U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–811 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–290

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN THE PHILIPPINES:

STRATEGIES TO END THE VIOLENCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN

AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 14, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARBARA BOXER, California

BILL NELSON, Florida

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania

JIM WEBB, Virginia

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota

BOB CORKER, Tennessee

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN

AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois

JIM WEBB, Virginia

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, opening statement ............ 1

Farrar, Jonathan D., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Department of State, Washington, DC ........ 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Hilao-Enriquez, Marie, secretary general, Alliance for the Advancement of

People’s Rights in the Philippines (KARAPATAN), Quezon City, Philippines ................................................................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

John, Eric G., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific

Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC ................................................. 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Response to question submitted by Senator Lugar ....................................... 57

Kumar, T., advocacy director for Asia and the Pacific, Amnesty International,

USA, Washington, DC ......................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Martin, G. Eugene, executive director, Philippine Facilitation Project, U.S.

Institute of Peace, Washington, DC ................................................................... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska, opening statement .............. 3

Pascua, Bishop Eliezer, general secretary, the United Church of Christ in

the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines ......................................................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Alston, Professor Phillip, Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Human Rights

Council on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions—Summary Report, Manila, February 21, 2007 ......................................................................... 53

Gaa, Hon. Willy C., Philippine Ambassador to the United States, prepared

statement .............................................................................................................. 51

Responses of Eric John and Jonathan Farrar to questions submitted by Senator Norm Coleman ............................................................................................. 58

(III)

(1)

EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN THE PHILIPPINES: STRATEGIES TO END THE VIOLENCE

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Boxer, Webb, and Murkowski.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Senator BOXER. Good afternoon, everybody. I’m Senator Barbara

Boxer and I am the Chair of the Subcommittee on East Asian and

Pacific Affairs. I’m very pleased to be here, chairing my first hearing. I know there are many people interested in this.

I’m sure you know the rules of the committee are that we want

everyone to be respectful of all the witnesses and that means that

we don’t have any yelling or screaming or clapping or booing or

hissing or cheering.

And I’m very, very pleased that we are having today’s hearing.

It’s very important. We’re going to run a very tight ship here.

We’re going to keep our witnesses to 5 minutes. And when you’re

about there, I will tell you to summarize. And we will, of course,

place your entire statement in the record, and we will accept—we

may well send you some questions if time runs out, because we

need to stop at 5 to 4.

So we’ll be getting a lot accomplished here in a relatively short

period of time. I do expect Senator Murkowski to join us shortly.

And when she does, I will turn to her at the appropriate time for

her opening statement, if she has one.

Well, I’m sure most of you know that today the Senate Foreign

Relations Subcommittee meets to investigate reports of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, and examine strategies to help

end the violence there. The people of the United States and the

Philippines enjoy a very close relationship and friendship that is

deeply valued on both sides. Our nations have a strong bond that’s

supported and celebrated by 3 million Americans of Philippine ancestry that live in the United States today. And I am proud to say

that more than 1 million Filipino-Americans have made California

their home.

2

I, myself, visited the Philippines while I was a member of the

House of Representatives. It was just after Marcos was overthrown

and Cory Aquino became the leader. It was a very exciting time.

It was 1986. So I, myself, feel very strong ties to the hopes,

dreams, and aspirations of the people of the Philippines and of all

their family members that I represent in California.

During World War II, 100,000 soldiers from the Philippine Commonwealth Army fought along side United States and allied forces

in the Pacific. Today United States military forces are working

with the Philippine Armed Forces to combat Abu Sayyaf, an

Islamist terrorist organization responsible for many acts of violence, including the beheading of one of my constituents in 2001.

Maintaining strong bilateral ties is very important to both our

nations. And it’s in that spirit that we address extrajudicial killings

in the Philippines. And before I forget to do it, I want to place into

the record the statement submitted by the Philippine Ambassador

to the United States, Willy Gaa. So, we will place that in the

record.

Over the past 6 years, hundreds of such killings have taken place

throughout the Philippines. Those targeted have included journalists, religious leaders, political figures, human rights activists, and

union leaders. For too long the Government of the Philippines has

not taken sufficient action, in my opinion, to address extrajudicial

killings and bring those responsible to justice.

Last August, pressure from international human rights groups,

foreign governments, and political leaders forced the government of

President Arroyo to launch an investigation into the killings that

was headed by retired Supreme Court Justice, Jose Melo. The Melo

Commission Report, which was made public last month, found that

the killings of activists appear to be part of, ‘‘an orchestrated plan,’’

and that the Philippine National Police has made little progress in

investigating or prosecuting cases.

Last month, after a 10-day fact-finding mission to the Philippines, Phillip Alston, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial

Summary or Arbitrary Executions, released a statement in which

he said the Philippine Armed Forces were, ‘‘In a state of almost

total denial,’’ on the need to address, ‘‘the significant number of

killings which have been convincingly attributed to them.’’ And

that a ‘‘culture of impunity’’ exists between the Philippine Justice

System. In response, the Philippine Government has issued statements vowing to solve the killings. But, it remains to be seen if

these words will be followed by real and tangible actions.

I am pleased that the U.S. Ambassador in Manila, Kristie

Kenney, has offered the support of the United States to stop these

murders and bring those guilty to justice.

Today, we welcome to the committee two members of the U.S.

State Department to share additional details about the United

States offer of assistance, and the response of the Philippine Government.

Mr. Eric John is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East

Asian and Pacific Affairs. And Mr. Jonathan Farrar is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human

Rights, and Labor.

3

We will also be joined by a distinguished second panel of nongovernmental witnesses to discuss this issue. We will hear from

Mr. T. Kumar, who’s the advocacy director for Amnesty International. In August 2006, Amnesty International released a report

on the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, which included a series of important recommendations to end the violence, and guarantee justice for the victims.

Mr. G. Eugene Martin, executive director of the Philippine Facilitation Project at the U.S. Institute of Peace is a former Foreign

Service officer who served twice in the Philippines. First, as a political military officer and later as Deputy Chief of Mission. Mr. Martin will share his thoughts on the root causes of violence in the

Philippines and prospects for a peaceful settlement.

Finally, we are joined by two witnesses from the Philippines,

Bishop Eliezer—if I mangle this name, please forgive me—Pascua,

is that right? Pascua, is the general secretary of the United Church

of Christ in the Philippines. More than a dozen workers from his

church have been killed in violence since 2001.

Ms. Marie Hilao-Enriquez, is the general secretary of

KARAPATAN, a human rights organization in the Philippines

which estimates that more than 800 people have lost their lives to

extrajudicial violence since 2001. And we know that there’s debate

about this number, but we will look into it, try to get to the bottom

of it.

Now I want to turn to my really dear friend, ranking member of

this subcommittee, Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the former

chairman, has extensive expertise in the region. I do look forward

to working with you, Senator, during the 110th Congress, and I

turn to you now for your opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S.

SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and I do

not have a detailed statement this afternoon. I’m looking forward

to the testimony of the witnesses.

I appreciate your leadership on this issue and bringing it before

the subcommittee. I, too, look forward to working with you on

issues of concern within the region. We’ve had opportunities in the

past to have Mr. John before the subcommittee; a great deal of expertise there to offer us.

But it is, it is a region—I think it’s fair to say—that if there are

hotspots outside of the Middle East it is in this region of East Asia

and the Pacific. And the hearing that we have this afternoon, I

think, is just the beginning of many where hopefully we will be

able to shine that spotlight, not only on the issue, but move

proactively as a committee to make a positive difference on this

issue and many others.

And so, with that Madame Chairman, I’m eager to hear the comments from the witnesses. I do apologize, I’m not going to be able

to stay for the whole thing, but look forward to working with you

on this issue and others.

Thank you.

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, and I will brief you after this hearing, personally.

4

Mr. John, why don’t you begin and we’ll hold you to 5 minutes

and then we’ll put your whole statement in the record.

