not been
accompanied by supporting affidavits as required by the Rules of Court.
5
Accordingly, the appealed CA partial judgment––disposing of the
underlying petition for a writ of amparo without (1) pronouncement as
to the accountability, or lack of it, of the four non-answering respondents
or (2) outright dismissal of the same petition as to them––hews to the
prescription of Section 20 of the Amparo Rule on archiving and reviving
cases.13
Separate actions: Criminal, civil, or administrative

Consolidation rules (Criminal/civil)
Section 21. Institution of Separate Actions. – This Rule shall not preclude the
filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.

Section 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. – When a criminal action has
been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs
under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs
available under the writ of amparo.
Section 23. Consolidation. – When a criminal action is filed subsequent to

the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the
criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent
to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the
criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall
continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
5
Nondiminution of substantive rights
Section 24. Substantive Rights. – This Rule shall not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights recognized and protected by the Constitution.
Section 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. – The Rules of Court
shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.
Section 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. – This Rule shall govern cases
involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof
pending in the trial and appellate courts.
CONCLUSION
A
successful resolution of ELK and ED cases requires
a seamless synergy of the various phases of the criminal
justice system. Courts are at the receiving end of either well-
investigated or inadequately built-up cases. Nevertheless, the
effective application of the new Rules on the Writ of Amparo and Writ
of Habeas Data may provide opportunities to fill remaining gaps in the
process of handling ELK and ED cases.
As jurisprudence on ELK and ED cases continue to evolve, judges are
encouraged to be more discerning and creative in applying the new rules.
The socio-political context of these cases further underscores the need to
appreciate the rules in a more practical manner rather than frustrate the
ends of justice.
ANNEX 5.1
Media and the Courts
Manual Guide for the Judiciary
5
in Dealing with Media (Excerpts)
D. General Principles in Judiciary-Media Relations
1 There are five interacting constitutional principles involved in judiciary-
media relations. These are: a) Independence of the Judiciary (Article VIII,
Constitution) which decrees that the courts should be left alone to do their
task without any pressure or undue influence from whatever source; b) Right to
Due Process of the litigants, (Section 1, Article III, Constitution) which provides
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law; c) Freedom of Expression (Section 4, Article III, Constitution) which covers
the freedoms of speech, expression and the press; d) Right to Information on
Matters of Public Concern (Section 7, Article III Constitution) which guarantees
to the people the right to be informed on all matters that concern them and
their government; and, e) the Vital Role of Communication and Information
in Nation-Building (Section 24, Article II, Constitution) which stresses the
paramount importance, inter alia, of media in the political, economic, social
and cultural growth of the country.
2 Sometimes, the demands of a fair trial are viewed as a restraint on media’s
constitutional freedom of the press. On the other hand, the unrestrained
exercise of media of their freedom of expression is sometimes perceived as
unwarranted intrusion into the domain of the judiciary or as an impairment
of the rights of the parties litigant to a fair trial.
3 The judiciary and media are both essential foundations of a democratic
polity. The administration of justice and freedom of the press, though
separate and distinct, are equally sacred. Stated elsewise, an independent
judiciary is not preferred to a free press, nor a free press to an independent
judiciary. Neither has a primacy over the other; both are indispensable to
a free society.
4 Judiciary and media are partners, not adversaries in the building of a
5
democratic society. There is, therefore, a need to strike an optimal balance
between the need for judicial independence and respect for media’s role
as provider of public information. As important as the maintenance of a
free press and the exercise of the rights of citizens, is the maintenance of
a judiciary unhampered in its administration of justice and secure in its
continuous enjoyment of public confidence.
Chapter 1
The Judge in Media Events
A. Basic considerations
A judge has the discretion whether or not to participate in a media event.
His options range from : (a) nonparticipation in which media must cover
proceedings, decisions and other court activities without assistance or input
from the judge; (b) participation only to the extent that it is necessary to
help facilitate an accurate and balanced reporting of proceedings, decisions
and other court activities; and, (c) initiating active and unconditional
participation in media events in which the judge seeks media coverage of
court proceedings, decisions and other court activities.
This Chapter provides the judge with some guidelines to help him
decide which of the foregoing alternatives should be taken by him under
certain situations and conditions.
B. Pertinent Rules under the New Code of Judicial Conduct

for the Philippine Judiciary
The following rules constitute effective limitations upon a judge’s discretion
to participate in a media event:
1 Canon 3, Section 4. - Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding

is before, or could come before them, make any comment that might
reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair
the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment
5
in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or an
issue.
2 Canon 4, Section 2. - As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges
must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by
the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular,
judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.
3 Canon 4, Section 6. - Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to
freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising
such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as
to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
4 Canon 4, Section 9. - Confidential information acquired by judges in
their judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose
not related to their judicial duties.
D. Guidelines
1 There is merit in the proposition that the judges should participate in
media events only to the extent that it is necessary to help facilitate an
accurate and balanced reporting of proceedings, decisions and other court
activities. Sometimes, because of media deadlines, space constraints,
demands of newsworthiness, the tendency to sensationalize, personalize
and trivialize, and the fact that many media reporters on judiciary activities
do not have legal background (note: it is not required that reporters should
be educated in law, only some background knowledge is needed), the
reporting of judiciary activities may be inaccurate. The judge is, therefore,
fully justified in giving media an explanation of said court decisions,
issuances or activities.
2 Judges should, whenever practicable, avoid extemporizing or making
impromptu statements to the media, and therefore, should carefully prepare
a truthful and accurate statement ahead of the media event.
3 Judges may find it necessary to explain some decisions which are
difficult for non-lawyers to understand, in a manner that is more easily
comprehensible to the general public.
5
4 Unless the judge grants express authority or permission, no court official
or employee shall presume to speak or write for the court and they shall
respect office confidentiality at all times.
Chapter III
Media Coverage of Court Proceedings
B. Important Concepts
1. Court Proceedings
Court proceedings are activities undertaken by the court in connection with

the litigation of a suit which include arraignments, pre-trials, trials, hearings,
ocular inspections, oral arguments and other related court incidents. These
proceedings are open to the public except in those instances when the law
or the rules allow the court to exclude the public.
To satisfy the constitutional requirement of a public trial, a courtroom
should have enough facilities to accommodate a reasonable number of
observers, not too small as to render the transparency of judicial proceedings
meaningless, and not too large as to distract the trial participants from their
proper functions and responsibilities.
2. Prejudicial Publicity
Prejudicial publicity means publicity that may adversely affect a person’s

right to fair trial by inducing a prejudgment of an issue upon which
admissible evidence has not been adduced.
Prejudicial publicity may be induced by unwarranted public attention
where conclusions formed are reached and induced by extraneous forces or
unhealthy influences generated by excessive media intrusion in the judicial
process as indicated by sensationalized news reporting, slanted television
reporting and radio commentaries that focus on the victim and divert
attention from the suspect.
A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. The requirements
of due process guarantee the rights of the litigants to a fair trial. In criminal
5
cases, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused may be overcome
only by evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Chapter IV
Media Access to Court Records
A. Basic Considerations
The people’s right to know is enshrined in Section 7, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which states:
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall

be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government
research, data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Additionally, Section 28, Article II (Declaration of Principles and

State Policies) provides:
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts

a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.
Thus, it is clear from the foregoing provisions that the public’s right to
information must not result in the transgression of other equally paramount
individual rights. Congress may properly prescribe acceptable or practical
limitations, or even proscribe the disclosure of certain information through
appropriate legislation. Similarly, the Supreme Court may also prescribe
limitations on the public’s access to court records, including evidentiary
matters in its custody.
B. Concept of “Matters of Public Concern”
5 There is no specific law which defines “matters of public concern.” Its

interpretation is, therefore, largely left to the sound discretion of the courts.
As can be gleaned from the decisions of the Supreme Court, this term
can embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to
know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such
matters should arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen.
This “interest” can conceivably run the full gamut of official activity
which may or may not impact on the lives of all citizens. A cursory review
of Supreme Court rulings shows that it considers as mandatorily disclosable
such subjects as laws of general application, information on the civil service
eligibilities of some officials or employees of the government, loans extended
by the GSIS (Government Service Insurance System), applications for the
installation of a chemical plant filed with the Department of Trade and Industry
or even voting slips submitted by MTRCB (Movie and Television Review and
Classification Board) in arriving at decisions in its board meetings.
C. Guidelines
1 Access to all information and records in the official custody, possession or
control of members of the judiciary shall be made available to media, except
such information or records that may not be disclosed, as provided hereunder.
2 There shall be a presumption in favor of the public’s right of access to
information and any justifiable restriction or condition imposed for its
release or disclosure must not be unreasonable.
3 As a rule, requests for information or records shall be acted upon as
expeditiously as possible without betraying those aspects of a judge’s
decision-making process which require utmost confidentiality. In this
connection, judges should be mindful of the provisions of Republic Act
6713 and Administrative Circular No. 08-99 dated July 2, 1999.
4 Judges and officials of the court should refrain from making public
comments on the merits of any case pending in their respective salas or in
other courts. It is incumbent upon them to demand similar restraint on the
part of their personnel.
D. Information or Records to which Access may be Denied
1 The identity of parties in child and family cases and such other restrictions
as contained in R.A. No. 8369 (Act establishing Family Courts, granting them
exclusive jurisdiction over Child and Family Cases, amending Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as amended, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act
5
of 1980, appropriating funds therefore, and for other purposes), as amended,
except as authorized by the judge;
2 Proceedings and records in adoption cases, as prescribed under R.A. Nos.
8043 (Act Establishing the Rules to Govern Inter-country Adoption of
Filipino Children, and for other purposes, otherwise known as the “INTER-
COUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF 1995”) and 8552 (Act Establishing the
Rules and Policies on the Domestic Adoption of Filipino Children and for
other purposes, otherwise known as the “DOMESTIC ADOPTION ACT
OF 1998”);
3 Information that must be kept secret in the interest of national security or
defense or the conduct of foreign affairs;
4 Information, the disclosure of which would put the life and safety of anyone
in danger;
5 Information that falls within the concept of established privilege;
6 Information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
7 Information that would disclose investigatory records compiled for law
enforcement purposes, or would otherwise prejudice a person’s right to a fair
trial;
8 Drafts of decisions, rulings, orders or internal memoranda or internal
reports;
9 Information in a pending case which may comprise trade secrets or lead to
financial stock speculation, or endanger the financial stability of the parties
involved or other concerned institutions; and
10 Such other information or records which the Supreme Court may prohibit
or regulate.
Chapter V
5 Responding to Media Criticisms, Inaccurate
Reporting and Violations of the Sub-Judice Rule
B. Guidelines
1 It is not appropriate for a judge to explain the reasons for his findings
of fact because his personal evaluation and assessment of the credibility of
witnesses and the probative value of evidence are matters that should have
been dealt with in the decision itself.
2 A judge or court officer should avoid acrimonious debate with media,
bearing in mind that he does not have the same access to the media as the
media practitioners themselves and therefore, will be on the losing end. A
knee-jerk reaction from the judge or court officer may only provoke negative
follow-up reports and articles.
3 Members of the judiciary should learn to live and deal with “bad news”
because that is a reality.
4 The aloofness of the members of the judiciary to media purportedly to
maintain and protect their independence and dignity, does not always serve
the judiciary’s best interests.
xxxx
8. Choosing the Appropriate Response

