of the Philippines the criminal justice system is - Article 2

“
PHOTO: REUTERS
some members of the
AFP have been involved
in the deaths of some
members of militant
”
organisations .. .
—AFP Chief, General
Hermogenes Esperon
General Palparan’s statements and cavalier attitude
towards the killings inevitably reveals that he has no
qualms about the killing of those whom he considers his
enemies, whether by his order or done by his men
independently. He mentions that if his men kill civilians
suspected of [communist] connections, “it is their call,”
obviously meaning that it is up to them to do so. This
gives the impression that he may not order the killings,
but neither will he order his men to desist from doing
so. Under the doctrine of command responsibility,
General Palparan admitted his guilt of the said crimes
when he made this statement. Worse, he admittedly offers
encouragement and “inspiration” to those who may have
been responsible for the killings.
According to the Philippine Inquirer of January 30,
these findings led to recognition by the armed forces
chief, General Hermogenes Esperon, that “some
members of the AFP have been involved in the deaths
of some members of militant organizations”.
Additionally, before the Melo Commission he “refused
to categorically state that the AFP has absolutely
nothing to do with the killings of activists, as such
[a] statement might be too presumptuous”.
Notwithstanding, the police investigate such
incidents with an eye on proving that the killings
are perpetrated by rebels, or are the result of
“legitimate operations”, rather than to gather
evidence with which to identify and prosecute the
perpetrators. In Palo, Leyte, eight villagers died—
including a seven-month-pregnant woman—when
soldiers opened fire at a house that they claimed was
used by rebels (story 66). The incident was described
as a legitimate encounter with armed groups, rather
than a massacre.
Police in Palo conducted investigations on the basis of the
military’s account, and filed fabricated charges of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions against surviving
victims, who were described in the police report as “captured
enemies”. In November 2006 the court dismissed the case as
“the prosecution failed to establish the ownership or possession
of any of the guns by the accused”; i.e., they had been planted.
Although the victims were exonerated, none of the actual
perpetrators has ever been held to account. Notwithstanding,
multiple murder charges were lodged against the soldiers on 21
November 2006, one year after the incident. The police involved
in producing false investigation reports have not been held
accountable.
The investigation function is thus completely perverted,
directed towards justifying and explaining away killings rather
than punishing and stopping them. And under any
circumstances, if indeed the police and justice department had
proof that the killings have been perpetrated by rebels, still they
22
article 2 • February 2007 Vol. 6, No. 1