STATEMENT OF ERIC G. JOHN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. JOHN. Thank you very much Senator Boxer, Senator Murkowski. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. Let me extend

my congratulations to the new members of the committee, and I

look forward to working with the committee in the future.

I’m also glad to have the opportunity to appear before you today

with my colleague, Mr. Farrar from the Bureau of Democracy,

Rights, and Labor.

Before addressing the main topic of this hearing, I would like to

say a few words about United States-Philippine relations. As you

know, the United States has a long and warm relationship with the

Philippines dating back more than a century. The Philippines is a

vibrant democracy and one of five treaty—United States treaty allies in the Asia Pacific. Our soldiers fought heroically side by side

in World War II and are working together today to combat international terrorism.

The United States is the Philippines largest investor, trading

partner, and provider of foreign assistance. Our relations are

undergirded by significant people-to-people connections in the form

of more than 3 million Filipinos in the United States and more

than 100,000 American citizens living in the Philippines.

Today our Philippine allies are enjoying solid economic growth,

working on a peace agreement with Muslim separatists in

Mindanao and achieving unprecedented success against al-Qaedalinked terrorists responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent

civilians and the gruesome murders of American citizens.

One negative factor in this otherwise positive picture is the increase in reports of extrajudicial killings, the subject of this hearing. Unfortunately, political violence is not a new phenomenon in

the Philippines. Extrajudicial killings committed by the security

forces, the terrorists, New People’s Army, or others were common

during the Marcos dictatorship and have continued—albeit with

less frequency—since that time. However, over the last couple

years we have seen a troubling increase in the reports of these

killings.

As friends and allies, we are concerned about such killings—whoever is responsible—but particularly about allegations that members of the Security Forces have been involved. There’s a range of

numbers of victims, as you noted, but let me state unequivocally

that even one such killing is too many.

We take this problem seriously and are committed to helping our

Philippine allies in bringing those responsible to justice. We are encouraged that President Arroyo has taken several steps to address

this problem, including establishment of a police task force, called

Task Force Usig, to investigate the killings, as well as a commission under leadership of Justice Melo.

The Melo Commission has examined the problem and made recommendations on which the Government acted promptly—has

promptly acted. The Philippine Government has also invited the

5

U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston to inquire into the issue. In our

judgment, these actions represent more than previous Philippine

administrations have taken to address the problem.

Concerning the report of Professor Alston, I would note that his

report cites the Philippine Government’s recognition of the gravity

of the problem. It expresses concern about the views of the Armed

Forces of the Philippines, AFP, regarding the problem, and states

that the various measures ordered by President Arroyo in response

to the Melo Commission Report constitute important first steps,

but much remains to be done.

The Melo Commission Report does conclude that circumstantial

evidence links some elements of the military to the killings, but

given the lack of witnesses there is insufficient evidence to support

successful prosecutions or convictions. The Commission’s recommendations include: Creation of an independent civilian investigative agency, training for prosecutors, creation of special courts

to handle these cases, enhancement of the witness protection program, increasing investigative capabilities of the police, and orientation and training for the security forces.

Moreover, the AFP has directed new human rights training. The

Department of Justice has strengthened and expanded their—

strengthened and expanded the witness protection program, and

the Philippine Supreme Court has established vessel courts to handle the cases.

Now, the steps that the United States Government is taking include an ongoing and dynamic dialog with Philippine officials at all

levels of governments. Not only on the urgent need to address the

immediate problem, but also more broadly on issues of human

rights, rule of law, and law enforcement. United States Embassy

officials vigorously reach out to Philippine contacts in the military,

the law enforcement community, the judiciary, the human rights

sector, and civil society, to make these points and determine new

ways the United States Government could be additionally helpful.

Ambassador Kenney has repeatedly spoken publicly, as well as

at several military venues, against extrajudicial killings, and in advocacy of ensuring that anyone responsible for such a crime faces

justice.

We’ll soon begin a training program for 40 Philippine investigators and prosecutors from the 10 areas of the country with the

most extrajudicial killings to improve their skills and understanding. In addition to the immediate efforts, we have provided

longstanding support to the AFP and Philippine National Police

and Judiciary. And it has included human rights training for those

members. Our support of Philippine defense reform, to strengthen

professional and effective military, law enforcement, and our development assistance does help the Philippines judiciary for case management.

Senator BOXER. Just wrap it up at this point.

Mr. JOHN. Sure. And I just want to assure you that we are committed to working with the Philippine Government, supporting

them, and pushing for resolution of these cases, and an end to the

extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.

[The prepared statement of Mr. John follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC G. JOHN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF

EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Senator Boxer, Senator Murkowski, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the situation in the Philippines. Let me extend my congratulations to the new members of this committee;

I look forward to working with all of you. I am glad to have the opportunity to appear before you with my colleague, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Jonathan

Farrar from the Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and

Labor.

As you know, the United States has a long and warm relationship with the Philippines dating back more than a hundred years. The Philippines is a vibrant democracy, and one of five U.S. treaty allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Our soldiers fought

heroically side by side in World War Two and are working side by side today to combat international terrorism. The United States is the Philippines’ largest investor,

trading partner, and provider of foreign assistance. Our relations are undergirded

by significant people-to-people connections in the form of the more than 3 million

Filipinos resident in the United States and the more than 100,000 American citizens

living in the Philippines.

Today, our Philippine allies are enjoying solid economic growth, working on a

peace agreement with Muslim separatists in Mindanao, looking to bolster their democracy via congressional elections in May, and achieving unprecedented success

against al-Qaeda-linked terrorists responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent

civilians and the gruesome murders of American citizens.

One negative factor in this otherwise positive picture is the increase in reports

of extrajudicial killings, the subject of this hearing. Unfortunately, political violence

is not a new phenomenon in the Philippines. The so-called ‘‘Huk Rebellion’’ in the

1940s and 1950s resulted in thousands of deaths. The Communist New People’s

Army (NPA), a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, has been seeking

the violent overthrow of the government since 1968 and continues to sow violence

and terror in the country.

Extrajudicial killings, committed by the security forces, the NPA, or others, were

common during the Marcos dictatorship, and have continued, albeit with less frequency, since that time. Over the past 1 to 2 years, however, we have seen a troubling increase in reports of extrajudicial killings.

As friends and allies, we are concerned about such killings, whoever is responsible, but particularly about allegations that members of the security forces have

been involved. There is disagreement about the numbers of victims, but of course

even one such killing is too many.

We take this problem seriously and are committed to helping our Philippine allies

in bringing those responsible to justice. We are encouraged by the steps that the

Philippine Government has taken to date, indeed, we judge that no Philippine administration has done as much substantively and institutionally as what this one

has done over the past year, but we will continue to make clear that more progress

is essential and that we stand ready to be of assistance to Philippine authorities.

Addressing extrajudicial killings in a serious, effective way and ensuring that

Philippine authorities bring those responsible to justice is important to our relationship and, of course, to the Philippines’ own democratic development.

We are encouraged that President Arroyo has taken several steps to address this

problem, including establishing a police task force, called Task Force Usig (‘‘to prosecute’’), to investigate the killings and to file charges against the murderers, as well

as a commission under the leadership of former Philippine Supreme Court Justice

Melo. The Melo Commission has examined this problem and made policy recommendations, on which the government has promptly acted. The Philippine Government also invited U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Killings Professor Philip Alston to inquire into the issue.

Concerning the report of U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston, I would note that in his

report he cites the Philippine Government’s recognition of the gravity of the problem, expresses concern about the views of the Armed Forces of the Philippines

(AFP) regarding the problem, and states that the various measures ordered by

President Arroyo in response to the Melo Commission report constitute important

first steps, but much remains to be done.

