Crimes of impunity in the Philippines: Ynares-Santiago paper

In a paper presented by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago at the Conference on Political Killings and the Rule of Law – the Philippine Example, held on May 8- 9, 2008 at the Katholische Academie “Hotel Aquino” in Berlin, Germany, entitled “Impunity and the Constitution: POWER AND POLITICAL WILL”, she made the following points:

1. The Judiciary has always been looked upon as the last bulwark of constitutional rights and liberties. However, traditionally, it has also been the most passive of the three branches of government, acting only on cases and controversies brought before it for adjudication. It therefore came as a surprise to many observers, both national and international, that the Philippine Supreme Court has taken an active (or, as some would say, activist) role in addressing the alarming rise of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances of political activists, journalists, and judges in the Philippines.

2. In the wake of a disturbing wave of unexplained killings of civilian activists and media personnel, and to put an end to these, which have been stalking our legal landscape, our Supreme Court issued on 1 March 2007 Administrative Order No. 25-2007, designating 99 regional trial courts across the country to “specially and preferentially” hear, try, and decide cases involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. 23 RTCs have been designated in the National Capital Judicial Region or in the metropolis, and 76 in the remaining 12 Judicial Regions or the suburbs. These special courts were ordered to conduct mandatory continuous trial for at most 60 days, after which judgment should be rendered within 30 days.

3. Philippine Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno first broached of the idea of re-examining Philippine legal procedures and strengthening the role of the Judiciary in solving the worsening problem of killings during a talk with journalists in Hong Kong on 7 June 2007, on the sidelines of the 12th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific. Thus, a month later, the Supreme Court hosted the National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances – Searching for Solutions. Around 400 delegates representing the three branches of government, including nearly every high-ranking government bureaucrat and official, human rights organizations, the military and the police, civil society, the media, the academe, the religious sector, and the international community, attended the two-day event.

4. One of the proposals gathered in the Summit was the adoption by the High Court of the writ of amparo. Equipped with the power to promulgate rules to protect and enforce rights guaranteed by the fundamental law, which power lay in deep hibernation for two decades, the Supreme Court En Banc, in just two months, promulgated and approved on 25 September 2007 the Rule on the Writ of Amparo which took effect on 24 October 2007.

5. Just recently, on 22 January 2008, the Supreme Court promulgated the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data. It is the latest legal mechanism implemented both as an independent remedy to enforce the right to informational privacy and the complementary “right to truth” as well as an additional remedy to protect the right to life, liberty, or security of a person.

6. We have identified some of the problems: lack of competent investigators, deficient evidence-gathering techniques and equipment, insufficient prosecutors and lawyers of the Public Attorney’s Office, reluctance of families of the victims and witnesses to report the commission of a crime and testify in court, failure of some courts to conduct continuous trial, limitations of the Rules of Court, difficult balance between due process and expeditious justice, lack of funding and incomplete implementation of the Witness Protection Program, if not the deficiencies of the Program itself, and the sheer poverty of the victims in some cases.

7. The justices and judges who have decided cases involving the Writ of Amparo have also encountered a number of challenges. Since cases involving the Writ of Amparo should be decided in the course of 10 days, justices are hard-pressed for time. And since it is a new remedy in our jurisdiction, there is no precedent or jurisprudence which may be cited in deciding the cases speedily. Moreover, some petitioners file a case for the writ even if it is not the proper remedy which adds to the workload of the judges. But while the institutional and systemic problems remain, the results are still quite encouraging, to say the least. As of 15 April 2008, a total of 31 petitions for the writ of amparo have been filed. Out of the 31 petitions, 14 have been decided: 5 were granted, while 9 were either dismissed or withdrawn. On the other hand, the nine dismissed cases appear to have been terminated for justifiable reasons. With regard to petitions for the writ of habeas data, three petitions have so far been recorded and are still pending before our courts.

8. These numbers show us two things: first is the people’s increased awareness and understanding of the remedies that have been made available to them; second is their restored faith in our judicial institution and the justice system as a whole. Less quantifiable but an equally important sequel is the heightened consciousness of our people on the sanctity of human rights, particularly on the part of our law enforcers and state agents. I understand that there have been marked changes in the way our field commanders conduct their operations, now with extra keenness on the observance of human rights.

Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.