8.1 If response is desirable and proper under the circumstances, it
should be prompt, accurate and objective, preferably made within 24-
48 hours of the publication of the critical news, opinion or report.
The available options of the judge or court officer are the
following:
a. to write a letter or article to the editor or station manager

denying the false accusation or explaining the unjust imputation
or insinuation of judicial impropriety against him coupled with a
demand that it be given equal prominence and time in the same
media outlet;
b. issue a press release on the same subject to all concerned;
c. file a complaint or protest with the internal ombudsman or
5
publisher or station manager of the concerned newspaper, radio or
television network;
d. lodge a complaint or protest with the Kapisanan ng Mga
Brodkaster Ng Pilipinas (KBP) or the Philippine Press Institute
(PPI) or any other concerned self-regulating industry or agency
against the offending media practitioner;
e. in extreme cases, resort to his (judge’s) contempt power in
accordance with the law and the rules; and,
f. institute appropriate civil and/or criminal action against the
offending media practitioner.
8.2 A response to an inaccurate report should address only the

matter perceived to be erroneous and the corrective statement or
article should not give the impression that it is an attempt to justify a
weak or incorrect decision.
xxxx
4. Sanction Against Violations of the Sub-judice Rule
A person who violates the sub-judice rule may be punished for indirect
contempt under Section (3), (c) and (d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, to wit: “ (c) Any abuse of or unlawful interference with the
processes of a court not constituting direct contempt under Section 1 of
this Rule” and (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly to
impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.”
The court should calibrate the imposable penalty for indirect contempt
as provided for under Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
balancing the Constitutional guarantee of free speech and the need to
protect the integrity of the adjudicative process.
If the offending media personnel is a lawyer, he can also be
administratively charged for professional misconduct for which he can be
meted the administrative penalty of suspension.
ANNEX 5.2
5 Personal Security of Judges
Memorandum Order No. 42-2007
Providing for an Interim Security Protocol for the First and
Second Level Courts
WHEREAS, members of the judiciary especially the judges of the first and
second level courts are continuously exposed to violent attacks from would
be assassins and there are no existing security protocols for the safety of the
judges and other court employees;
WHEREAS, the Committee on Security for the Judiciary in a meeting

held on October 3, 2007, has resolved to provide the judges of the first and
second level courts with an interim security protocol to improve security
and safety measures inside the court rooms and halls of justice (HOJ);
NOW THEREFORE, pending the issuance of a comprehensive security

protocol for the lower courts and in the interest of the service, the following
interim measures are hereby adopted and shall be immediately implemented:
1 All court employees are required to wear and prominently display their
identification cards (ID) at all times while on official duty. Only judges
are exempted from wearing IDs.
2 All law enforcement officers on official business should wear and
display their official IDs while inside the HOJs and buildings which
house court rooms.
3 During hearings, the court shall coordinate with the appropriate
agency which has custody of detention prisoners (e.g., Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology, Philippine National Police, National
Bureau of Investigation, etc.) on the trial calendar and schedule of
criminal cases involving these detention prisoners.
4 During trial of detention prisoners, the Executive Judge shall request
5
the PNP to assign or detail at least two (2) uniformed policemen to
secure and patrol the hallways of the HOJs and court houses and their
premises.
5 Where applicable, the HOJ shall only have one entry and exit point
for visitors.
6 The EJs shall secure a holding area in the HOJs or in the court house
where detention prisoners shall be temporarily detained while awaiting
trial. When no holding area is available, the detention prisoners shall
be detained in the bus, van, or vehicle that they used as transport, or any
secure place outside the HOJs or court houses. The detention prisoners
shall be brought to the courtroom only when their cases are heard.
7 Before leaving the holding area or temporary detention area, the
custodians shall conduct a thorough body frisking of detention prisoners
to ensure that they have no concealed weapon on them.
8 While in the court’s premises, detention prisoners shall always be
handcuffed, unless the Presiding Judge (PJ) directs otherwise.
9 In HOJs, the EJs shall ensure that the court security personnel (CSP)
keep a logbook of the name, address, purpose of visit and signature of
guests who enter the premises. All visitors including law enforcement
officers shall be required to log-in before allowed entry. All visitors are
required to present adequate identification documents, which they shall
leave with the CSP in exchange for a court ID to be worn at all times
while inside the HOJ.
10 For courts not in HOJs, the sheriff, process server, or other staff member
shall be assigned by the PJ to provide security inside the court room.
11 All persons who wish to enter the courtroom shall be subjected to body
frisking by the court’s sheriff, process server, or other court personnel,
before entry. A female guest shall be frisked only by a female court
employee. In addition, all bags and other things brought inside the room
shall be thoroughly inspected.
12 All firearms and objects which may be used as weapons, except those
belonging to law enforcement officers who are on official business, shall
be deposited with the guard-on-duty of the HOJs, or with the sheriff or
in the latter’s absence, the Branch Clerk of Court, for courts not found in
the HOJs.
13 Any illegal weapon or article, under the Revised Penal Code or
5
existing laws, shall be confiscated and surrendered to the police officers
assigned to patrol the hallways. In their absence, these things shall be
surrendered to the nearest police station.
14 Where applicable, the PJ shall specify an area in the court room for
detention of prisoners. No one, except lawyers, shall be allowed to talk to,
or go near the detention prisoners.
15 The PJ shall place the witness stand at least one and a half meters (1
½ m) away from his seat. When the prisoner is on the witness stand, the
custodian shall stand between the judge and the prisoner.
16 The PJ shall assign the Sheriff, Process Server, or other court employee
to be present during court hearings for orderly and safe proceedings in the
court room.
17 Finally, PJs whose lives are endangered or threatened, shall
immediately inform any of the following officials of the Task Force
Judiciary Protection:
DCA Reuben P. De la Cruz14

3rd Floor, Old Supreme Court Building,
Supreme Court
Taft Ave. cor. Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila
Telephone Nos.
Office: 525-7143
Mobile: 0918-39635491
Fax No.: 523-2315
e-mail address: judge.rpc@gmail.com
Atty. Allan C. Contado

Chief
Anti-Graft Division and Liaison Officer
Task Force on Judiciary Protection
Taft Avenue, Manila
14 De la Cruz was replaced by DCA Jesus Edwin Villasor whose term is until March 2011.
The Supreme Court Committee on Security is currently headed by Chief Justice Renato C.
Corona.
Telephone Nos.
5
Office: 523-8231 local 3424/3467
Mobile: 0917-9777442/0919-5887817
Fax No.: 5261216
e-mail address: accontado@nbi.gov.ph
This Memorandum Order shall take effect upon its issuance.
November 23, 2007
(Sgd.) REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice
The Role 6
of Civil Society
Cecilia R.V. Quisumbing
A
vibrant civil society is one of the fruits of the
1986 People Power Revolution and one of the pillars of
Philippine democracy. The role of civil society in human
rights promotion and protection is well-established: It
dates back to the days of the dictatorship of President
Ferdinand E. Marcos and continues to this day. The major nongovernment
organizations and networks have their roots in the antidictatorship
movement and the search for justice by families and friends of dissidents who
disappeared, were tortured, or were killed by the Marcos administration.
In reaction to the repression of civil society and popular movements
and the human rights violations committed against the leaders and
members of these groups during the martial law era, the 1987 Constitution
(Article XIII, Section 15) requires that “The State shall respect the role
of independent people’s organizations to enable the people to pursue and
protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective
interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.”
Civil society, as a whole, is also part of the “community” pillar of the
Philippine criminal justice system, which plays an important role in creating
an environment for respect for the rule of law, rehabilitation for those who
have come into conflict with the law, and support for victims and witnesses
of crimes.
CIVIL SOCIETY
6 AND HUMAN RIGHTS
T
he Commission on Human Rights (CHR), in particular,
recognizes civil society as important for many reasons.
The number of civil society organizations (CSOs) and
their ability to operate in themselves are a measure of the
health of human rights and democracy in the country, especially the right
to assembly, right to organize, right to participate in the political life of the
country, and freedoms of opinion and expression.
Civil society groups often bring complainants, information, and
witnesses to the CHR, which has certain powers and mandates they do not
have, including the power to hold official public hearings and inquiries that
can become cases for prosecution. The CHR also has official access to site
that civil society actors may be barred from.
In the spirit of cooperation, the CHR has often brought civil society
groups along to inspect possible sites of illegal detention or torture such
as the detention venue of the “Morong 43” in a military camp. Morong 43
refers to the 43 health workers who were arrested in Morong, Bataan in
2010 by a combined team of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and
Army, charged with illegal possession of firearms and explosives, and
detained for ten months, during which they were reportedly tortured.
When relevant, the CHR invites civil society groups as resource
persons in public inquiries. The commission has referred witnesses to
private institutions for witness protection, particularly those strengthened
by grants by the European Union under the EPJust (European Union-
Philippines Justice Support Program) Capacity Building Program.
There is no formal mechanism, however, by which civil society groups
interact with the CHR, and vice versa. In practice, rather than centralizing
interaction with civil society in one office, it has proven more productive,
in the case of the CHR Central Office, for CSOs to directly go to each
functional office whose work is related to their specific concern.
The CHR offices that civil society groups can go to:
q The Regional Offices, including the National Capital Region Office,
6
are the relevant offices for complaints of violations.
q The Legal and Investigation Office is sometimes involved in
investigations, especially as Quick Reaction Teams, but its main duty
in the course of investigations is to provide support to the Commission
en Banc in the conduct of public inquiries, research, and the drafting of
positions and resolutions.
q The Assistance and Visitorial Office administers assistance to victims
and their families.
Amparo Rule
The role of civil society is underlined in the Rule on the Writ of Amparo
which expressly allows the designation of private institutions to “extend
temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any
member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines”—in short,
to provide witness protection.1 However, only institutions duly accredited
may be so designated and, in the case of witness protection, such private
institutions must also be “capable of keeping and securing safety (of
witnesses).”
Ironically, cases of extralegal killings (ELK), enforced disappearances
(ED), and torture often involve members of civil society groups, many of
them targeted because they are perceived as dangerous to national security.
Some of them are from the socialist or communist side of the political
spectrum. Others are members of labor unions, agrarian reform advocates,
and indigenous peoples rights advocates.
For example, Jonas Burgos, who was abducted in April 2007 and has
been missing since, was working on agrarian reform. Melissa Roxas was
a visiting member of the leftist group Bayan when she was detained and
tortured in 2009. The Morong 43 were arrested, detained, and face criminal
charges as a result of a joint anti-insurgency operation by the PNP and the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
Because of the culture of impunity that allows incidents of ELK, ED,
1 Rule 14(a) and (d)
and torture to go unchecked, the rights of human rights defenders are in
6
danger, especially their rights to life and to be secure in their person.
CIVIL SOCIETY IN ACTION