The Melo Commission report, which was recently released to the public, concludes

that circumstantial evidence links ‘‘some elements’’ of the military to the killings,

but given the lack of witnesses there is insufficient evidence to support successful

prosecutions or convictions; there is no official or sanctioned policy by the military

or its civilian superiors to resort to illegal liquidations; there is no definitive accounting of the actual number of killings, but ‘‘even one is too many’’; the killing

7

of journalists is mostly attributable to reprisals from politicians, warlords, or business interests, rather than agents of the government; and prosecutions have been

more successful when there is a greater willingness of witnesses to testify. The report also states that President Arroyo’s resolve to stop these killings has been made

clear, both in public statements and through actions such as the creation of Task

Force Usig and the Melo Commission itself.

The Commission’s recommendations include: Creation of an independent civilian

investigative agency with authority to execute warrants and make arrests; training

for prosecutors; creation of special courts to handle these cases; enhancement of the

witness protection program; increasing the investigative capabilities of the police;

and orientation and training for security forces.

Following the issuance of the Melo Commission report, the Philippine Government

took several important steps. The AFP has issued a new directive reiterating the

principle of command responsibility and established its own Human Rights Office

to investigate—along with the Philippine Commission on Human Rights—cases in

which involvement by military elements is alleged. The Philippine Department of

Justice strengthened and expanded the government’s witness protection program. At

President Arroyo’s request, the Philippine Supreme Court has established special

courts to handle these cases. President Arroyo also instructed the Philippine Department of Justice and the Presidential Human Rights Committee to prioritize cases

for trials by these special courts. In a statement, President Arroyo said that ‘‘cases

that are strong enough to be brought to court should be prosecuted effectively and

immediately to instill confidence in the process we have put in place,’’ while emphasizing that ‘‘due process is the watchword as we bring these killers to justice.’’

We believe that the Melo report is a useful assessment of scope of the problem

facing the Philippines and measures that can be taken to address it. Our Ambassador in Manila, Kristie Kenney, has stated that the Government of the Philippines

has issued ‘‘a serious action plan and we would be glad to provide assistance in

helping them implement it.’’ She met with the members of the Melo Commission

on March 5 to discuss their next steps and to explore ways the U.S. Government

could be additionally helpful.

The steps that we are taking include an ongoing and dynamic dialog with Philippine officials at all levels of government on issues of human rights, rule of law,

and law enforcement. U.S. Embassy officials vigorously reach out to Philippine contacts in the military, the law enforcement community, the judiciary, the human

rights sector, and civil society to make these points and to determine new ways the

U.S. Government could be additionally helpful. In this dialog, we have reiterated

our concerns over extrajudicial killings and strongly urged Philippine officials to

take additional steps such as those recommended by the Melo Commission. Ambassador Kenney has repeatedly spoken publicly as well as at several military venues

against extrajudicial killings and in advocacy of ensuring that anyone responsible

for such a crime faces justice.

We will soon conduct a training program for 40 Philippine investigators and prosecutors from the 10 areas of the country with the most extrajudicial killings to improve their skills and understanding. We are also looking into making additional

grants to the Philippine Commission on Human Rights to support its nationwide investigatory efforts. We understand that the Philippine Government has reached out

to members of the European Union for assistance in implementing the conclusions

of the Melo report. I have reached out to representatives of the European Union

here in Washington to underscore our support for the Philippine Government’s request. I have also repeatedly addressed this matter with the Philippine Ambassador

to the United States.

In addition to these immediate efforts, the United States has provided longstanding support for institutional reform within the AFP and the Philippine National Police, as well as the Philippine judiciary. This assistance has included

human rights training for Philippine security forces in country, as well as at the

International Law Enforcement Academy in Bangkok and at U.S. military and FBI

training academies.

In compliance with the Leahy amendment, we work closely with the Philippine

Commission on Human Rights to vet all Philippine military and law enforcement

officials who undergo U.S. training.

The United States is also a firm supporter of Philippine Defense Reform, which

aims to strengthen a professional and effective military that respects and protects

civil liberties and human rights. We do this through ongoing training and exchange

of ideas and information on issues relating to human rights. Also under the Philippine Defense Reform program, a U.S. expert has started working with the military’s Office of the Inspector General to improve its internal capabilities.

8

The AFP is doing superb work in battling al-Qaeda-linked terrorists. The close

U.S. relationship with the AFP is contributing to its effectiveness, and has resulted

in an important component that emphasizes civil-military operations and human

rights.

On the law enforcement side of the ledger, several U.S. agencies work with their

Philippine partners to provide training in case management and investigative techniques. These programs routinely include human rights training as an integral part

of the curriculum. A new U.S. Senior Law Enforcement Advisor and his staff are

now stationed at the Philippine police headquarters to assist in its internal transformation program to make it a more transparent, accountable, and effective institution and to provide better investigatory tools. U.S. law enforcement agencies also

provide technical assistance to the Philippine Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, and Philippine Coast Guard in areas relating to national

security and border protection.

U.S. development assistance helps the Philippine Judiciary to improve systems for

case management, assists civil society groups to participate in legal and judicial reform discussions, and provides training for Philippine judges and lawyers on the

new code of conduct developed by the Supreme Court.

Beyond our discussions with Philippine officials and our training efforts, we are

in close contact with civil society groups and human rights organizations in the

Philippines, and we document our views on human rights in the Philippines in the

annual State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices. I would note

that the Country Report is taken seriously in Manila and that the Philippine Government’s spokesman called it, ‘‘constructive criticism from a time-honored ally.’’

Our efforts are aimed at strengthening the rule of law, professionalizing law enforcement and judicial authorities, and empowering civil society, so these institutions can play a more effective and professional role in investigating and prosecuting such crimes.

To conclude, we take the problem of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines seriously and are committed to helping our Philippine allies as they bring those responsible to justice. We are encouraged by the steps that the Philippine Government has

taken to date, but we will continue to make clear that more progress is essential

and that we stand ready to be of additional assistance to Philippine authorities.

Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. John.

Yes, sir, Mr. Farrar.

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN D. FARRAR, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN

RIGHTS AND LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. FARRAR. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman and Senator Murkowski, for holding the hearing today on extrajudicial

killings in the Philippines.

The hearing’s well timed to examine the findings of the recently

released Melo and Alston reports. And last week, Secretary Rice released the Department of State’s country reports on human rights

practices for 2006, which is prepared by my bureau, working with

our embassies overseas, and our colleagues in Washington.

This year’s theme of the reports is ‘‘Defend the Defenders’’ of

human rights, a theme very appropriate for today’s hearing. The

report highlights two initiatives announced by the Secretary in December, the guiding principals on NGOs, and the Human Rights

Defenders Fund.

The NGO principles were developed in consultation with our own

NGOs in the United States. They will guide our assessment of the

actions of other governments. We hope they will rally worldwide

support, including in democracies such as the Philippines, for embattled NGOs by serving as a resource for governments, international organizations, civil society, and journalists.

9

Our Human Rights Defenders Fund will quickly disperse small

grants to help human rights defenders facing extraordinary needs

as a result of government repression. I’d like to be very clear.

There is no tension and no contradiction between improving the

protection of human rights, and assisting the Government of the

Philippines to combat terrorist threats.

As the President said in January in his State of the Union Address, what every terrorist fears most is human freedom. Societies

where government, where men and women make their own choices,

answer to their own conscious, and live by their hopes, instead of

their resentments.

Our 2006 report on the Philippines noted a number of arbitrary,

unlawful, and extrajudicial killings, apparently by elements of the

security services. And political killings, including killings of journalists, by a variety of actors. Although sources differ on the numbers, the rise in suspect extrajudicial killings since 2001 is undisputed. Many killings went unresolved and unpunished contributing

to a climate of impunity. We commend President Arroyo for creating both Task Force Usig to investigate specific cases, and the

Melo Commission to make policy and legal reform recommendations. These are important initial steps.

