11.

2| Problems in the Philippine CJS

From Asian Human Rights Commission
1. Flawed and misguided criminal investigations
The police are the first and biggest obstacle to victims and their families obtaining justice
in the Philippines. Where family members and witnesses come forward, they often find
that police investigations contradict their versions of incidents. Police investigators
sometimes make premature pronouncements about the motive for a killing and its cause,
flatly rejecting alternative suggestions, particularly where state officers or persons
allegedly connected to them are among the possible suspects.
2. Non-existent victim and witness protection
Most victims of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines have had threats on their lives
beforehand; some already having survived earlier attacks. Those who seek protection are
frustrated by the unresponsiveness of state agencies that supposedly have obligations to
assist in such instances. Many end up dead.
3. Ineffectual and biased prosecutors
Public prosecutors in the Philippines depend upon police investigators to do their jobs.
They do not have a role in the investigation process itself, and lack the capacity to
evaluate reliably all facts submitted by the police. Investigators give credence to police
findings without due considerations of other factors.
4. Labelling “enemies”
In April 2005 the Intelligence Services of the Armed Forces of the Philippines produced a
PowerPoint presentation entitled “Knowing the Enemy: Are we missing the point?”,
which included a list of organisations and persons-among them human rights and labour
groups, religious organisations, media institutions, political parties and persons critical of
the government-who are “influenced by communists”. The presentation was distributed
on compact disc and was shown to villagers and otherwise used in communities where
the military was conducting so-called civilian-military operations.
Under section 14(2) of the Constitution of the Philippines “the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved”. In practice the public labelling of
accused persons or victims as “communist fronts”, “destabilizers”, “enemies of the state”,
or “terrorists” negates this presumption and allows officials to do away with due process.
The double standards in implementation of laws are most obvious in cases where such
labels are applied. The use of labels also exposes victims, their families and colleagues to
the possibility of further violence, and denies them any hope of protection. Once a
person or organisation has been labelled “leftist” or “enemy” then there is no possibility
of safety. Whatever they may or may not have done, they are in a special category of
persons and groups guilty by suspicion, for who the ordinary laws and procedures, to the
limited extent they operate for everyone else, are suspended.
5. Command irresponsibility
Even though the Melo Commission concluded that Palparan and other military
commanders are liable for killings under the principle of command responsibility, there is
as yet no clear indication of how the government intends to deal with senior officers
found to be complicit in grave human rights violations.
The doctrine of command responsibility in the Armed Forces of the Philippines is
stipulated in its Circular No. 28, Series of 1956, which holds that for military commander
to have criminal and civil liability in abuses committed by his subordinates, three
elements must be proven: that those committing the atrocities were under his command;
that the commander knew or should have known that the subordinates were engaging in
impermissible conduct; and, that the commander failed to prevent or punish those
responsible.

11.3| Problems in the Access of Justice