Asian Federation Against Involuntary
Disappearances
The Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) is
made up of human rights organizations working directly on the issue of
involuntary disappearances in Asia and toward regional and international
solidarity to strongly respond to the problem.2
Envisioning a world without desaparecidos, the federation was founded
on June 4, 1998 in Manila. Its secretariat is based in the Philippines. It has
eleven member-organizations in Bangladesh, Timor Leste, India, Indonesia,
Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. The organizations include
institutions and organizations of families, relatives, and friends of victims
of involuntary disappearances in Asia, as well as surfaced disappeared and
advocates and defenders of the rights of the members and their families.
At present, AFAD is the focal point of the International Coalition
Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED), which is composed of more
than 40 organizations working on the issue of enforced disappearances
from different parts of the world.
How to file a complaint

1 Member-organizations in different Asian countries handle cases or
complaints.
2 AFAD receives cases and general situations from the member-
organizations for its database and bases for formulating general
allegations for submission to the United Nations Working Group on
Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
2 Accessed February 26, 2011. http://www.afad-online.org.
6
3 AFAD coordinates and refers cases or complaints involving the Philippines
to the Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearances (FIND).
4 The federation assists its national organizations in submitting cases to
the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
and to other UN and international bodies.
AFAD has no witness protection program, but it provides educational

assistance and a psychological rehabilitation program for victims.
Families of Victims of Involuntary

Disappearances
The Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearances (FIND) is a
nationwide mass organization of families, relatives, friends, and colleagues
of disappeared victims and surfaced desaparecidos that advocate human
rights and participative empowerment.
Founded on November 23, 1985 amid the escalating mass protest
against the repressive Marcos dictatorship, FIND continues to struggle for
the eventual global eradication of enforced or involuntary disappearance.
Guided and motivated by the principles of truth, justice, freedom, and
democracy, FIND has developed the following programs:
q Search and documentation

q National and international advocacy
q Organizing and education
q Psycho-social rehabilitation
Another important task of the committee is the continuous

documentation, investigation, and updating of cases to continuously search
for leads as well as regularly come up with information and statistics that
provide substance and empirical basis to FIND’s advocacy work against
involuntary disappearance in the country.
HELPBOOK ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES: EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS AND ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES 277
6
Assistance to victims or their families
q Quick Response Search Missions for cases being reported to FIND
(To report a case of enforced disappearance and for assistance, call
FIND’s hotline: 2279417). The missions conduct the following activities:
z Initial documentation of complaint

z Immediate organization and sending of a Quick Response Team (QRT)
to search in camps, detention centers, and other possible places of detention
z Food and transportation during QRT missions
z Referral to appropriate government agencies and/or other non-
government organizations, if necessary
q Continuous investigation and search missions to pursue leads

q Exhumation to retrieve remains of victims
q Psycho-social therapy sessions such as stress debriefing and counseling
sessions
q Provision of minimal financial assistance to the victim’s nearest of
kin based on available resources (medical, emergency, educational,
livelihood)
q Legal and related assistance for families who wish to file cases in
court. This includes the following:
z Facilitation of meeting with a legal counsel for evaluation

z Filing of cases in court
z Case consultations and conferences
z Assistance related to hearings and court requirements
z Minimal livelihood assistance to help in sustaining litigation costs
q Witness protection
z Provision of safe shelter, in cooperation with concerned groups

providing this service
z Accompaniment during and after hearings
z Counselling
278 HELPBOOK ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES: EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS AND ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES
6
Karapatan
Karapatan is an alliance of human rights organizations and programs,
human rights desks and committees of people’s organizations, and
individual advocates committed to defending people’s rights and civil
liberties through the following:
q Education and training

q Services
q Documentation and research
q Campaign and advocacy
q Network building
q Alliance work 3
Karapatan consists of the Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace

(EMJP), Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainee Laban sa Detensyon at Para sa
Amnestiya (SELDA), Desaparecidos, Cordillera Human Rights Alliance
(CHRA), Ilocos HumanRights Alliance (IHRA), Cordillera Indigenous
People’s Law Center (DINTEG), Public Interest Law Center (PILC),
Health Action for Human Rights (HAHR), Center for Trade Unionand
Human Rights (CTUHR), Migrante, Kilusang Enero 22 (K-E22),
GABRIELA Commission for Women’s Political Rights, Alyansa ng
Mamamayan para sa Makataong Karapatan-Bulacan (ALMMA),
Tontongan ti Umili, Cordillera People’s Alliance, Promotion of Church
People’s Response, Justice and Peace Advocacy Group-Aurora (JPAG),.
Children’s Rehabilitation Center, Tunay na Alyansa ng Bayan Alay sa
Katutubo (TABAK), Moro Christian People’s Alliance, JAGA, Kawagib,
and the Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD).
It has chapters in Cagayan Valley, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog,
Bicol, Eastern Visayas (Sinirangang Bisayas), Central Visayas, Negros,
Panay, Northern Mindanao, CARAGA, Western Mindanao, Southern
Mindanao, and Socsksargen.
3 Accessed February 26, 2011. http://www.karapatan.org/about.
6
Services program
Karapatan mobilizes various resources for the welfare and legal needs of
political prisoners, torture victims, relatives of the disappeared and victims
of extralegal killings, and victims of displacement, among others. The
formation of Quick Reaction Teams (QRTs), which respond immediately
to cases of human rights violations, and the holding of fact-finding missions
to investigate and gather data on various human rights violations are
integral parts of the program.
As part of its documentation and research, Karapatan does the
following:
q Gathers information on particular cases of human rights violations

and on the general human rights situation in the country.
q Keeps a databank of all cases of human rights violations and
maintains a library of files of these cases, including court documents and
other pieces of evidence for filing with the various government agencies,
the joint monitoring committee, and international human rights bodies
q Sends urgent action alerts.
q Comes out with the biannual analysis of the human rights situation
and other related issues in the country.

1 A complaint is referred to Karapatan by a regional chapter or member
organization.
2 Karapatan verifies the incident or case of human rights violation.
3 It gathers written incident accounts and affidavits of victims and
witnesses.
4 The organization refers the case to a government agency, if necessary.
5 It monitors the case or complaint.
How to get witness protection

Witness protection is provided on a case-to-case basis and depends on
6
Karapatan’s available resources and personnel.
Protection is given if there is a threat to the life of victims and witnesses.
Karapatan works within its limited resources to find ways and means to
provide protection assistance, including coordinating with its networks
and support groups. It also relies on recommendations from its chapters or
member organizations.
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates

The Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) was
established on August 9, 1986 in a congress participated in by more than
a hundred organizations from all over the Philippines. It was formed as
an alliance of individuals, institutions, and organizations committed to the
promotion, protection and realization of human rights in the Philippines.4

Among its founding members are organizations and individuals who
were in the forefront of the struggle against Marcos’s dictatorial regime.
The establishment of PAHRA was a consolidation of the human rights
movement in the country and an acknowledgment of the role played by
the human rights organizations in the antidictatorship struggle. It was in
recognition of the need for a formal venue for cooperation and coordination
among human rights groups in the country.
Task Force Detainees of the Philippines

Established by the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the
Philippines (AMRSP) in 1974 to assist political prisoners, the Task Force
Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) works closely with the broad human
rights movement in advocating and supporting social structures and actions
that promote human rights nationally and globally.
As a service organization, it works to (1) protect the rights and promote
the interests of political prisoners and other victims of human rights
violations, and (2) create awareness of their rights and of basic human rights
concepts and principles.
4 Accessed February 26, 2011. http://www.philippinehumanrights.org/about-us.html.
6
The organization’s goals include the following:
q Help seek justice and provide systematic services for political prisoners
and other victims of human rights violations.
q Inform the peoples in the country and the international community of
the human rights situation in the Philippines, particularly the plight of
political prisoners and other human rights violations.
q Educate people of their rights and on basic human rights concepts and
principles.
q Help strengthen the Philippine and the international human rights
movements.
q Foster stronger cooperation among nongovernmental organizations,
peoples’ organizations, and other support groups locally and
internationally, especially among countries in the South.