The Melo Commission describes evidence of abuses by security

services, and failure by some NGOs to cooperate with the Commission. Our NGO principles speak to the responsibilities of both governments and NGOs. We are pleased that the Arroyo administration decided to make the Melo Commission finding public, and is

taking steps to implement Commission recommendations.

Deputy Assistant Secretary John has described steps our Embassy in Manila has taken to address these human rights concerns.

It is important that we continue to work with the Government of

the Philippines to make sure the initiatives they have pledged to

undertake are implemented effectively. We know from experience

in other countries that implementation is crucial, and often times

difficult, and requires a long-term commitment.

Our bureau meets regularly with a wide spectrum of NGOs,

American and Philippine, active on these issues. For example, I

met recently with Ms. Joanne Carney, an NGO activist who, at the

time, was serving as a distinguished fellow at Colby College. Ms.

Carney came to Colby following threats on her life and on her

NGO, the Cordillera People’s Alliance.

We are committed to using our bureau’s human rights and democracy fund to monitor and promote human rights in the Philippines. Our fund works through open competition, in which we solicit proposals from U.S.-based NGOs to implement innovative

projects worldwide. We’re using this fund now, to strengthen the

Philippine Commission on Human Rights, and also to improve the

Madrasah system, by educating leaders of schools in the southern

Philippines.

I’d like to correct something from the written testimony we submitted, which said there was a HRDF grant awaiting congressional

approval to work with Philippine media to improve reporting on

human rights, and to create a national association of human rights

journalists. I learned this morning that the notification has not

10

been delivered yet. So let me just say that we’re excited about the

project and hope you’ll review it favorably, once it’s received.

Finally, I can assure we will look for opportunities to include the

Philippines in some of our upcoming fiscal year 2007 requests for

grant proposals.

In conclusion, the Melo Commission stated well, that you can not

build democracy or combat terrorism through abuse of human

rights. As Secretary Rice noted in her comments last week on our

human rights reports, liberty and human rights require state institutions that function transparently and accountably. A vibrant civil

society, an independent judiciary legislature, a free media, and security forces that can uphold the rule of law, and protect the population from violence and extremism.

We look forward to working with Congress on these issues, both

in the Philippines and elsewhere. I’d be pleased to take you questions.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN FARRAR, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SEC- RETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF

STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Madame Chairman Boxer, Senator Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing to focus on the problem of

extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. This hearing is well-timed to examine the

findings of the recently released Melo and Alston Reports, and Secretary Rice’s

March 6 release of the Department of State ‘‘Country Reports on Human Rights

Practices for 2006.’’

This year’s theme of the 2006 Country Reports is ‘‘Defend the Defenders’’ of

human rights, a theme very appropriate to today’s hearing. The reports highlighted

two initiatives announced by the Secretary last December: The ‘‘Guiding Principles

on Non-Governmental Organizations’’ and the Human Rights Defenders Fund.

The 10 guiding principles on NGOs’ concern the treatment by governments of nongovernmental organizations under the relevant international conventions. These

core principles were developed in consultation with our own NGOs, and will guide

our approach to, and our assessment of, the actions of other governments. The principles complement lengthier, more detailed U.N. and other international documents

addressing human rights defenders. We hope they will rally worldwide support for

embattled NGOs by serving as a resource for governments, international organizations, civil society groups, and journalists. We will look to democracies like the Philippines to embrace these NGO principles.

The Human Rights Defenders Fund will be administered by our bureau and will

quickly disburse small grants to help human rights defenders facing extraordinary

needs as a result of government repression. This funding could, for example, cover

legal defense, medical costs, or the pressing needs of activists’ families.

As Secretary Rice said on March 6: ‘‘Liberty and human rights require state institutions that function transparently and accountably, a vibrant civil society, an independent judiciary and legislature, a free media, and security forces that can uphold

the rule of law and protect the population from violence and extremism.’’

Let me be clear: There is no tension, and no contradiction, between improving the

protection of human rights in the Philippines and assisting the Government of the

Philippines to combat terrorist threats.

Turning specifically to the human rights situation in the Philippines, in our 2006

Country Reports we noted a number of arbitrary, unlawful, and extrajudicial

killings apparently by elements of the security services, and political killings, including killings of journalists, by a variety of actors. Despite intensified government

efforts during the year to investigate and prosecute these cases, many of these

killings went unsolved and unpunished, contributing to a climate of impunity. Although various sources differ on the numbers, the rise in suspect extrajudicial

killings since 2001 is undisputed.

The report notes that members of the security services committed acts of physical

and psychological abuse on suspects and detainees, including instances of torture.

Arbitrary or warrantless arrests and detentions were common. Trials were delayed

11

and procedures were prolonged. Prisoners awaiting trial and those already convicted

were often held under primitive conditions. Corruption remains a problem in the

criminal justice system, including police, prosecutorial, and judicial organs. Human

rights activists were often subject to harassment by local security forces.

Deputy Assistant Secretary John has described a number of steps the Government

of the Philippines has taken to address the serious problem of extrajudicial killings.

We commend President Gloria Arroyo for creating Task Force Usig to investigate

specific cases, and the Melo Commission to make policy and legal reform recommendations. These are important initial steps to address this serious issue.

The Melo Commission Report describes evidence of abuses by security services,

and failure by some NGOs to cooperate responsibly with the Commission. Our NGO

principles speak to the responsibilities of both governments and NGOs. We were

pleased that the Arroyo administration decided to make the Melo Commission findings public and is taking steps to implement commission recommendations. We also

note that President Arroyo invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,

Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Phillip Alston, to conduct a 10-day fact-finding mission in February.

Deputy Assistant Secretary John has described a number of steps our Embassy

in Manila has taken to address these human rights concerns. It is important that

we continue to work with the Government of the Philippines to make sure that the

initiatives they have pledged to undertake are implemented effectively. We know

from experience in other countries that implementation is crucial and often-times

difficult, and requires a long-term commitment.

Our bureau meets regularly with a wide spectrum of NGOs, American and Philippine, active on these issues. We also meet with representatives of the Philippine

Government to address our concerns. I met recently with the Philippine Ambassador, Ambassador Willy Gaa, and his country team during our preparations for the

Country Reports, and prior to the release of the Melo Commission Report. In this

meeting, we urged progress in the investigation and prosecution of cases by Task

Force Usig, and prompt release of the then-pending Melo Commission Report. We

will continue to follow up.

Last fall our Bureau met with representatives of the U.S. Episcopal Church Peace

and Justice Ministries and the Episcopal Asian-American Ministries to hear their

concerns about the October murder of Bishop Alberto Ramento, a prominent Philippine national church leader and human rights activist. At the time of Ramento’s

death, Brian Campbell, a U.S. human rights labor activist and attorney, wrote that,

‘‘Bishop Ramento was a staunch human rights advocate who worked tirelessly to

support impoverished workers and farmers since the time of the Marcos dictatorship.’’ On December 6, Mr. Campbell was denied entry to the Philippines under the

rationale of tighter security imposed prior to the recent ASEAN summit. At the time

of his denied entry, Mr. Campbell told us that he saw his name on a ‘‘black list,’’

along with a number of other international human rights workers, which Philippine

immigration officials used to deny his admission into the country. In my meeting

with Ambassador Gaa, we expressed our concern over the treatment of Mr. Campbell and the use of such a list.

In addition to the initiatives described by Deputy Assistant Secretary John, we

are using the Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF) to support efforts to

monitor and promote human rights and democracy, including in the Philippines.

DRL administers open grant competitions for HRDF funds in which we solicit proposals from U.S.-based NGOs to implement innovative democracy and human rights

projects worldwide.

