of the Philippines the criminal justice system is - Article 2

the blind eye
turned to human
rights is holding
us back as a
nation—targeting
individuals
protecting
laborers’ rights is
an unwelcome
throw-back to the
Marcos-era...
—Eduardo Reyes, UK
“
”
112
Investigators from the Commission on Human Rights regional
office (CHR XII) in General Santos City interviewed Buisan on 4
January 2006 at the reformatory centre, but did not inform the
family of progress in their enquiries or give other assistance.
Buisan’s father, Lamba, was reportedly denied copies of
documents related to the case. Nor was any attention paid to the
medical or rehabilitation needs of the victim.
On 13 January 2006, the Regional Trial Court Branch 35
postponed the arraignment of Buisan, after finding that his name
is indeed different from that on the charge sheet. On January
17 Regional Trial Court Judge Oscar Noel ordered a
reinvestigation into the case.
In a letter received by the AHRC dated 10 January 2006,
Orlando Casimiro, deputy ombudsman for the Office of the
Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Office
said that their Fact Finding Investigation Bureau would conduct
an enquiry into the matter.
In reply to an open letter from the AHRC (AHRC-OL-004-2006;
see Appendix III), Senior Superintendent Toroctocon also told the
media that any assault on Buisan would be justified, because he
had lied. He repeatedly insisted that Buisan and Ariel Bansalao
are the same. He made similar claims in a letter to the AHRC,
about which the following statement was issued on March 16:
In a letter dated 21 January 2006, the City Director of the General Santos
City Police Office (GSCPO), Senior Superintendent Alfredo Toroctocon
wrote to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to deny
allegations by torture victim Haron Abubakar Buisan against his men.
Buisan accused Toroctocon’s men of brutally beating him following his
arrest on 12 December 2005. While in police custody and being
investigated, Buisan was allegedly repeatedly kicked, beaten with a stone
and denied access to legal counsel.
Although not referring directly to Buisan’s case, Toroctocon wrote in his
letter that a “justifiable degree of force” can be used as part of the police’s
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to immobilise a person upon his
arrest. A reliable source further quoted him in media interviews stating
that the harm inflicted upon Buisan was normal because he was a liar. He
further claimed the Miranda Doctrine, within which is respect for the
suspect’s right to remain silent and to have access to a lawyer, was
observed during the victim’s arrest.
Additionally, Toroctocon repeatedly insisted that Buisan and Ariel
Bansalao, a person wanted for robbing a bus in April 2005, were the
same person. Although the court has yet to rule whether or not the
victim’s claims that his arrest was a result of mistaken identity, Toroctocon
has already stated publicly that Buisan and Bansalao are one.
Whether Buisan and Bansalao are the same person or not, the AHRC
maintains that this does not give authority nor a level of immunity to
the arresting officers of the GSCPO to torture the victim. If indeed they
have proof of the alleged crime that the victim is supposed to have
committed, then the use of torture should still in now way be used. Only
the court has the authority to impose punishments on people accused of
committing crimes. Any punishment done outside of the court’s order,
is an arbitrary use of authority and therefore a serious violation of a
person’s constitutional and human rights.
article 2 • February 2007 Vol. 6, No. 1