of the Philippines the criminal justice system is - Article 2

The AHRC highlighted the case in a statement of 18 January
2006 dismissing the claims of the Philippine government to
improved law enforcement:
In its 2005 Accomplishment Report released on its official website, the
government of the Philippines claims to have worked “to improve the
operational effectiveness of law enforcement agencies”. Exactly what
this means remains unclear, as the government backs its remarks only
with a handful of vague statistics that say nothing of reality and the
challenges the country faces in addressing the very deep institutional
problems associated with building the rule of law there.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is aware that most
serious criminal cases in the Philippines are inadequately investigated.
In most cases perpetrators are not identified, usually due to the absence
of witnesses and the lack of forensic and scientific investigation
techniques. Despite the Act for Witness Protection, Security and Benefit
(Republic Act 6981), witnesses to acts of murder and other grave crimes
in the Philippines know full well that they risk the same fate if they dare
to come forward with information. While this is especially the case in
the unabated killings of human rights defenders and social activists,
flagrant targetted killings of ordinary criminal suspects--such as petty
criminals in Davao and Cebu--are also on the rise, sometimes with the
public endorsement of local officials.
Letters to the AHRC repeatedly speak to the failure of police to obtain
witnesses even in crimes where the victims are killed in busy
marketplaces or houses occupied by the families of victims, and to the
fact that this problem is recognised but not addressed by the authorities.
For instance, in one letter from 2005 Marcelo Ele Jr., Police Director of
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Directorate for Investigation and
Detective Management, said that no witnesses had come forward in the
killings of Ernesto Bang and Joel Reyes for fear of reprisal. This is despite
the fact that Bang was shot at the front door to his house with his family
inside, and Reyes was shot dead in a public a market. After Dario Oresca,
a witness to the murder of Reyes was found, he too was killed. He had
received no protection.
Even where a case is filed in court, prolonged delays cause greater and
greater risks both to the witnessess and the case itself, an issue strongly
adverted to in the chapter on the Philippines in the AHRC’s recentlyreleased
State of Human Rights in Ten Asian Nations—2005 report. There
is little evidence that the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR)
adopted by the Supreme Court in December 2000, which includes in its
mandate the speedy processing of cases, is making much headway, and
it continues to lack adequate funding from the government.
As a consequence, more and more Filipinos are taking the law into their
own hands. The loss of trust and confidence in the police and judiciary
among victims seeking justice, and implied approval of murders by
government officials demonstrate the country’s deteriorating law and
order and give little cause for surprise when people go outside the law
to resolve disputes and seek vengeance.
All of this indicates the extent to which the government of the Philippines
has disregarded its international obligations. In its concluding
observations on the state’s compliance with the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights of December 1, 2003, the U.N. Human Rights
Committee urged that, “The State party should ensure that all allegations
of torture are effectively and promptly investigated by an independent
“
it’s a huge
disgrace that this
is still going on at
this day and age—
stop the killing!
—Josephine Ho, Taiwan”
article 2 • February 2007 Vol. 6, No. 1 83