In the Philippines our programs will help to build capacity within the Philippine

Commission on Human Rights and local human rights NGOs in the promotion of

human rights, civic education, and responsible independent media. Right now, we

are using HRDF to advance human rights protection in the Philippines through the

institutionalization and expansion of the Martus software project. This project is designed to help the Philippine Commission on Human Rights enhance the quality of

human rights information it generates by supporting the integration of the Martus

software within its organizational systems. In addition, it will expand and enhance

usage and the network of Martus users, particularly in Muslim Mindanao where

human rights violations are a serious concern. We expect the project to be sustainable over the long term through local ownership of the product and results. This

project serves as a model to provide IT assistance to human rights organizations in

countries in which freedom of information is suppressed and human rights are

abused.

Another HRDF grant is improving the Madrasah system by educating leaders of

schools in the southern Philippines. This assistance supports secular functions for

Muslim schools—some of which are in remote areas where there are no public

12

schools available. It also works to create awareness among Madrasah school leaders

regarding U.S. educational systems and curricula.

We have another HRDF grant awaiting congressional approval that will help Filipino media reduce sensationalist reporting, highlight the human cost of on-going political, economic, and violent conflict and encourage reconciliation and reasoned debate. This project will contribute to democracy and human rights by working to

make the media a more constructive and responsible force for social and political

cohesion, and will create a national association of human rights journalists.

I can assure you that we will look for opportunities to include the Philippines in

some of our upcoming HRDF Requests for Grant Proposals.

The Melo Commission Report concluded its findings by stating that you cannot

build democracy or combat terrorism through abuse of human rights. The State Department will continue to help the Philippines—a free and democratic republic with

an elected President, an elected bicameral legislature, and a multiparty system—

to address the serious problem of extrajudicial killings. We look forward to working

with Congress on these issues, both in the Philippines and elsewhere.

I would ask that the Philippine section of the Country Reports on Human Rights

Practices for 2006 be entered into the record of this hearing, and would be pleased

to take your questions.

[EDITOR’S NOTE.— The ‘‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006’’ can

be accessed on the State Department Web site.]

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. I’ve asked Senator Murkowski to please begin the questioning because she has such a

tight schedule.

So, Senator, go right ahead.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, I appreciate the accommodation.

And thank you gentlemen for your responses, or your testimony,

here this afternoon.

Both of you have mentioned President Arroyo. How is he viewed

in, as it relates to the extrajudicial killings? Is it viewed that he

is doing all that——

Senator BOXER. She’s a she.

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. Excuse me, is it, yes. She’s a

she. I’m so used to the President’s being a he. [Laughter.]

Senator BOXER. I know, exactly.

Senator MURKOWSKI. The Philippines are ahead of us here. But

in terms of how she is viewed in this effort, is it enough?

Mr. John, do you want to go first?

Mr. JOHN. Well, in the sense that you still have extrajudicial

killings, I don’t think you can call it enough.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, you’ve mentioned the task force——

Mr. JOHN. Right. I think that——

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. They have in—brought together.

Mr. JOHN. I think she has marched out in the right way over the

last several months with the—if you look at the last 6 months or

so, the last 3 months or so, you do have, first of all, clear direction

and statements against extrajudicial killings from the top, from the

President, and a commitment to halt them and setting up the, as

we noted, the structures that you need to halt that. You know, in

that sense, I think it’s off, she’s off to a good start. I, until, you

know, these numbers come drastically down, though, I don’t think

we can determine if it’s enough.

Senator MURKOWSKI. People don’t just want a task force, they

want to see action.

Mr. JOHN. Right.

13

Senator MURKOWSKI. They want to see a change.

Mr. JOHN. Follow through is going to be very critical here.

Senator MURKOWSKI. So in terms of, where the blame is being

laid and assessed, you’ve mentioned—you, Mr. John—mentioned

security forces. Is it more directed toward the military and the police, and less against the administration then? I’m just trying to

understand where, from the public perspective, the focus needs to

be in terms of where changes are needed.

Mr. JOHN. Right. Well, I think in the sense that you have security forces involved in these extrajudicial killings, the chain of command is very important. And the chain of command for the security

forces leads to the President of the Republic of the Philippines.

That doesn’t mean that they’re operating under orders, but as the

ultimate authority in the chain of command, she has to take the

steps to stop any involvement by members of security forces.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Where are we seeing the most number of

killings. You mentioned 10 areas—there were 10 areas that you

were focusing on. Is this a situation where if we are successful in

stopping the killings in one area, that they will just migrate to another section of the country?

Mr. JOHN. I’m not sure precisely, to be honest, where those—

where the 10 areas are located on the map. I do know that it’s—

it’s not necessarily coincident with Mindanao, for example.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right.

Mr. JOHN. That’s a separate issue. These are largely related to

NPA, the New People’s Army, Communist Party of the Philippines,

NPACPP, and leftist parties associated with those, with the

NPACPP. Those are, I believe, spread throughout the country. And

I’m not sure that you get into the situation where you squeeze one

area and it moves to another area. But, you know, we can investigate and get back to you on that.

Senator MURKOWSKI. And then a question to you, Mr. Farrar.

You’ve mentioned the assistance, and the grants that you will be

utilizing, and an effort with the education, as well as reporting of

human rights abuses. Are—as far as the U.S. foreign assistance

through the international military education training, the foreign

military funds, these types of funds. How—how successful have we

been in using these funds in the area of training, and to work on

the reporting?

Mr. FARRAR. Sure. The specific project I mentioned has to do

with us training Filipino journalists in the area of human rights

abuses and reporting. And also to set up a National Association of

Human Rights Journalists to both professionalize, and allow them

to better communicate among one another.

The IMET program is an important part, separate part from our

bureau, and human rights education is an important part of that

program.

Do you have something to add?

Mr. JOHN. I think the IMET training is, I think, a component,

or strongly related to the Philippine Defense Reform, the PDR,

which, a large component of which is human rights training, both

in the Philippines and in the United States.

14

Senator MURKOWSKI. Madame Chairman, thank you for your indulgence in letting me go first. I appreciate, again, and I’ll look forward to a followup with you as to the rest of the testimony today.

Thank you.

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Senator.

These are questions for both of you, and either one of you can

handle them or each can comment as you wish.

The State Department’s 2006 country report on human rights

practices in the Philippines paints a grim picture of the situation

there. The report states—this is our State Department—that many

of last year’s extrajudicial killings, ‘‘went unsolved and unpunished,

contributing to a climate of impunity.’’ The report also states that,

‘‘members of the security services committed acts of physical and

psychological abuse on suspects and detainees, and there were instances of torture.’’

Now in response to the continued violence, I understand the

State Department, through U.S. Ambassador Kristie Kenney, recently offered assistance in stopping the violence. Yet there have

been conflicting reports as to whether or not the Philippine Government accepted the offer. Now, I guess, Mr. John, I’m going to

address this to you, because you basically painted a fairly rosy picture about this. So I guess I need to know—have the Philippines

accepted our offers, and how have they responded? And have they

accepted our offers in whole or in part?

Mr. JOHN. Yes; the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Secretary

Romulo, has accepted offers of U.S. assistance in this. I think if—

I hope that I wasn’t painting a rosy picture about the situation in

the Philippines, but rather our offers of assistance. I think that the

Melo——

Senator BOXER. Well, you made a rosy scenario about, the fact

that—it sounded to me like you were telling me that the Government has embraced everything we have offered. Is that true? Have

they embraced everything? Have the rejected anything? Have they

said, ‘‘Wonderful, we’ll take all the help, and we’re going to have

transparency and accountability.’’

Mr. JOHN. They have accepted what we’ve offered. That’s correct.

Senator BOXER. OK.

Mr. JOHN. And what we’ve put forward, we’re going to move forward with. Yes.

Senator BOXER. All right. According to the CRS—that’s the Congressional Research Service—the Philippines, a major non-NATO

ally of the United States, has received the most dramatic increase

in United States foreign assistance in the East Asia Pacific region,

particularly for foreign military financing.

Now you pointed out, as I did, that the Philippines are a very

important ally to us, a very important partner to us in the war

against terror. That’s for sure.