TFDP provides paralegal assistance and documentation. It assists the
victim’s family in filing a complaint or case with the appropriate agency and
then monitors the complaint.
The task force has no witness protection program, however. In case
witness protection is needed, it coordinates with the AMRSP.
But it maintains a direct services program that provides food aid such
as grocery for political detainees and political prisoners on quarterly basis.
RECOMMENDATIONS
C
LEARLY, civil society and the CHR can work—and have
worked—together to advocate clearer laws that would criminalize
human rights violations and harmonize laws with human rights
standards.
CSOs have also proved to be worthy partners in witness protection.
Many victims, families, and witnesses depend on the CHR for protection
pending the investigation and possible prosecution of cases of killings and
disappearances. However, the commission lacks the resources and capacity,
6
including professional capacity, to provide effective witness protection,
especially on a protracted basis. As a result, the CHR has decided to mainly
refer requests for protection to capable civil society groups.
But like other stakeholders, civil society groups need to better
understand and respect the CHR mandate and its power to conduct
investigations, for improved cooperation with the commission.
Lastly, there is a need to set standards for civil society ethics and
uniform skills in gathering, documentation, and preservation of evidence
while respecting the chain of evidence and the rule of law.
BOOKS
Diokno, Jose Manuel I. 2010. Civil and Administrative Remedies as Instruments of

Accountability for Violations of Human Rights. Makati: The Asia Foundation.
Mallonga, Erik Henry Joseph F. 2010. Manual on Remedies for Human Rights Violations.
Makati: The Asia Foundation.
Parreño, Al A. 2010. Report on Philippine Extrajudicial Killings from 2001-August 2010.

Makati: The Asia Foundation.
Philippine National Police. 2008. Know Your Rights: A Citizen’s Primer on Law
Enforcement. Quezon City: PNP Human Rights Affairs Office.
———. 2010. PNP Human Rights Desk Operations Manual. Quezon City: PNP Human
Rights Affairs Office.
———. 2010. PNP Criminal Investigation Manual. Quezon City: PNP Directorate for
Investigation and Detective Management.
———. 2010. PNP Operational Procedures. Quezon City.
———. 2011. PNP Field Manual on Investigation of Crimes of Violence and Other Crimes.
Quezon City.
Watson, L., Maria del Carmen Vega, Carmen Rosa Cardoza, and Alain Wittman. Extraju-
dicial Killings and Forced Disappearances: A Forensic Manual for Legal and Judicial
Professionals. Lima, Peru: Equipo Peruano de Antropología Forense. n.d.
LEGAL REFERENCES
American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, 3d.
An Act Reorganizing and Strengthening the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Amending for
the Purpose Pertinent Provisions of Executive Order No. 292, Otherwise Known as
the “Administrative Code of 1987,” as Amended, Granting Special Allowance to PAO
Officials and Lawyers, and Providing Funds therefor. 2007. Republic Act No. 9406.
An Act Strengthening and Rationalizing the National Prosecution Service. 2010. Republic
Act No. 10071.
Burgos v. Macapagal-Arroyo et al., G.R. Nos. 183711 and 183712, June 22, 2011, 621
SCRA 481.
Commission on Human Rights. 2010. Resolution No. A-2010-089, July 10.
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. 1987.
Department of Justice. 2010. Creation of Special Task Force to Address Extralegal Killings
and Enforced Disappearances. Department Order No. 848.
———. 2010. Memorandum Circular No. 4-2010.
Finucane v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 29178/95, Strasbourg (July 1, 2003).
International Criminal Court. 1998. Rome Statute, Article 28. UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9; 37
ILM 1002.
———. 1998. Rome Statute, Article 7, 2, (i). UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9; 37 ILM 1002; 2187
UNTS 90.
———. 2002. Elements of Crimes. ICC-ASP/1/3.
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949, 83 Phil 171.
Marcellana v. Philippines, CCPR/C/94/D/1560/200717 UN Human Rights Committee

(November 17, 2008). Accessed September 5, 2010. http://www.ccprcentre.org/
doc/ICCPR/AR/A_64_40(Vol%20I)_Eng.pdf.
Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, Inter-Am Ct. Series C No. 101 (November 25, 2003).
Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, G.R. No.
180643, March 25, 2008 549 SCRA 121-122.
Office of the President. 1986. Repealing Presidential Decrees Nos. 1404, 1836, 1877 and
1877-A. Executive Order No. 59.
———. 1987. Declaring the Effectivity of the Creation of the Commission on Human
Rights as Provided for in the 1987 Constitution, Providing Guidelines for the
Operation thereof, and for other Purposes. Executive Order No. Order 163.
———. 1987. Further Amending Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended. Ex-
ecutive Order No. 272.
———. 1995. Institutionalization of the Doctrine of “Command Responsibility” in all

Government Offices, Particularly at all Levels of Command in the Philippine National
Police and Other Law Enforcement Agencies. Executive Order No. 226.
———. 2006. Creating an Independent Commission to Address Media and Activist
Killings. Administrative Order No. 157.
———. 2007. Creating a Task Force Against Political Violence. Administrative Order No. 211.
———. 2007. Directing the Cooperation and Coordinating between the National
Prosecution Service and Other Concerned Agencies of Government for the Successful
Investigation and Prosecution of Political and Media. Administrative Order No. 181.
People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 478.
People v. Curiano, G.R. No. 15256-57, October 31, 1963, 9 SCRA 323.
People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922, 43 Phil. 19.
People v. Lucero, et al., GR No. 643232-24 May 31, 1991, 197 SCRA 717.
Pestaño v. The Philippines, CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007, UN Human Rights Committee

(May 11, 2010). Accessed September 3, 2010. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/
docid/4c19e3692.html.
Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other
Crimes Against Humanity. 2009. Republic Act No. 9851.
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills, G.R. No.
L-31195, June 5, 1973, 151A Phili. 656.
Quinteros v. Uruguay, UN Doc CCPR/C/19/D/107/1981 (July 21, 1983).
Razon et al. V. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009, 606 SCRA 598.
Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities Inc., G.R. No. 171435, July 30, 208, 560 SCRA 519.
Rubrico et al. v. Arroyo et al., G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010, 613 SCRA 233.
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo. G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008, 568 SCRA 52, 20.
Suarez v. Platon, 69 Phil 556 (February 7, 1940).
Supreme Court. 2007. Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try, and Decide Cases
involving Killings of Political Activists and Members of Media. Administrative Order
No. 25-2007.
———. 2007. Providing for an Interim Security Protocol for the First and
Second Level Courts. Memorandum Order No. 42-2007.
———. 2007. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo. A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC.
———. 2008. The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data. A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC.
———. Rules of Court.
Tambasen v. People, 246 SCRA 184 (July 14, 1995).
The Administrative Code. 1987. Executive Order No. 292.
The Anti-Torture Act. 2009. Republic Act No. 9745.
The Human Security Act. 2007. Republic Act No. 9372.
The Revised Penal Code. 1930. Act No. 3815.
Timoteo Cruz v. Francisco Salva, G.R. No. L-12871,July 25, 1959, 105 Phil. 1151.
U.S. v. Pablo, G.R. No. L-11676, October 17, 1916, 35 Phil. 94.
United Nations. 1949. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva
Convention), 75 UNTS 85, August 12.
———. 1949. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention) , 75 UNTS 31, August 12.
———. 1949. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of
War (Fourth Geneva Convention), 75 UNTS 287w, August 12.
———. 1949. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third
Geneva Convention) , 75 UNTS 135, August 12.
———. 1977. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I),
1125 UNTS 3, June 8.
———. 1977. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol
II), 1125 UNTS 609, June 8.
———. Economic and Social Council. 1989 . Principles on the Effective Prevention and
Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. Accessed September
5, 2010. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/executions.htm#1.
———. General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
———. General Assembly. 1966. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
———. General Assembly. 1984. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
———. Human Rights Commission. 1992. Paris Principles for National Human Rights
Institutions.
———. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. What are Human
Rights? Accessed April 26, 2011. http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages/
WhatareHumanRights.aspx.
Velásquez Rodríguez case, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Series C No. 4 (July 29, 1988).
Yamashita v. Styer, G.R. No. L-129 December 19, 1945, 75 Phil. 563.
ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS
Alston, Philip. 2007. Preliminary Note on the Visit of the Special Rapporteur on
Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, to the Philippines,
February 12-21, 2007. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/20/Add.3.
———. 2008. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary

Executions, Philip Alston. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/3/Add.2, April 16.
Amnesty International. 2009. “Philippines.” In Amnesty International Report 2009: The

State of the World’s Human Rights. London: Amnesty International Publications.
———. 2010. “Philippines.” In Amnesty International Report 2010: The State of the World’s
Human Rights. London: Amnesty International Publications.
Asian Development Bank. 2009. October 2009 Progress Report on the Release of the
Tranche. Accessed April 21, 2011. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Tranche-
Releases/PHI/41380-PHI-PRTR.pdf.
Commission on Human Rights. 2001. Operations Manual on Investigation and Case

Management Process.
———. 2010. Draft Omnibus Rules of Procedure. Resolution CHR (IV) No. A2010-058.
Department of Justice. 2008. Manual for Prosecutors.
European Union-Philippines Justice Support Program (EPJust). Final Report of EPJust

Working Group. A10.EP. n.d.
Evans, Jessica. “True Friends.” Philippine Daily Inquirer (April 24, 2011): 14.
Karapatan. 2010. 2010 Year-End Report on the Human Rights Situation in the Philippines.
Melo, Jose A. R. et al., 2007. Report of the Independent Commission to Address Media and
Activist Killings (Created under Administrative Order No. 157(s. 2006).
“Model Protocol for a Legal Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary, and Summary
Executions (‘Minnesota Protocol’).” In United Nations Manual on the Effective
Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. U.N.
Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991).
Office of the Ombudsman. Desk Reference.
Philippine Judicial Academy. Manual Guide for the Judiciary in Dealing with Media.
Philippine National Police. 2008. Letter of Instructions “Task Force USIG.”
Public Attorney’s Office. 2010. Operations Manual.
Supreme Court. Information Office. 2008. A Conspiracy of Hope: Report on the National
Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances.
United Nations. 1999. Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Istanbul
Protocol”). Accessed April 21, 2011. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/
Publications/training8Rev1en.pdf
———. Committee Against Torture. 2009. Concluding Observations. CAT/C/PHL/CO/2.

