
ISSUE
ANALYSIS No. 14
July
19, 2007
A human rights summit takes the first agonizing step toward finding
solutions to the epidemic of extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances. The solutions proposed will pit judicial activists
against the forces of resistance in the executive branch and Congress.
Collision
Course
This week’s human rights summit held on July 16-17 at the
Manila Hotel brought together about 250 participants in search of
solutions to the epidemic of summary executions and enforced disappearance
that has hounded the nation since 2001. Responding to the invitation
of Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the participants
included lawyers, academic scholars, human rights volunteers, legislators,
interfaith leaders, press freedom advocates as well as government
executives and magistrates. Conspicuous in their blue and grey uniform
were elements of the military and police, led by their top honchos.
The presence of some members of the diplomatic corps including a
representative of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) underscored the fact that this particular domestic
concern has achieved an international dimension, the likes of Rwanda
and other countries plagued by human rights violations.
The
summit was convened to address the deteriorating state of human
rights in the country but it came as a letdown to rights watchdogs,
cause-oriented organizations and interfaith groups – whose
members were also victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances – who had to lobby hard on the eve of the event
for them to participate.
Just
the same, the summit has been lauded as “unprecedented”
for having been initiated by the high court chief justice to address
the pressing issue of political killings, with about 865 victims
to date aside from hundreds other victims of frustrated murder and
enforced disappearance committed allegedly by state security forces
under the watch of President Gloria M. Arroyo. CJ Puno, in his keynote
address, said the judiciary decided “to unsheathe its unused
power to enact rules to protect the constitutional rights of our
people, the first and foremost of which is the right to life itself.”
Described as a “risk taker,” Puno has sought to marshal
“judicial activism” to confront attacks on the rule
of law the arrest of which, in his opinion, has failed to draw any
action from the legislative and executive branches of government.
Unprecedented
In
that light, the summit was indeed unprecedented. But the atrocities,
where most victims were unarmed civilians collectively in their
tens of thousands, have persisted - fueled no less by a culture
of impunity and a fear factor - over the past 35 years or since
the Marcos dictatorship, then through the various presidencies that
followed, and now. The high court itself had been strongly criticized
for its complicit stance during martial law and also for rulings
it issued after that, such as on the warrantless arrest and military
checkpoints that had shades of authoritarian justice.
Under
Arroyo, the failure of the country’s criminal justice system
to provide succor to the victims of crimes against humanity forced
their families and human rights groups to knock at the doors of
the international community for intervention. Thus it took nearly
900 killings more and 50 fallen journalists and for the diplomatic
and human rights community to sound the alarm before the high court’s
15 justices would be roused from their slumber to find the atrocities
as constituting not only attacks against constitutional, civil and
political rights but a subversion of the rule of law.
More
petrifying to the magistrates, the victims and their kin have lost
hope in the justice system precisely because the system –
specifically many of its investigators and adjudicators –
had been prejudicial to them. Graver injustice was being committed
due to the system’s failure to uphold the victims’ rights
including their right to be accorded justice. Among many prosecutors
and judges, there appears to be poor competence in the field of
human rights and humanitarian law let alone a compassion for the
targets of political persecution. The high magistrates, benumbed
by their so-called “cold neutrality,” should be the
first to know: The court system is not for the poor and defenseless.
The sword of justice that is now unsheathed has not only been unused
– it has long been corroded by the apathy and cold shoulder
of the judiciary itself.
Oplan
Bantay Laya
It
appeared that many summiteers were prepared with their inputs for
the agenda toward a “holistic” solution to the killings,
whether in terms of strengthening the judicial power or in making
sure that the victims’ constitutional rights are protected.
This was not going to be easy, however. Those representing the Arroyo
government’s security agencies used the occasion as yet another
battlefield of their Oplan Bantay Laya: to “win the hearts
and minds” of the summit, with a bag of counter-punches against
the Left particularly the human rights alliance Karapatan often
delivered with arrogance and chutzpah. The powerpoint presentations
during the plenary and declarations mouthed in many workshops on
the second day spoke of their avowed role in defending the state
against its enemies reminding participants that the killings should
be seen in the context of an internal conflict. One begins to comprehend
why government’s counter-insurgency is a wrong strategy because
it is premised on the erroneous definition of the problem: The main
problem, it was said repeatedly in the workshop skirmishes, is insurgency.
The
men in uniform appeared to have missed what various presidents had
admitted - after realizing they could not defeat the armed Left
with guns alone - that unless fundamental problems of poverty and
injustice are rooted out the armed struggle will continue. Jose
Almonte, a former guerilla hunter and national security adviser
of former President Fidel V. Ramos, admonished his fellow officers
in the summit that to defeat insurgency they must engage the rebels
with better ideas and not with bullets. He should have also asked
them to re-read Carl von Clausewitz: War is first and foremost a
political war.
In
the end, the cooler heads and rational minds prevailed leaving the
self-anointed “security doctrinaires” sounding more
like musketeers than summiteers. Among many other proposals, the
summit members sought to expand the Commission on Human Rights’
(CHR) prosecution powers; adopt international laws on command responsibility
and determine how the state can be held liable for damages; empower
investigators to search government/private premises for victims
of enforced disappearances; make killings of activists, journalists,
lawyers and judges a new crime; the review of state’s military
approach to the armed struggle and the resumption of peace talks
between the government and the National Democratic Front of the
Philippines (NDFP).
Many
of the proposals seemed congruent with some of the measures that
CJ Puno and company had in mind in line with infusing judicial intervention
in an issue that cannot be addressed by the judiciary’s co-equal
branches, by reason of complicity or default. Yet, the soundness
of the proposals should be measured not just in their validity but
in the fruits they are expected to bear. Reform is fine where there
is least resistance; in the historic struggles of the poor and victims
of human rights violations, the reforms that cry out to be heard
have either fallen on deaf ears or been muted with reprisals by
the state’s reactionary institutions. Congress is the crafter
of laws that mangle constitutionally-enshrined rights and liberties,
the latest being the much-condemned Human Security Act. First to
break the law, the office of the President will, come hell or high
water, pre-empt any move that would place it under the doctrine
of command responsibility.
Institutional
collision course
Given
these circumstances, can CJ Puno steer the course of judicial activism
aware that this will put the high tribunal on an institutional collision
course with the President and the oligarchs in Congress? Can he
rally the entire criminal justice system, along with its prosecutors
and magistrates, to help bring coherence to this crusade? Can he
put real substance and momentum to his “holistic” strategy
against the sadistic violence of the state – of which the
judiciary is part?
On
a positive note, the first step taken by the judiciary toward the
search for justice and redress has been done. It is a good enough
move that warrants a shove by all non-state institutions and organizations
struggling for a just and humane society. There is no room, however,
for entertaining any illusion that the work can bear meaningful
results in this generation. More arduous steps need to be taken.

Home
/ Programs and Projects / About
us / Contact us / Site
map / Partners / Links
Telefax +6329299526 email: cenpeg@cenpeg.org; cenpeg.info@gmail.com;
cenpeg2k4@yahoo.com
Copyright 2005 Center for People Empowewrment in Governance (CenPEG),
Philippines. All rights reserved |