Inability to protect
has created a 'parallel system'
A Statement by the
Asian Human Rights Commission on the Occasion of the International
Human Rights Day
December 10, 2011
The Asian Human Rights
Commission (AHRC) today published its 25-page report containing its
analyses on what it has observed as the irreparable 'social and
systemic impact' of the ongoing violations of human rights in the
country. The government remains incapable of providing the most
rudimentary forms of protection to its people despite the growing
intolerance of the public towards human rights violations. On the
other hand the improvements in the legal framework to protect rights,
has created the situation where despite the laws being in place to
protect the citizens they resort to an emerging 'parallel system' from
which they now seek remedies and redress.
The full report is
available for download at
http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/hrreport/2011/AHRC-SPR-009-2011/view.
The ongoing phenomenon
of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, with the
government admitting to the poor record of convictions, raises a
serious question as to whether the country's justice system is capable
of ensuring the protection of rights. While there remains the shared
perception in the notion of justice and democratic space victims are
rapidly losing confidence in the institutions of justice. They no long
see the importance of registering complaints.
For the possibility of
a remedy to be obtained, 'complainants' and their 'complaints' are two
indispensable elements in order that the process of seeking justice,
remedies and redress could take its course. However, due to the
government's failure to, for example, ensure those responsible for
killings and disappearance are held to account, the importance of
investigations, prosecution and the adjudication of cases in court,
has been severely questioned by victims and their families in recent
times.
Here, police
investigations, because of its flaws, themselves becomes the obstacle
in seeking possibilities of remedies and redress; the prosecution,
because of its apparent vulnerability to political control and public
pressure, becomes a political tool rather than a method of pursuing
the violations of victims' rights; and the court, because of its
failure to ensure cases are resolved promptly, has become complicit in
the deprivation of the possibilities of remedies.
As a result, when the
complainants file their complaints they do so without the expectation
that it will result in to something. This increasing absence of
confidence in the system of justice: the police, the prosecutors and
the courts, has resulted in victims resorting to a 'parallel system'.
Here, the report observes the phenomenon of 'remedy by publicity'.
By way of remedy by
publicity, possibilities of remedies or redress are there depending on
how the victims or their families apply pressure to influence public
opinion for the government to take action in their favour. Witnesses
or complainants at risk now prefer to expose their risk to
journalists, rather than to the police for them to investigate and to
provide protection; torture victims who are illegally detained,
tortured and falsely charged would rather employ public pressure for
their release than legal action.
In some parts of the
country, particularly in conflict areas such as Mindanao, the military
has virtually assumed civilian police powers and these go
unchallenged. In these areas, the notion of civilian policing,
civilian power above the military and due process hardly operates
because of the military's complete disregard to due process and
legality. This practice has since become commonplace to the point
where it obscures what is legal and what is illegal. Also, the
military establishment has been intruding into the civilian's way of
life unchallenged, on the pretext of terrorism and insurgency.
It explains the
practice of soldiers inspecting people before they board public buses,
in entering commercial establishments and conducting operations, not
in conflict areas, but in the urban areas heavily populated by
civilians. However, the tolerance, by way of agreement and
memorandums, by local elected officials, has justified the ongoing
intrusion of the military establishment into the people's civilian
life.
Thus, this practice
has also obscured who are the police and not the police. The military
establishment, by the day, has obtained a certain legal or a de facto
legitimacy in their practice of routinely arresting, detaining,
torturing and investigating persons under duress, with complete
disregard to rules of criminal procedures. The courts tolerance of
their practice has also cemented the military's authority and control
over, not only of the police, but also in ordinary way of life of the
Filipinos.
The AHRC has observed
this is probably because; firstly, this practice has become heavily
embedded as a social norm--meaning, there is nothing new in it. Also
the widespread arbitrariness and disregard to elementary due process
and legality that protects the rights is lacking if not completely
absent. There must be a substantive discourse on the irreparable
impact of how the flawed country's system of justice operates to this
day.
The AHRC therefore
urges a discourse on the protection of rights by examining how the
country's system of justice actually functions when compared to how it
should function. The discussion should be more than a mere description
of the violations but rather raise questions as to why these
violations are taking place.
The full report is
available for download at
http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/hrreport/2011/AHRC-SPR-009-2011/view.