But, I guess what I want to know from you is: Is there a better

way to address the issue of extrajudicial killings in relation to this

military financing? Because people are coming to me and saying,

you know, ‘‘We’re spending American dollars to train the military

forces and yet, we’re not sure who’s doing these extrajudicial

killings.’’ Are we going to be attacked, as we were many years ago,

in El Salvador and other places, for training a military that then

15

turns out to be perpetrating crimes against its own people? So have

you thought about suggesting that we tie some strings to this military training money?

Mr. JOHN. I think we, you know, certainly have something that

one would have to consider, but our approach is that tying legislation to the assistance money would be counterproductive.

I think, first, on the dramatic increase in——

Senator BOXER. Well, before you slide through that one. [Laughter.]

I don’t accept that, without a challenge. Because if we are training the military there with our hard-earned tax dollars, I’ve got a

million Filipino-Americans in my State, many of whom are concerned about this. They want this to be fixed.

So, why wouldn’t we since we are concerned that maybe the military is involved in this—and that has not been discounted yet or

proven, I think it’s pretty much up in the air—but there’s suspicion

of this. Why wouldn’t we want to say to the government, you know,

we need to put some strings on this? Either you step up to the

plate and resolve this, or these funds just aren’t going to come. Because aren’t we concerned that our money, in the name of America,

could be used to kill innocent people?

Mr. JOHN. Yeah; absolutely.

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, I hope you’ll, you know, take that back

to the boss.

Mr. JOHN. Yes; we agree. And I, if I could just, I’ll leave it at

that, yes. I agree that we do not want to train the Armed Forces

of the Philippines that, in any way, would lead to their involvement

in extrajudicial killings.

Senator BOXER. Well, I’m really glad to hear that because the Alston concluded, ‘‘The increase in political killings in recent years is

attributable, at least in part, to the AFP.’’ That’s the Armed Forces

of the Philippines, counterinsurgency strategy. So, I guess I was

wrong when I said, we don’t know. I mean, if we believe the Alston

Report, they said that.

So I think it’s really important that we not have blood on our

hands in this country. And that, in fact, we are very cautious, and

that we—since the government has admitted there’s a problem and

you feel good about their response so far—the transparency and the

results, we really need to have that.

OK, let’s see. Mr. John, in your opening statement you called the

Philippines a ‘‘vibrant democracy.’’ And when I went there in 1986,

the excitement that lay ahead was just amazing. I mean, I just remember being on the street there standing in front of the Marcos

Palace, he was gone, and Cory Aquino had taken over. And just remembering the religious groups that helped in that whole thing to

bring about, you know, democracy there. So it’s important that we

have a vibrant democracy now. Do you know the group, the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy? Are you familiar with them?

Mr. JOHN. No, Senator.

Senator BOXER. Are you?

Mr. FARRAR. No.

Senator BOXER. This is a group that ranks corruption in various

nations. So, I’ll send you their report. They rank the Philippines as

16

the most corrupt nation in Asia. And so, do you think it’s possible

to be a vibrant democracy when corruption is so rampant?

Mr. JOHN. I would draw a line between a vibrant democracy and

good clean government. And I think that the goal is, that you have

a vibrant democracy that leads to good clean government.

Senator BOXER. When you say you draw a line, what do you

mean? You don’t see them as being connected?

Mr. JOHN. They are, I’m sorry, there is, that you don’t have—

with a vibrant democracy, you don’t immediately——

Senator BOXER. You can have corruption.

Mr. JOHN [continuing]. Have good clean government.

Senator BOXER. Well, what’s your position on the corruption in

the Philippines?

Mr. JOHN. Corruption is bad, and our Millennium—I think the

Philippines would be the first to acknowledge that they have a

problem with corruption. We’ve got Millennium Challenge account

money directed to fighting corruption in the Philippines.

Senator BOXER. OK. Because, I wonder if corruption’s a factor in

the failure of the Philippine justice system to bring extrajudicial

killers to justice, do you think it could be a factor?

Mr. JOHN. Yes. I think a corrupt judiciary, opaque judiciary could

hinder bringing EJKs, and bringing the perpetrators of extrajudicial killings to justice. But, if I could just make another point

about——

Senator BOXER. Please, go ahead; yeah.

Mr. JOHN [continuing]. Democracy, with your permission.

Senator BOXER. Sure.

Mr. JOHN. I think, you know, one thing that is, about the vibrant

democracy in the Philippines that has helped, that will help resolve

extrajudicial killings is that, for example, with these, the Spader

Reports that started off with Amnesty International last August.

There’s been significant media attention in the Philippines to the

problem of extrajudicial killings. And I think that it’s going to be,

what’s going to help resolve this is domestic political pressure. The

Philippines, and Filipinos themselves bringing domestic political

pressure on President Arroyo.

We’ll support that, but I think in that sense you do see a connection between a vibrant democracy, and steps taken to resolve a

very important issue to the Philippine citizens by the President.

Senator BOXER. Well, I think we have some really great opportunities here to link our aid to their facing this problem. We’ve identified the military assistance. We also, you mentioned it, have the

Millennium Challenge grants, and it seems to me that’s another

way to leverage transparency and progress on these killings and on

corruption in general.

I would ask, maybe Mr. Farrar or Mr. John: Does the State Department have an estimate of the number of extrajudicial killings

in the Philippines?

Mr. FARRAR. We don’t have our own number. If you look at the

human rights report, it sights a variety of sources which range significantly. But we would agree with——

Senator BOXER. A variety of sources, or a variety of numbers?

Mr. FARRAR. Sources which all have different numbers. And we

would agree with Mr. Alston when he says that there are a variety

17

of numbers, but what’s important is that there’s agreement that

the trend, that the number is on the rise.

Senator BOXER. OK, then since you mentioned Mr. Alston, I have

my last question. I’m sure you’re very happy that it’s my last question.

Mr. Alston, the Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Human Rights

Council, said that, ‘‘The response of the Philippine Government to

the crisis of extrajudicial executions varies dramatically.’’ He said

there’s been a welcome acknowledgement of the seriousness of the

problem at the very top—which is consistent with what you said,

Mr. John—‘‘at the executive level the messages have been very

mixed and often unsatisfactory.’’ This is Mr. Alston. ‘‘And at the

operational level, the allegations have too often been met with the

response of incredulity mixed with offense.’’ How can we ensure

that extrajudicial killings are condemned by all levels of the Philippine Government? I would ask either of you to comment?

Mr. FARRAR. Sure, as Eric mentioned before, the commitment

from President Arroyo is a good start and it’s a good public commitment, and certain actions have flowed from that already, including

the directive by the Armed Forces to reinforce the chain of command. But what’s important is, I mentioned in my opening statement, is implementation and follow-through. And I can tell you

from experience in other countries and other regions of the world

that that’s the toughest stage—is implementation. And so it’s something they have to work on, and we have to help them on, and keep

the focus. And hearings, such as today’s, are a good way to get attention on the problem.

Senator BOXER. Yeah; I mean, I really think, because we have

such a close relationship, as we must, and as we should, I think

we have a lot more leverage than perhaps we’ve been using. And

that is one of the points to this hearing.

You know, sometimes I think we tend to say we don’t want to

criticize our friends, but frankly what I learned growing up is—if

you really care about someone, you ought to tell them, if you think

they’re going off course somewhere. If you don’t care about them,

just let them go down the wrong road. And so, I hope you’ll take

that message back.

I know, I really thank you for your service to your country for

taking your job so seriously.

We’re going to call up the next panel. And I hope you can stay

to hear that panel. We’ll be finished at around 4 o’clock. So if you

could stay it would be very, very good, at least one of you. Because

I think what you’re going to hear is going to be very important. If

you can do that.

So, we’ll call up the second panel now. Senator Webb has told me

he doesn’t have an opening statement, but he’s interested in hearing the next panel.

