of the Philippines the criminal justice system is - Article 2

merely one step in the lengthy criminal justice process: a process that is established
in order to safely determine guilt and measure punishment. Unfortunately, in the
Philippines today this is a little-understood notion among the country’s police.
The Asian Human Rights Commission calls upon the Philippine National Police to
cease with the absurd notion that cases are solved when they are filed in court
and calls upon the police to recognise the responsibilities incumbent upon them
throughout the entire justice process. It calls upon the police to recognise their
special responsibilities to witnesses and families of the victims of extrajudicial
killings. And it calls upon the government of the Philippines to dispense with petty
and meaningless notions of efficiency and get serious about the relentless murders
of community and peasant leaders, journalists, human rights defenders, clergy
and others that are going on with its tacit approval. Ending the killings is a matter
of policy. If the government decides to act, if the police decide to play their role
responsibly rather than fraudulently, then it can be done. If not it will be subject to
growing international censure over its inaction, and growing suspicions that it
has no interest in protecting the lives of its citizens.
officials
acknowledge
the importance
of protecting
witnesses but
fail to do
anything
about it....
“
”
Non-existent victim and witness protection
Most victims of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines have
had threats on their lives beforehand; some already having
survived earlier attacks. Those who seek protection are frustrated
by the unresponsiveness of state agencies that supposedly have
obligations to assist in such instances. Many end up dead. Human
rights lawyer Norman Bocar was killed in Eastern Visayas on 1
September 2005 (story 69), after seeking protection from the local
police because of threats on his life. The police did nothing to
assist; nor were they ever held responsible for their inaction.
Section 3 of the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act
(RA 6981) provides that any person who has “witnessed or has
knowledge or information on the commission of a crime” can be
admitted for witness protection provided that,
(c) He or any member of his family [has been] subjected to threats to his
life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced,
intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to
testify falsely, or evasively, because or on account of his testimony.
To the extent that a system of police protection exists under
this provision, it works for the rich and powerful with police
contacts needing security against persons other than the police
themselves. Policemen stationed on protection duty expect to be
fed and perhaps housed or transported by the person they are
protecting: easy enough for the wealthy, but often impossible for
ordinary victims. Their commanders need to be convinced that
the threats against the person are real: easy enough for
influential persons, but again often impossible for ordinary
victims. And police are no protection against other police, as the
family of Hernan Baria knows (story 19). They have been living
in fear of both the armed men working for a local landowner and
12
article 2 • February 2007 Vol. 6, No. 1