UNCAT Forty-Second Session, Geneva, April 27 to May 15.
United States State Department. Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor.
2011. “2010 Human Rights Report: Philippines.” In 2010 Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices. Washington, D.C.
WEBSITES
Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances. Accessed February 26, 2011.

http://www.afad-online.org.
Department of Justice. Accessed April 26, 2011. http://www.doj.gov.ph/image/doj-

orgchart.jpg.
Karapatan. Accessed February 26, 2011. Karapatan website http://www.karapatan.org/

about.
Office of Ethical Standards and Public Accountability. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://
www.afp.mil.ph/pers/oespa/index.htm.
Office of the Inspector General. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://www.afp.mil.ph/pers/

otig/index.htm.
Office of the Judge Advocate General. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://www.afp.mil.ph/

special/otjag/index.htm.
Office of the Provost Marshall General. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://www.afp.mil.ph/
special/otpmg/functions.html.
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates. Accessed February 26, 2011. http://
www.philippinehumanrights.org/about-us.html
SPEECH
Puno, Reynato. 2008. “The Task is Not Yet Done.” Keynote address, Multi-Sectoral and
Skills-Building Seminar-Workshop on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and
Enforced Disappearances for the Second Judicial Region, Baguio City, April 3.
INTERVIEWS
Abbu, Florencia. 2010. Interview by Sedfrey Candelaria. September. Cagayan de Oro City.
Caldona, Edgardo. 2010. Interview by Sedfrey Candelaria. August 27. Manila.
Kalalo, Albert A. 2010. Interview by Sedfrey Candelaria. September. Manila.
Mercado, Jonel S. 2010. Interview by Sedfrey Candelaria. September. Manila.
Pampilo, Silvino Jr. 2010. Interview by Sedfrey Candelaria. August 27. Manila.
Abbu, Florencia 211 Orientation and training 206, 207
Abduction 145, 147 Recommendations 83
Distinguished with detention 150 Secret detention 97
Ortiz case 217 Support of PNP investigator 83
Ablan, Ria Corazon B. xv Tactical interrogation 82
Abu Sayyaf Group 95 Armed groups 1, 5
Access to official documents 9 Arrest
Activists murders 8, 180 Attorney’s visit 61
Administration of justice 259, 260 Booking procedure 62
Adoption How to effect 58
Access to information/records 265 Medical examination 63
Affidavit 125-127 Methods 57, 58
Agabin, Pacifico A. xiv, 1, 306 Military personnel 80
Aggravating circumstances 191, 192 Minors 60
Aldea, Ruehl A. xv Procedure when made 59
Alston, Philip 8, 16, 11, 94, Subject’s movement 59
155, 217 Summoning assistance 59, 60
Alston report 199-202 Unlawful 146
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 106 Arrest and Warrant Registry 73
Alyansang Mamamayan para sa Makataong Arresting officer
Karapatan-Bulacan (ALMMA) 279 Duties 62
Amnesty International 4, 13, 203, 207 Arroyo, Gloria M. 1, 8, 9, 155,
2009 Report 4 239
2010 report 5, 7 Asia Foundation viii, ix
Anti-Graft body 87-91 Asian Development Bank (ADB) 140
Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Loan report 141
Force (AIDSOTF) 63 Asian Federation Against Involuntary
Anti-insurgency operation 275 Disappearance 276
Appeal 256 Ateneo Human Rights Center 19
Aquino Benigno III 9, 10, 15, 17, Attorney’s visit
82, 171 Arrested person 61
Arbitrary detention and arrest 5, 145, 214 Automated electoral system 9
Penalty 145 Autopsies, mandatory 117
Arbitrary killing 116 Autopsy 162, 163, 196
Archiving and revival of cases 256 Azcuna, Adolfo S. xiii, xv, 307
Armed conflict 4, 144, 151, Baldomero, Fernando 171
235 Ballesteros, David L. xv
Geneva Convention (1949) 143 Barangay Council for the Protection
Armed confrontation 49, 50 of Children (BCPC) 51, 60
Armed Forces of the Philippines xv, 1, 12, 20, Barangay Human Rights Action Center
170 (BHRAC) 98
Chance encounter 82 Bataoil, Leopoldo N. 115
Chief of Staff 78, 79 Bautista, Mary Concepcion 130
CHR 123 Bayan Muna 16
Criminal investigation 80 Bayle, Edmund 13
Ethical standard 79 Basmayor, Jessiery 116
Human Rights Office (AFPHRO) 79, 80 Belen, Miguel 171
Investigation 78-83 Bernas, Joaquin 239, 242
Bill of Rights 26, 213 Monitoring of cases 112
Enforced disappearance 145 Notice 107
Prosecutor’s role 138, 139 Operations Manual on Investigation and
Body frisk/pat-down search 55 Case Management Process 105
Bombing cases 48 Preliminary evaluation 106
Booking procedure 62 Prosecutorial power 122
Spot report 63 Public inquiry 112, 113, 115
Botanist 120 Flow chart 111
Burden of proof 253 Recommendations 120-124
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Resolution 108-110, 155
Labor (U.S.) 2010 report 4, 13 Sources of complaint 105
Burgos, Jonas 17, 113, 275 Witness protection 120
Bush, George W. 1 Commitment Order 73
Buzon, Marina L. xv, 307 Committee on Security for the Judiciary
Cacdac, Arturo G. Jr. 115 268, 270
Cajucom, Oscar Carlos 19 Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP)
Caldona, Edgardo 211 1, 12
Candelaria, Sedfrey M. xiv, 211, 306 Community assistance 118
Cardoza, Carmen Rosa 184 Complaints
Carillo, Anna 19 Appropriate action 130
Case investigation plan 40 Practical tips 125-130
Center for Trade Union and Human Written 125
Rights 279 Compulsory confinement 145
Chief State Prosecutor 168, 204 “Confidential” document/information
Child abuse 5 14, 129, 179
Child labor 5 Congress 124, 140, 207,
Child prostitution 5 263
Child witness 246 Consented abduction 147
Children in conflict with the Law Consolidation of actions 257
(CICL) 50-52 Conspiracy of Hope 219
Children’s Rehabilitation Center 279 Contado, Allan C. 270
Chua, Yvonne T. xv Contempt 226
Citizen Armed Force Geographical Indirect 267
Units (CAFGU) 16 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
Civil and political rights violation 96 of the Crime of Genocide 94
Flow chart of CHR investigations 104 Cordillera Human Rights Alliance (CHRA)
Process 103 279
Civil society 273-283 Cordillera Indigenous People’s Law
Civilian life endangerment 116, 117 Center (DINTEG) 279
Co, Leonard 120 Cordillera People’s Alliance 279
Command responsibility 75, 82, 165- Corona, Renato C. vii, xiv, 270
168, 205, 206, Corruption 5
241-245 Counter-insurgency policy 12
Commanding Officer (CO) 81 Court martial 80
Commission on Human Rights xv, 4, 13 16, 20 Court records
71, 72, 78, 93 Access may be denied 265
219, 282, 283 Media access 263
Application process 119, 120 Court room security 268
Assistance to victims 118, 119 Court security personnel (CSP) 269
Civil society 274 Courts
Dialogue 106 Crimes against humanity 100
FIND fund 119 Protection orders 9
Flow chart of Investigation 104 Reparation of victims 100
Investigation and procedure 105, 106 Special courts 155, 216, 218
Misconceptions 121 Crime
Investigation report 107 Police Prosecutor cooperation 176
Crime scene De La Cruz, Reuben 270
Inquest prosecutor 197 De Lima, Leila 130
Investigation procedure 42 De Tocoqueville, Alexis 220
Chain of custody 46 De Vera, Alfonso 115, 116
Collecting evidence 45 De Vera, Lia 115, 116
Crisis management 49 De Vera, Lilian 114, 115
Evaluating evidence 45 Death
Marking of evidence 45 Kidnapping for ransom 146
Preserving evidence 46 Death Investigation Division (NBI) 85
Recording of facts 43 Dela Passion, John Paul 19
Releasing evidence 46 Department of Health 98
Searching for evidence 44 Department of Interior and Local Government
Transmitting evidence 46 21, 99, 170
Operational procedure 47 Department of International Law
Police Prosecutor cooperation 176 and Human Rights 207
Procedure of release 39, 40 Department of Justice (DOJ) xv, 20, 21, 23,
Responder 41, 42 24, 78, 81, 84,
Security and preservation 31 85, 97, 99, 154,
SOCO assistance 47 170- 172, 174,
Crime scene investigation 204
Flowchart 25 Investigation 208
Crimes Mandate 135
NBI 85 Office of the Ombudsman 202
Punishment 133 Organizational structure 134
Territorial jurisdiction 35 Witness Protection Program 11, 13, 27, 76,
Crimes against humanity 143, 144 103, 200, 201,
Crimes of violence 205
Investigation guidelines 39 Department of National Defense (DND)
Criminal complaint 21, 99, 170
Prosecution service 135, 136 Department of Social Welfare and
“Sexiest action” 130 Development (DSWD) 51, 60, 98
Criminal Investigation Deposition 246
Military personnel 80, 81, 118 Videotaped 247, 248
Criminal Investigation Manual (PNP) Deprivation of liberty 150
19, 25, 34, 68 Desaparecidos 279
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group Descriptions 126
(CIDG) 23 Desk officer 41
Criminal justice system 12, 151, 200 Detention
Community Pillar 273 Admission 71, 72
Crime laboratory 84 Conditions 5
Crimes against humanity 100, 152 Distinguished with abduction 150
Criminal records clearinghouse 84 Illegal 145, 150, 274
Crisis management Penalties 145
Crime scene 49 Release 73
Cross-examination 189 Secret detention 97
Cruelty Segregation of detainees 74
Killings 142 Transfer of custody 73
Custodial investigation 69 Transport of Prisoners 74, 75
In writing 70, 71 Visitation 72
Reglementary period 10 Detention/Custodial Center and facilities
Right of the accused 61 71-74, 97
Sworn statement 70 Denial of entry 123
Custody of minor 147 Diokno, Jose, Manuel 78
Daguio, Jose 171 Disappearances 128
Damages 191 DNA 178, 182
Davad, Eduardo A. xv Credentials 186
Evidence 186 Executive privilege 252
Testing 187, 188 Exhibits