So, Mr. Kumar, advocacy director, we’re going to try to get you

moving, move, move, faster, good. Mr. T. Kumar, advocacy director

for Asia and the Pacific, Amnesty International USA in Washington here. Mr. Eugene Martin, executive director, Philippine Facilitation Project, U.S. Institute of Peace, Washington. Bishop

Eliezer Pascua, general secretary of the United Church of Christ in

the Philippines. And you’ve come to us from the Philippines, and

18

we’re very grateful. And Ms. Marie Hilao-Enriquez, general secretary of KARAPATAN, also coming to us from the Philippines. We

are very grateful that you have come all this way.

So why don’t we start—yes; I will turn it over to Senator Webb,

who has something he’d like to add.

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Madame Chair.

I don’t really have a formal opening statement, but I would first

like to congratulate you on holding these hearings, and also to say

that it’s an enormous pleasure to be serving on this subcommittee.

I’ve spent a great deal of my life in and out of Asia, East Asia, and

I have a very strong affection for the people of the Philippines, and

for the special bond that our country has with the people of the

Philippines. And I’ve been able to travel a good deal in the Philippines over the years.

I made a very useful visit there when I was Secretary of the

Navy a number of years ago. I’ve been there as a journalist. I’ve

been there as a tourist. I have a number of friends in the Philippines, and in the government. And I think this particular issue

is one that we should be looking at, in the way that you’re looking

at it. And I’m pleased to be here.

I just didn’t want to sit up here without having said anything

and I’m very interested in hearing the testimony of this panel.

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. And I am proud

to have you on this subcommittee. It’s enriching the subcommittee,

tremendously.

Let’s start with Mr. T. Kumar, advocacy director for Asia and the

Pacific, from Amnesty International. Again, we’ll give you 5 minutes so we have enough time for questions. Go ahead Mr. Kumar.

STATEMENT OF T. KUMAR, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR ASIA

AND THE PACIFIC, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, USA, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. KUMAR. Thank you very much, Madame Chair and Senator

Webb. Amnesty International is extremely pleased to be here to

testify on the situation of extreme significance to us.

You touched on a couple of issues during the first panel discussion, so I don’t want to go over that. I would like to touch on basic

issues. First is, Amnesty International has documented that hundreds have been killed, politically assassinated, by suspected vigilante groups who may have been linked to the Armed Forces of the

Philippines.

Who are the targets? The targets are pretty much political leaders and social activists who have been directly connected, or indirectly connected, to the Communist Party of the Philippines. So,

what we are seeing today is even the political leaders, Members of

Congress and others, are being targeted, because they may be sharing the same political views or social views of the Communist

Party—namely environmental issues, fighting for the indigenous

rights, fighting for human rights, and fighting for other

marginalized communities like poor and the landless.

So, what we are seeing today is when a group of people in a

country, they are fighting for the weakest and the marginalized,

they get killed in the name of fighting terror. That is what is happening there. And the unfortunate thing that we are seeing in the

19

Philippines is that the garment of Philippines—the Armed Forces

of the Philippines, and the police, find it difficult to distinguish between the political activists, as well as the Communist Party of the

Philippines.

My time is running out. I want to quickly go into one issue. Amnesty International strongly believes that these killings are not

unconnected. That is, there is a connect, there is a pattern that is

being done behind these killings, and we strongly believe that it is

linked to certain elements in the Armed Forces.

We are really worried about the Philippine Government’s actions.

President Arroyo waited for 4 years to nominate this Melo Commission. She suddenly woke up after everyone started shouting. So, 4

years she was completely silent. One disturbing element is, that is

one Major General Palparan, whom we have identified as one of

the main players, was involved in all of these assassinations, directly or indirectly. When he retired, President Arroyo basically

congratulated him and said he is an asset to counterinsurgency operations. That’s an extremely negative and damaging statement

that President Arroyo made. So, as the committee, please take this

into account.

My final point is the Philippine Government is using war and

terror as an excuse to eliminate political opponents. That is what

we are seeing here. There are two armed opposition groups in the

Philippines now, two major. One is the Communist Party of the

Philippines. The second is the Moro Islamic National Front.

The United States Government has designated only the Communist Party of the Philippines as a terrorist organization, and

they did not designate the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. We want

to know why you have these two standards? That’s the message

that you should ask the government, why you have two standards?

I know Eugene will have an answer, but I want you to ask the administration. There are two armed groups, and only one is being

designated.

Finally, the United States is giving training to the Armed Forces

of the Philippines on counterterrorism on these two fronts. One is

to fight the Moro Islamic Militants, and the last to fight the Communists.

We want to know what type of training you are giving to these

troops that are fighting Communist groups? The reason why we’re

asking is, these Communists, in the name of fighting communism,

are the one all these killings are taking place.

Before finishing my time I want to highlight one issue that is directly connected to the Iraq war. We heard—it’s not confirmed

yet—that this Major General Palparan is the one who led the Philippine contingent to fight the war in Iraq. The Philippines sent a

couple of hundred, I don’t know how many, up to a thousand troops

there. Now they have been withdrawn. If that is true, it is disturbing.

Here, this person has been implicated by everyone, and here he

was implicated in political killings, and the United States is allowing these type of leaders—military leaders—to come and fight the

Iraq war, and what message you are giving to the Iraqis? And what

type of actions these troops are taking against the Iraqis there?

That is the question you have to ask in an overall context.

20

Thank you very much, and I know I have only 30 seconds. I

would be waiting for questions to answer. Thank you very much,

Madame, for inviting us.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kumar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF T. KUMAR, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR ASIA AND THE

PACIFIC, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, USA, WASHINGTON, DC

Thank you Madam Chair and distinguished members of this committee. Amnesty

is pleased to testify at this important hearing.

For several years political killings in the Philippines have been of serious concern

to Amnesty International which has issued reports, urgent actions and news releases to highlight the gravity of the situation. We also met with Her Excellency

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines, on September 14, 2006, to raise these concerns.

It is disturbing to note that, even though hundreds have been killed so far, to date

there has not been a single conviction. The political killings are continuing in the

Philippines, and even yesterday a witness to the U.N. envoy was gunned down. Amnesty International is concerned that the Government’s declaration of ‘‘all-out war’’

on communism paves the way for further increases in killings.

SUMMARY

The number of attacks on leftist activists and community workers rose sharply

during the last couple of years. Most of the attacks were carried out by unidentified

assailants on motorcycles, at times wearing face masks, who were often described

as ‘‘vigilantes’’ or hired killers allegedly linked to Armed Forces of the Philippines

(AFP). In some cases, those attacked had reportedly been under surveillance by people linked to the security forces or had received death threats.

Those most at risk include members of legal leftist political parties, including

Bayan Muna (People First) and Anakpawis (Toiling Masses), other human rights

and community activists, priests, church workers, and lawyers regarded by the authorities as sympathetic to the broader Communist movement.

Increased killings in particular provinces during President Arroyo’s administration were reportedly linked to the public labeling of leftist groups as National People’s Army’s ‘‘front organizations’’ by the local AFP Commanders.

A climate of impunity shielding the perpetrators of such killings deepened as ineffective investigations failed to lead to the prosecution of those responsible. In many

cases witnesses were reportedly too frightened to testify.

Most of the victims were not even members of armed groups, even though they

may have sympathised with their ideology. It is a matter of importance for everyone

in the Philippines that individuals should be able to affiliate with the political party

or group of their choice and not be subject to politically motivated violence as a

result.

Who is responsible?

The methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats, patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the

victims, and a climate of impunity that has shielded the perpetrators from prosecution, has led Amnesty International to conclude that the attacks are not an

unconnected series of criminal murders but constitute a politically motivated pattern of killings. The organization remains gravely concerned that members of the

security forces may have been directly involved in the killings, or else have tolerated, acquiesced to, or been complicit in them.

