Torturers and their
victims: how the Anti-torture law is failing, and why
A Statement by the Asian
Human Rights Commission
August 29, 2013
After 22 years of advocacy and lobbying, the Philippines enacted the
Anti-Torture Law in November 2009. This law is not an ordinary law.
The Philippines became the first country in Southeast Asia to enact a
domestic law on torture. In effect, this law means the country commits
itself legally to the international community to enforce the
principles of jus cogens or peremptory norm. It means freedom from
torture is an absolute right.
Nearly four years after the law was enforced, no one from the police,
military or public civil service, found to have committed acts of
torture, was convicted for violating the Anti-Torture Law. There was
also no consideration given to the severity of the physical and
psychological pain they inflicted upon their victims. Regardless, of
who the torturers were and who their victims were, none of the torture
cases resulted in just punishment under this law.
The AHRC has concluded that, in the Philippines, torture forms part of
the security apparatus and is used as a method to investigate and to
impose social control. It is perceived by the government de facto as
needed and required; therefore, whether torture is accepted as a jus
cogens norm by the international community or the country's
constitution and domestic law, it doesn’t really matter. The police,
military and public officials are expected to torture in violation of
their suspects' right to due process. The norm has been: not to
torture suspects is psychologically unthinkable.
This is not an exaggeration. After examining the cases that the AHRC
has carefully documented and analysed after the Anti-torture Law was
enforced, a pattern was observed. How and why the practice of torture
continues to be part of the fabric of Filipino society with or without
a law, is obvious.
No accountability for not investigating
Not to investigate a complaint of torture is very common. The absence
of any sort of accountability by investigating bodies is not seen as
anything wrong. This would include neglect, failure and inability to
investigate as would be expected. By law, any public official could be
laid with administrative charges for not performing their duty. But,
in practice, not to investigate is the norm, rather than the
exception.
If a victim or their family files an administrative case against the
officials of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or the Public
Attorney Office (PAO), for not investigating a complaint, they would
be further ignored. A recent example is the public torture committed
by a former Mayor of Manila, Alfredo Lim. In this case, it means the
torture victims and their families, in practice, have to wait until
these agencies are good and ready to investigate and finally do their
job.
Excessive delay in investigation
And even when the complaint is investigated, the completion
requirement of 60 days for the investigation never happens. The case
of Darius Evangelista, a victim whose torture was caught on video in
2010, has taken over a year to be completed. In comparison to other
torture cases, the progress of this case is quicker than usual, simply
because of public pressure urging that the policemen involved be
punished.
In other cases we have documented, from December 2009 onwards, the
agencies investigating these cases have yet to conclude any of their
investigations. Thus, the precedent established so far on the length
of a torture investigation to reach a conclusion, appears to be one
year at the earliest. It explains why, the CHR and PAO, could afford
to ignore demands to have former Manila Mayor Lim investigated for
torture two months ago.
No protection to victims and their families
The lack of complaint of torture does not mean there are no cases of
torture. Torture victims and their families choose not to complain for
fear of reprisals together with the absence of protection during the
process of complaint making. In the case of John Paul Nerio, a boy who
was tortured in police custody in December 2010, he and his family
decided to withdraw their complaint because of lack of protection.
There is a law which protects witnesses, as envisaged under the
Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act; however, this law only
protects witnesses, not the complainants or their family members.
Thus, once victims and their families face threats, their protection
would still, as it exists in the present structures, come from the
institution who committed the torture: the police. In the case of
Nerio, it did not work because in his remote area there are only a few
policemen. And most of those accused in his case already formed nearly
half of the police force in his community.
Distorted interpretation of the crime of torture
Under the Anti-Torture Law, an act of torture is defined in line with
the Convention against Torture (CAT), which means inflicting physical
and psychological pain on a victim for purposes of extracting a
confession. But the investigators, prosecutors and the judges put a
personal interpretation on the violation of torture which effectively
defeats any sort of remedy to eliminate torture. Some of examples are:
In Nerio's case, the PAO lawyer refused to prosecute this as a
criminal case of torture because he could not see any 'political
motivation' as to why the police would torture the boy. Torture is
political for this lawyer. The boy is an ordinary person who was not
involved in any kind of political activism; therefore, for this
lawyer, what the victim suffered could not be torture. This is despite
compelling evidence that pain was inflicted to force a confession.
In the case of Lenin and others, the prosecutor refused to indict the
policemen in a criminal case of torture. The reason they gave was
this: the victims, blindfolded when taken into police custody and
tortured, failed to see with their own eyes who perpetrated the
torture on them. The prosecutor deliberately ignored other materials
and circumstantial evidence that could have led to the indictment of
the policemen involved in the torture.
These are only a few of the many observations that the AHRC has
surfaced by examining the cases of torture since the Anti-Torture Law
was enforced. We are deeply concerned about how fast the enforcement
of this law is deteriorating. If the violators of the Anti-Torture Law
are not punished, the absolute freedom from torture, and the
Constitutional and Statutory right not to be tortured, would continue
to be meaningless.