Documents Identifying 187
File management 179 Tests 188
Original 128, 129 Exhumation 162
Military privilege 14 Expert witness 188
Production 230 Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) 48
Domestic law 133, 144 Extrajudicial confession 70
Due process clause 139, 144, 259 Extrajudicialkillings (EJK) 94
Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Status of cases 211, 212
Peace (EMJP) 279 Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances:
Education and Information Campaign 99 A Forensic Manual for Legal and Judicial
Efficiency and Separation Board (ESB) 79 Professional 184
Elections Extralegal killings vi, 4, 19-21, 23,
Automated electoral system 9 26, 151, 152,
“Enemy of the state” 12 154, 171
Enforced disappearances vi, 4, 19-21, 23, Amnesty International program 207
26, 144, 150, Court’s role 216
153, 171 Judicial mandate 212
Bill of rights 145 Murder and homicide 141
Court’s role 216 Prosecution 136-138,
Evidences 182 180-182
FIND fund 119 Statistics of victims 2
Guatemala 159 By organization 16
Honduras 158 By region 8
Inter-American Court on Human Rights By sector 6
182, 183, 217 By sector/special group 15
Judicial mandate 212 By year 4
Nature 217 Fajardo, Mathew R. xv
Prosecution 136-138 Falla, Richard 154
Statistics of victims Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearances
By organization 15 (FIND) 277
By region 8 Assistance 117, 277
By sector 6 Family courts 51
By sector/special group 14 Access to information/records 265
By year 4 Fernando, Remedios Salazar 14
Esperon, Hermogenes Jr. 1, 241, 242 Field Manual on Investigation of Crimes
Estorinos, Klarise Anne 19 of Violence and Other Crimes (DIDM) 30, 34
Estacio, Josephine 171 File management 179
European Court of Human Rights 159, 169 Financial assistance 118
European Union-Philippines Justice Support Hors de combat 118
Program (EPJust-TWG) 173-175, 274 Human rights victims 118
Eusebio, Ronaldo 115 Fingerprinting 62, 63, 17
Evans, Jessica 16 Firearms accountability 117
Evidence Firearms and ballistic database 117
Collection and handling 33 Hall of Justice 269
Contaminated or tainted 76, 77, 120 Illegal possession 274
Crime scene 45, 46 Flores, Aniano 154
Enforced disappearances 182, 183 Forcible abduction 147
Human rights violation 181 Forensics 178, 201, 208
Investigation 42-46 Francisco, Mark 171
Material evidence 184 Freedom of expression 259
Police Prosecutor cooperation 177 Freedom of the press 259
Substantial 254 French Declaration of the Rights of Man
Technical rules 255 and Citizen 8
Executive power 133 GABRIELA 279
Gender Complete in substance and form 192
Pat-down search 59 Gathering 190
Geneva Convention (1949) on Armed Conflicts Honest and relevant 129
143, 144, 151, Inquest 68
152 Proceedings (Flow chart) 198
Genocide 144, 152 Procedure 67-69,
Gomez, Ma. Krizna 19 195-197
Gonzalez, Nelia 168 Inquest prosecutor 68
Governance in Justice Sector Reform Program Presence 197
140 Inspection order 102, 249, 250,
Grave abuse clause 221 251
Guevarra, Pascual 171 Insurgents 1, 2
Gumanoy, Eddie 153-155 Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG)
Habeas corpus 17 Inter-American Court on
Habeas data vi, 9, 81, 190, Human Rights 158, 161, 182,
213, 218, 258 183, 217, 218
Text 222-229 Interim reliefs 248-251
Torture victims 98 International Bill of Human Rights 193
International Coalition Against Enforced
Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations Disappearances (ICAED) 276
Covering Land Warfare 194 International Covenant on Civil and Political
Halls of Justice Rights (ICCPR) 94, 151, 153,
Detention of prisoners 270 154, 193, 214
Holding area 269 International Covenant on Economic, Social
Security 268, 269 and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 193
Handcuffs 60 International human rights law 150, 151
Health Action for Human Rights International Humanitarian Law 143, 144, 151
(HAHR) 279 International Labor Organization 158-161
Health Alliance for Democracy International law 215
(HEAD) 279 International tribunals 158
Hearing 245 Investigating crimes 85
“Highly classified” documents 14 Investigating team
Homicide Duties and responsibilities 38
Extralegal killings 141, 196 Investigation
Inquest documents 69 CHR process 104, 121-124
Penalty 142 Command responsibility 75
Hors de combat 118 Conclusion and recommendation 76, 77
Hostage situation 49 Crime scene procedure 39, 40, 42-47
House of Representatives Committee on Justice Definition 19
and Human Rights 99 File management 179
Human rights violation General procedure 41
Aggravating circumstances 191, 192 Guidelines on crimes of violence 30, 34
Characteristics 181 Guidelines on ELKs an EDs 26
Evidences 182 Law enforcement authorities 20
Perpetrated 189 Melo Report 203, 204
Remedies 190, 191 Military personnel 78
Human Rights Watch 16 NBI 84
Immediate family 71 Plan 40
Incommunicado 97, 183 Problems 9, 10
Independent Commission to Address Media and Prosecution chart 209
Activist Killings 168 Protocol 35-40
Indeterminate Sentence Law 192 Report 38
Indigenous people (IP) 4, 5 Special 165
Indigents rights 140 Standard of effective investigation 160, 161
Information Suspects 38, 38
Access may be denied 265 UN principles 161
Velasquez Rodriguez case 218 Competence 120
Investigation to prosecution Lawyers
flow chart 209 Characteristics for legal advice 130
Investigator Legislative action 15, 16, 117,
Checklist 32 123, 124, 205
Military operations 81 Legislative-Executive Development
Monitoring of cases 69 Council (LEDAC) 124
Notebook 40, 41 Legaspi, Dexter 171
Powers 162 Mabagos, Roberto Jr. 19
Involuntary disappearance 277 Macalawan, Arnel 116
Istanbul Protocol 185 Manalo, Raymond 183
JAGA 279 Manhunting operation 178
Jails 123 Manual on Operational Procedure 50, 69, 71
Journalists killings 4, 8 Marcellana, Eden 153-155
Judges and Justices Marcos, Ferdinand 273
Media criticism 266 Marcos administration 273, 281
Media events 260 Mass victim situation 48
Pressure 14 Material evidence 184
Security 268-271 “Matters of public concern” 264
Judgment and appeal 256 Media access
Judicial power 220 Court records 263, 264
Judicial process 14, 211-267 Media and the Courts 259-267
Judicial review 220 Media coverage 130, 179
The Judiciary xv, 215 Court proceedings 262
Independence 216, 259 Media criticism
International norms 215 Guidelines 266
Judiciary-media relations 259 Media killings 171, 175, 180,
Justice and Peace Advocacy Group- 217
Aurora (JPAG) 279 Media people 204
Justice Sector Coordinating Council 140 Medical examination
Justice system 13, 19 Arrested person 63
Problem 10 Detention 73, 74
Juvenile detention 5 Medical workers 16, 113, 274,
Kalalo, Albertn A. 211 275
Karapatan 2, 4, 7, 15, 28, Medina, Carlos P. Jr. xiv, 19, 93, 306
153, 279, 281 Megaphones 52
Katribu 16 Melo, Jose A.R. 8, 168, 207
Kawagib 279 Melo Commission 8, 80, 154, 168
Kidnapping and serious Report 202-207
illegal detention 63, 146, 150, Mendoza, Jason 19
154 Mercado, Carolyn S. xiv
Minor 147 Mercado, Jonel S. 211
Killings Mexican constitution 220
Cruelty 142 Migrante Kilusang Enero 22 (K-E22) 279
Tabular comparison 149 Military chain of command 14
Elements & Penalties 148 Military detention 5
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas 15 Military justice system 78, 79
Kuratong Baleleng 112 Military commanders
Kuroda, Sijigenori 194 Command responsibility 166, 167, 205
Labog, Pocholo P. xiv Military Commission 194
Law enforcement authorities Military operations 81
CHR 123 Military personnel
Investigation 20 Arrest warrant 80
Neglect of duty 167 Hors de combat 118
Law enforcers Image problem 76, 121
Civil and political rights 103 Orientation and training 206, 207
Military privilege 14 Adviser (ONSA) 21, 170
Military support 9 Office of the Ombudsman 20, 78, 87-91,
Minnesota Protocol 164, 180, 185 140, 157, 199,
Minors 207
Arrest and detention 60 Case initiation 89
Statement with a parent 125 Case evaluation 90
Miranda doctrine 55, 70 De facto subsidiary of the DOJ 202
Dialect known by person 70 Investigation proper 90
Monitoring of cases 69 Lack of independence 201, 202
Montiel, Cristina 13 Recommendations 91
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) 5 Office of the Ombudsman
Moro Christian People’s Alliance 279 for the Military xv
Morong 43 medical workers 17, 113, 274, Office of the Political Adviser (OPA) 21, 170
275 Office of the President 124, 154, 172
Motupropio 114 Office of the Presidential Adviser for Peace
Investigation 207 Process (OPAPP) 21, 170
Mug shots 63 Office of the Prosecutor 173
Muhamadiya Hamja 95 Office of the Provost Marshall
Murder General (TPMG) 78, 83
Extrajudicial killings 141, 196 Office of the public prosecutor 203, 204
Inquest documents 69 Official documents
Penalty 142 Access 8
Terrorism 144 Olarte, Avigail M. xv
National Bureau of Investigation xv, 20, 78, 79, Olympia, Abrame-Lionel 19
84-86, 97, Ong, Milagros Santos xv
135, 170, 173, “Operation BantayLaya” 1
202 Orcullo, Romeo A. xv
Director 168, 169 Original documents
Investigative capabilities Custody 128, 129
enhancement 206, 208 Ortigas massacre 113
National Consultative Summit on Ortiz, Sister Diana 217
Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Palad, Perfecto R. 115
Disappearances 2, 218 Palparan, Jovito 154
Access to information/records 265 Pampilo, Silvino Jr. 211
Conclusion and Paranaque massacre/ shootout 113
recommendations 219 Paris Principles for National Human Rights