Philip Alston, the U.N. expert on extrajudicial executions, stated in his initial

findings that: ‘‘The Armed Forces of the Philippines remains in a state of almost

total denial of its need to respond effectively and authentically to the significant

number of killings which have been convincingly attributed to them.’’

Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan

One of the well-known military officers whose name is often cited in the context

of political killings is Major General Palparn. He has made public statements linking leftist political parties with National People’s Army. In a television interview in

August 2002, then-Colonel Palparan labeled Bayan Muna an ‘‘NPA front.’’ He also

publicly accused Karapatan and the women’s organization, Gabriela, of being NPA

recruiters.

21

Major General Palparan in particular emerged as the focus of accusations by leftist groups that the military was responsible for sharply increased numbers of

killings of leftist activists in regions where he was given command.

He also described the congressional party-list members as directing of ‘‘providing

the day-to-day policies of the (rebel) movement.’’

He warned of necessary and tolerable ‘‘collateral damage’’ in the anti-insurgency

campaign, and, referring to vigilante killings by anti-Communist elements outside

the AFP, stated that the military alone should not be blamed. Subsequently, labeling leftist party-list leader as ‘‘enemies of the state,’’ he also called for reinstitution

of the Anti-Subversion Act to make membership of the CPP a criminal offense once

again.

An asset?

Major General Palparn retired on 11 September 2005. Following his retirement

he was lauded by the President who called him an asset to the counterinsurgency.

This is despite all the accusations against him. He was going to be appointed as

the Deputy National Security Advisor, but the appointment did not go through due

to public protest. He has recently been encouraged to run for Congress.

He was significantly mentioned in the Melo report whose authors interviewed him

in regards to comments he has made about political killings. He has also been implicated behind some of the killings.

Amnesty International is concerned that there may be several more senior officers

like Major General Palparn in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. We urge the

U.S. administration of be vigilant in identifying these officers to satisfy Leahey Law

requirements.

Philippines Government’s response

After almost 4 years of rising numbers of political killings—and after intense

pressure from the international human rights organizations and the United Nations—the Government of the Philippines took some steps to ‘‘understand’’ the problem, by appointing ‘‘Melo Commission.’’ It is a mystery why the Government of the

Philippines failed to address this disturbing trend of political killings for all these

years; despite the fact that hundreds were killed for political reasons.

On August 21, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced the establishment of a special Commission of Inquiry, headed by former Supreme Court Justice

Jose Melo, to investigate the killings and to make recommendations for remedial action, including appropriate prosecutions and legislative proposals.

Pledging to ‘‘break this cycle of violence once and for all,’’ President Arroyo stated,

‘‘I have directed [the Melo Commission] to leave no stone unturned in their pursuit

of justice . . . the victims and their families deserve justice to be served.’’

After initial hesitation to release the report; the Government of the Philippines

released the ‘‘Melo Report’’ on February 22, 2007. Responding to the Melo Commission report, the Government has announced a six-point action plan, the implementation of which will be crucial to ending the killings. A lack of accountability for such

political killings remains a critical challenge: To date there has not been one conviction, despite the hundreds of killings, primarily of legal leftist activists, over the

past 6 years.

In May, the authorities set up a special police investigative task force called Usig

to coordinate investigations into suspected political killings. However, only a limited

number of people were arrested and few cases were filed in court by the end of 2006.

For example, of 114 killings recorded since 2001 by Task Force Usig, the police have

arrested suspects in only three cases. No one was held accountable for cases before

2001.

United States policy

The United States has a special relationship with the Philippines, including U.S.

forces stationed in the Philippines to train the Armed Forces of the Philippines

(AFP). The United States also offers millions of dollars of aid and other military assistance and has designated the Philippines as a major non-NATO ally.

Given this close relationship the United States enjoys with the Philippines it is

disappointing to note that the administration’s actions have been muted and that

the administration has failed the Philippine people by not publicly condemning the

Philippine Government publicly over the last 4 years while the political killings increased. Not being vocal on this issue sends a wrong message to the Government

of the Philippines. We urge the administration to publicly condemn the political

killings and urge the creation of specific benchmarks for the Philippines Government to end these killings. We urge the administration to keep this issue as a matter of priority in all of its interactions with the Government of the Philippines.

22

In September 2006, it was reported in the media that military assistance, in the

form of training, would be increased to help with the Philippines’ war on terror and

to combat the Communist insurgency. Since the political killings in the Philippines

are happening in the context of Communist insurgency, it is vital that the United

States Government report to the appropriate congressional committees the type of

military assistance it is giving to the Government of the Philippines in its fight

against the community insurgency.

What should be done?

Amnesty International believes that urgent steps are needed to remedy this situation, not least because the threat of further killings has intensified due to political

developments during 2006. These include President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s declaration of a week-long State of Emergency in late February and the continuing collapse of the peace process. Prospect for revival of peace negotiations dwindled further amid intensification of counterinsurgency operations, the direct transfer of

names and addresses of NDF negotiators and others listed in a former safe-conduct

agreement to an arrest warrant, and an announcement in June of the release of

substantial additional funds to allow the armed forces to ‘‘crush’’ the Communist insurgency in certain areas within 2 years.

During and after the Emergency, justified as a response to an alleged coup conspiracy involving an array of actors from the extreme left to the extreme right of

the political spectrum, senior officials repeatedly claimed that the major threat to

national security came from the CPP–NPA. They publicly linked the legal leftist political opposition directly with Communist armed groups, in effect implying that

there was no distinction between them. Such public labeling, in conjunction with the

arrest and attempted arrest of leftist congressional representatives on charges of

‘‘rebellion,’’ raised concerns that the risk of further killings of leftist activists was

intensifying.

Such concerns proved well-founded. As senior officials and military officers labeled

members of the legal left ‘‘enemies of the state,’’ and failed to condemn the killings

consistently at all levels of government, fears grew that elements within the armed

forces might interpret this as a tacit signal that political killings were a legitimate

part of the anti-insurgency campaign. At least 51 political killings took place in the

first half of 2006, compared to the 66 killings recorded by Amnesty International

in the whole of 2005.

While welcoming President Arroyo’s condemnation of political killings in her State

of the Nation Address to Congress in July 2006, her earlier reported instructions

to Cabinet officials to put an end to further killings, and the establishment of a special police investigative task force, Amnesty International believes further determined steps are essential. The organization calls on the Government of the Philippines to implement Amnesty International’s 14-Point Program for the Prevention

of Extrajudicial Executions.

As an integral part of this program, the authorities should urgently reiterate a

clear, unequivocal message to all members of the police, military, and other security

forces that involvement in, or acquiescence to, such unlawful killings will never be

tolerated. All such cases must be fully and promptly investigated and all those responsible, whether linked to the armed forces or not, brought to justice. Only in this

manner can public confidence in the impartial and effective administration of justice

be restored and a peace process, with respect for human rights by all sides at its

heart, be revived.

Political killings: An intensifying pattern

Between the late 1980s and 2000–2001, as the scale and intensity of the National

People’s Army’s (NPA) insurgency declined gradually, the number of alleged NPA

rebels killed in direct armed clashes or ‘‘encounters’’ similarly decreased. However

over the last 6 years this trend appeared to alter. In, addition, especially since 2003,

the number of fatal attacks by unidentified armed men on members of legal leftist

political organizations accused by the government of being ‘‘front’’ organizations of

the CPP–NPA, including Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan

(BAYAN—New Patriotic Alliance) and others, has undergone a marked increase.

Amnesty International believes that these successive killings are marked by common features. These include the political affiliations of the victims; the methodology

of attacks; an apparent climate of impunity which, in practice, has shielded those

responsible from prosecution; and repeated reports that military or other state

agents have been directly involved in the attacks, or else have acquiesced or been

complicit in them.

23

The organization believes that the pattern of killings, sustained over at least the

past 5 years, amount to far more than the rise and fall of a normal crime rate cycle

as suggested by some police officers.

Communist ‘‘fronts’’: The resurgence of ