v11n0203

“
The victim’s
story was scrutinized
against the
information that the
UN had obtained
in order to find
inconsistencies and
cast doubts.
10
”
not only do police fail to act to investigate complaints, but
also they do nothing to protect complainants who face threats of
repercussions for daring to not remain silent in the face of heavy
oppression and violence. Florence manegdeg, wife of a human
rights defender Jose “Pepe” manegdeg who was murdered in
2005, had her repeated requests for protection and investigation
ignored (Story 65). After her husband was killed, Florence and
her children were the objects of overt surveillance and threats
because she demanded a thorough police investigation about the
involvement of the military in the murder. Despite her and the
AhRC’s repeated appeals to provide her with protection, she has
received none. She did not even get a copy of the final report by
the task force set up to investigate her husband’s case. Later, a
witness who said that he saw a soldier kill the victim withdrew
his testimony due to fear and lack of protection (see the statement
by the AhRC: AS-282-2007; and, open letter: OL-029- 2007).
Aurora Broquil, Emily Fajardo and Francisco honra also had
been receiving threats but did not receive any form of protection
from the police (Story 21). The victims did report the threats
because of their campaigning against the operation of a nuclear
power plant; however, police neither investigated nor provided
them with adequate protection. The same police unit where they
had to make their complaint had in the past been involved in
illegally arresting, detaining and torturing their colleagues.
In the case of Dante Senillo (Story 47), a labour activist who
received threats on his life, the police investigated in response
to interventions from the Special Rapporteur on the Situation
of human Rights Defenders of the united nations. however,
their investigation was neither to identify who made the threats
nor provide Dante with adequate protection. Rather, he was
questioned about how the un obtained information about his case,
and the victim’s story was scrutinized against the information
that the UN had obtained in order to find inconsistencies and
cast doubts. Subsequently the police failed to provide him with
protection, but the threats against him waned.
under public pressure to be seen to be acting, police sometimes
go to the extent of filing fictitious and fabricated complaints to satisfy
people that somebody had been arrested, charged and prosecuted.
In the case of Carlito getrosa (Story 74), police investigators
lodged a complaint without her mother,s consent. They forged her
signature so that they could proceed promptly with the filing of a
murder complaint and declare the case “solved”. In a case like this
one, the fabrication of a complainant’s signature speaks to a larger
culture of fabricating of charges and evidence that pervades the
work of the police in the Philippines, as illustrated in the case of
Edgar Candule (Story 37). In his case, the police illegally arrested
and searched his house without court orders. On paper, it is an
inviolable right of citizens under section 2 and 3 of article 3 in the
1987 Constitution of the Philippines to be “secure in their persons,
houses”; but in reality this inviolable right is meaningless. Police
routinely conduct illegal searches and use “evidence” allegedly
collected during the search against the accused.
article 2 � June-Sept 2012 Vol. 11, No. 2-3