National Democratic Front (NDF) 1, 2, 7 Institutions (NHRI) 93
National Intelligence Coordinating Parreno, Al A. 211
Agency (NICA) 170 Parricide 196
National Prosecution Service 20, 169, 173, Inquest documents 69
200, 202, 207 Party-list militants 14
Responsibility 135 Pat-down search
National security 117, 136, 190, Grounds 55
252 Police of the sane Gender 56
Natural law 133 Procedure 56
New People’s Army (NPA) 2, 7, 13, 120 Reporting 57
NGOs 16, 71, 72 Peace Commission 16
Notary public 125 People of the Philippines
Obstruction of justice 116 Counsel 136
Office of Ethical Standards and Public People Power Revolution 273
Accountability 79 Pestano, Ensign Philip 156, 157
Office of the Court Administrator 204, 256 Philippine Alliance of Human
Office of the Inspector General 78, 79 Rights (PAHRA) 281
Office of the Judge Advocate Philippine Daily Inquirer 16
General (TJAG) 79 Philippine Extrajudicial Killings
Office of the National Security Report 211
Philippine Information Agency (PIA) 21, 170 Police Commissioned Officer (PCO) 75
Philippine Judicial Academy 199 Political killings 171, 175, 216
Department of International Law Political labelling 13
and Human Rights 207 Pontanal, Alpha Carole O. xiv
Workshop 13 Porta, Gerardo A. xiv
Philippine National Police xv, 2, 4, 8, 12, Prejudicial publicity 262
29, 78, 79, 85, Preliminary investigation 136, 199
86, 169, President
173, 208 Command responsibility 205
AFP support 83 Extrajudicial killings 202, 203
Chance encounter 82 Nonsuability 239, 240
CHR recognition and respect 123 Privilege 252, 253
Civil society 274, 275 Tenure of office 240
Criminal and administrative PresidentialAnti Crime and
charges 116 Emergency Response (PACER) 63
Crime Laboratory 186, 187 Presidential Human Rights
Detention/Custodial Center 71-74 Committee (PHRC) 21, 170
Framework 21 Presidential immunity 239
Gross negligence 116 Press coverage 178
Guidelines on crimes of violence 30 Prisoners
Health Service 74 Transporting 74
Human Rights Affairs Office (HRAO) Trial 4
23, 77 Probable cause
Image problem 76, 121 64, 200
Investigative capabilities Production order
enhancement Manual 19, 69, 71 102, 250, 251
Medico-legal officer 73 Promotion of Church People’s
Melo Report 203, 204 Response 279
Military operations 81 Property or Evidence Custodian
Operational Procedure 116 Officer 74
Organizational structure 22 Prosecution 133-209
Orientation and training 206, 207 Cross-examination 189, 190
Paranaque shootout 114, 116, 117 Investigation chart 209
Performance Service Evaluation 117 Melo Report 204
Problems in tracking down killers 9-11 Prosecutor
Property or Evidence Custodian Duties, Responsibilities 138, 150, 151,
Officer 74 153
Secret detention 97 Expert witness presentation 188
Physical examination 71, 73, 74 Prosecutor General 135
Physical injuries Prosecutors 12, 13
Inquest documents 69 Abduction/detention 150
Piracy 193 Inquest proceedings 195
Police 12 Manual 176
Blotter 35, 36 Media/Public relations 179
Command responsibility 205 Police cooperation 174, 176-179,
Custodial investigation 70 99
Custody and Confessions 7 Police investigation 23
Evidence 12 Presentation of evidence 12
Facilities 10, 11 Protection orders 8
Investigations 203 Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) 51, 97
Investigation of soldiers 12 Mandate 140
Presumption of knowledge of crime 75 Operations Manual 140
Prosecutor cooperation 174, 176-179, Public Interest Law Center (PILC) 279
199 Public international law 192
Sworn statement in writing 70 Public officials and employees
Police intervention operations 52 Civil and political rights 103
Complaints 87 Procedures 48
Detention 145 Territorial Police Unit 48
Illegal acts 88-91 Search
Process 88-91 Definition 63
Public prosecutor 203, 204 Search and seizure
Public record 129 Warrantless 66
Puno, Reynato S. xiv, 17, 271 Search warrant
Quisumbing, Cecilia R.V. 93, 273, 306 Definition 63, 64
Quisumbing, Purificacion Valera xv, 293 Distinction 230, 231
Razon, Avelino Jr. 203, 241, 242 Period 65
Reasonable force 53, 61 Requisites for application
“Red labelling” 16 64, 65
Redirect examination 189 Where to file 64
Rehabilitation assistance 118 Secret detention 97
Release Order 73 Secretary of Justice 130, 135, 136,
Response 171
Checklists/guidelines 30 Secretary of National Defense 183
Duties of responder 37 Security problem
Restraint of force 60 Judges and court personnel 13
Revised Manual for Prosecutors (2008) 195 Seizure
Right against self-incrimination 62 Disposal 67
Right of a person 26 Items sized 66
Right of prosecution 133 Senate Committee on Justice and
Right of the indigent 140 Human Rights 14, 99
Right to communicate with lawyer 62 Separation of powers 252
Right to demand physical Serious illegal detention 146
examination 71 “Sexiest government action” 130
Right to liberty 214 Slavery 147
Right to life 139, 140, 151, Slight illegal detention 146
213, 275 Solitary confinement 97
Right to remain silent 62 Special courts 154, 216, 218
Right to “secure in their person” 145 Special Task Force to Address Extralegal
Right to security 214 Killings and Enforced Disappearances
“Right to truth” 9 85, 208
Rome Statute of the International Spot checks/accosting
Criminal Court 152, 153, 165, Body frisk/pat-down search 55
166, 242, 243 Grounds 54
Rood, Steven ix, xiv Procedure 55
Roque, Herminio Harry L. Jr. xiv, 133, 306 Reporting 57
Roquero, Edgar 241 State witness 246
Roxas, Melissa 113, 121, 275 Steele, Gloria D. ix, xiv
Rubrico, Lourdes 239 Sub-judice rule
Safe havens 253 Sanctions 266, 267
Saltivan, Charmaine C. xv Substantive rights 258
Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainee Summary execution 116
Laban sa Detensyon at Para sa Supreme Court 8, 182, 183,
Amnestiya (SELDA) 279 193, 199, 200
Santiago, Leocadio 115 Access to court records 263-265
Scene of the Crime Information Office 2, 219
Operations (SOCO) 23, 26, 30, 32, Prosecutors to be Proactive 12
33, 120 Right to life 139
Armed confrontation 49, 50 Rule making authority 212, 213, 215
Assistance in crime scene 47 Special courts 154, 216, 218
Mass victim situation 48 Suspects
Military 81 Investigation 38, 39, 178
One per region 76 Police Prosecutor cooperation 178
Talusig, Daniel S. xv Independent commission 162
Task ForceAgainst Political Objective 161
Violence (TFAPV) 20, 21, 79, 170, Power of investigator 162
172 Protection of victims 163
Task Force Detainees in the Written report
Philippines 281, 282 United Nations Special Rapporteur on
Task Force Judiciary Protection 270 Extralegal killings 5, 8, 9, 10, 94,
Task Force 211 172 154, 216
“Task Force Usig” 2,8, 13, 24, 26, United Nations Working Group on Enforced
76 Disappearances 16, 276
Guidelines on ELKs an EDs 26-29 United States Agency for International
Tapnio, Emil B. xiv Development (USAID) viii, x, xi
Tejada, Joan Marie C. xv United States government 4
Temporary protection order 101, 248, 249 United States State Department 4, 13
Territorial Police Unit 48 Universal Declaration of Human
Terrorism 144 Rights (UDHR) 94, 151,
Terrorists 1 193, 214
TontongantiUmili 279 Unlawful arrest
“Top secret” documents 13 Penalty 146
Torture 142 Vega, Maria Del Carmen 184
Definition 143 Vigilante killings 5
Istanbul Protocol 185 CHR assistance 118
Ortiz case 217 Compensation 164
Penalty 143 Concerns 251, 252
Torture victims Police Prosecutor cooperation 176
Compensation 98 Reparation 100
Criminal complaint 97, 98 Rights 163
Rehabilitation program 98, 99 Suspected crimes 117
Trafficking (Human) 5 Vigilante killings 4
Trials Villarica, Michelle Marie 19
Delay 5 Villasor, Edwin 270
Military privilege 13 Vinluan, Rogelio 168
Tunay na Alyansang Bayan Alay sa Voluntary insanity 145
Katutubo (TABAK) 279 Violence Against Women 4
Tungcab, Bernard 116 Protection 163
United Nations Committee Waiver
Against Torture (UNCAT) 7, 123, 151 In writing 70
United Nations Committee Against Walk-in complaints 41
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, War crimes 143, 144, 194
or Degrading Treatment War victims 2
and Punishment 185 Warning shots 53
United Nations Convention on the Warrant of arrest 231
Prevention and Punishment of the Warrantless arrest 5
Crime of Genocide 152 Lawful 58
United Nations Human Rights Warrantless search and seizure
Committee 93, 153, 155, Lawful 66
156, 158 Watson, Lucia 184
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner Weapons use 54
on Human Rights 192 Witness protection 7, 9, 17, 120,
United Nations Principles on the Effective 129, 250
Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Crimes against humanity 100
Arbitrary and Summary Police Prosecutor cooperation 176
Executions 166 Witness protection order 103
Autopsy 162, 163 Witness protection program 10, 11, 13, 27,
Exhumation 162 76, 103, 200,
201, 206
Witnesses problem 9, 76, 174
Sworn statement 39
Testimony 201
Wittman, Alain 184
Women 15
Abduction 147
Workers rights enforcement 4
Writ of amparo 220, 224, 225,
226, 258
Civil society 275
Docket fees 233
History 220, 221
Issuance process 236
Interim reliefs 101
Petition 232, 234
Prohibited Pleadings and Motions
238, 239
Return 237, 239
Torture victims 98
Venue 233
Who may file 101, 232
Writ of habeas corpus 9, 218, 220,
221
Torture victims 98
Wrongful death 117
Yamashita, Tomoyuki 194
Youth and students 15
Burgos v. Macapagal –Arroyo,
G.R. Nos. 183711 and 18312, June 22, 2010 17
Chavez v. PCGG 252
Cruz v. Salva,
G.R. No. L-12871, July 25, 1959, 105 Phil. 1151 138
Finucane v. The United Kingdom,

Application No. 29178/95 (July 1, 2003) 159
Kuroda v. Jalandoni,
G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949, 83 Phil. 171 194
Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala,

Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Series C No. 101 (November 25, 2003) 159
Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigation

G. R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 121 253
Nixon, In Re Sealed case 252
Ortiz v. Guatemala 217
People v. Curino,
G.R. No. 15256-57, October 31, 1963, 9 SCRA 323 142
People v. Lol-lo,
G.R. No. 1795-8, February 27, 1922, 43 Phil. 19 193
People v. Lucero, G. R. No. 643232-34, May 31, 1991 82
Pestano v. The Philippines, CCPR/C/98/D/1619/2007 156, 157
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills,

G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973, 151 A Phil. 656 138
Razon v. Tagitis,
G. R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009, 606 SCRA 598 243, 247, 254
Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities Inc.,
G. R. 171435, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 519 133
Rubrico v. Arroyo,
G. R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010, 613 SCRA 233 239, 241, 254, 257
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo,

G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008, 568 SCRA 52, 20 140, 184, 213-215,
217, 230, 234, 243
Suarez v. Platon, 69 Phil. 556 (1940) 138
Tambasen v. People, 246 SCRA 184 (1995) 65
U.S. v. Pablo, G. R. No. 11676, October 17, 1916, 35 Phil. 94 133
Velasquez Rodriguez case, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Series C No. 4

(July 29, 1988) 159, 161, 183
Yamashita v. Styer,
G.R. No. L-129, December 19, 1945, 75 Phil. 563 194
Administrative Code (1987) 135
Adm. Order No. 157 (2006) 155, 168, 169
Adm. Order No. 181 (2007) 169, 173, 175
Adm. Order No. 197 (2007 80
Adm. Order No. 211 (2007) 21, 79, 170, 172
Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act 79
Anti-Torture Law 96-99, 141
Batas Blg. 129 265
CHR Resolution No. A-2010-089 95
Civil Code, Art. 32 191
Code of Judicial Conduct 260-262
Constitution 63, 87, 93, 115, 133, 140, 240
Art. II 193, 259, 263
Art. III (Bill of Rights) 26, 61, 138, 139, 145, 213-215, 230, 259, 263
Art. VII 193
Art. VIII 215, 259
Art. XIII 95, 124, 273
DIDM/TF USIG Memorandum
Circular No. 07-39 (2010) 29
DOJ Circular No. 61 176
DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 4 s. 2010 24, 171, 195, 208
DOJ Memorandum Circular No. 404 208
DOJ Order No. 848 (2010) 85, 171-173, 208
Domestic Adoption Act (1998) 265
Executive Order No. 68 194
Executive Order No. 59 (1986) 146
Executive Order No. 163 (1987) 96
Executive Order No. 292 (1987) 135, 146
Executive Order No. 226 (1995) 75, 167
Human Security Act 96, 103, 123, 141, 191
Indeterminate Sentence Law 192
Inter- Country Adoption Act (1995) 265
International Humanitarian Law 96, 99-100, 139, 141, 143, 144, 244
Judiciary Reorganization Act (1980) 265
Juvenile Justice Act (2005) 60
NBI Adm. Order No. 14 (2010) 85
Ombudsman Act (1989) 88
Prosecution Service Act (2010) 135
Rep. Act No. 6713 264
Rep. Act No. 6770 87, 140
Rep. Act No. 6981 103, 205, 250
Rep. Act No. 8043 265
Rep. Act No. 8369 265
Rep. Act No. 8552 265
Rep. Act No. 9344 60
Rep. Act No. 9372 96, 103, 141, 148
Rep. Act No. 9406 140
Rep. Act No. 9745 96-99, 141, 142, 148
Implementing Rules and Regulation 143
Rep. Act No. 9851 96, 99-100, 139, 141, 143, 144, 148, 152,
166, 240, 241, 244, 245
Rep. Act No. 10071 135, 136
Revised Penal Code 59, 139
Art. 124 145
Art. 125 62, 68, 145, 196
Art. 151 62
Art. 248 141, 142, 148
Art. 249 142, 148
Art. 267-269 146
Art. 270-274 147
Art. 342-343 147
Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court 152, 153, 165, 166
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness 246, 247
Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 71, sec. 7 267
Rules of Court 59
Rule 27 230
Rule 45 256
Rule 65 221
Rule 102 222
Rule 119 246
Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000)
Rule 112, sec. 7 62
Supreme Court
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC 219
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC 222-228
A.M. No. MTJ 90-4001 189
Adm. Circular No. 08-99 264
Adm. Order No. 25-2007 76, 169, 180, 218, 219
Memorandum Order No. 42-2007 268-271
Victims Compensation Act 191
Pacifico A. Agabin
Chair, Department of Constitutional Law, Philippine Judicial Academy; Lecturer,
University of the Philippines, Law Center; Senior Partner, Agabin, Opinion and
Layaoen Law Office; Practicing Lawyer.
Sedfrey M. Candelaria
Head, Research, Publications and Linkages Office, Chair, Department of Special
Areas of Concern, and Professor II, Philippine Judicial Academy; Associate Dean,
Ateneo de Manila University Law School; Professor of Public International Law and
Constitutional Law; Bar Examiner in Political and Public International Law, 2010;
Visiting Professor, University for Peace.
Carlos P. Medina, Jr.

Vice Chair, Department of International and Human Rights Law, Philippine Judicial
Academy; Executive Director, Ateneo Human Rights Center of the School of Law,
Ateneo de Manila University; Secretary General, Working Group for an ASEAN Human
Rights Mechanism; Member, The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010; Chairperson,
Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights); Chief Legal Counsel,
OneVoice; Founding Co-Convenor, Legal Network for Truthful Elections (LENTE).

Professor II, Department of International Law and Human Rights, Philippine Judicial
Academy; Associate Professor, University of the Philippines College of Law; Executive
Council, International Criminal Bar, The Hague; Governing Council, Asian Society of
International Law, Singapore; List Counsel, International Criminal Court, The Hague;
List Counsel, United Nations War Crimes Tribunal for Rwanda, Arusha.
Cecilia R.V. Quisumbing

Commissioner, Commission on Human Rights; Former Executive Director, Presidential
Human Rights Committee; Former Anchorwoman, RPN 9 and CNBC-Asia, Singapore.
Adolfo S. Azcuna
Chancellor, Philippine Judicial Academy; Retired Associate Justice, Supreme Court.
Purificacion C. Valera-Quisumbing
Chair, Department of International and Human Rights Law, Philippine Judicial
Academy; Member, UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee; Former
Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights; Former Representative, UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights and Director of the UN Center for Human Rights,
New York.
Marina L. Buzon
Executive Secretary and Acting Chief, Philippine Mediation Center, Philippine Judicial
Academy; Retired Associate Justice, Court of Appeals.

Philja Primer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philja Primer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pacifico A.

Carlos P. Medina, Jr.

Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr.

Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing

1. Helpbook – Human Rights – Philippines

vi Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances ix

x Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

STEVEN ROOD, Ph.D.

Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances xi

Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances xv

1 Situationer: Human Rights in the Philippines 1

1 Situationer: Human Rights in the Philippines 1

A DARK AND STORMY NIGHT 1

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE 21

ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES 78

NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 84

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN 87

3 The Commission on Human Rights 93

GENERAL FRAMEWORK 133

5 Judicial Process 211

General Framework: Institutional Mandate 212

6 The Role of Civil Society 273

CIVIL SOCIETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 274

1.1 Victims of Extralegal Killings, 2001-2006 2

5.1 Media and the Courts 259

Forms (in CD)

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

Forensic request formats

A Dark and Stormy Night

Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances 1

1 threat to the country, saying they employ deceptive parliamentary means

Figure 1.1 Victims of Extralegal Killings, 2001-2006

n Karapatan n CHR n Task Force Usig

2000 2002 2004 2006

There was a similar rise in enforced disappearances.2

2 Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Table 1.1 Victims of Extralegal Killings,

2005 194 101 14

2006 235 116 25

TOTAL 1,206 475 153

Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances 3

As well, enforced disappearances over the same period had risen to

Arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial killings by elements of the

4 Karapatan. 2010, 17.

4 Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

Amnesty International summarized the human rights situation in the

Renewed armed conflict displaced more than 610,000 and killed

In April that year, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on

5 Amnesty International. 2009. 2009 Annual Report for the Philippines, 2.

Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances 5

6 Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

The UN Special Rapporteur followed up his report on the Philippines,

6 Amnesty International. 2010. 2010 AI Visits/Reports on the Philippines, 261.

Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances 7

8 Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

Shafts of Light in the Dark 1

Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances 9

1 killings and enforced disappearances to the bar of justice. In his inaugural

q Reluctance of the victim’s family and witnesses to cooperate in the

10 Helpbook on Human Rights Issues: Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances

Observing the inefficacy of the witness protection program, he said: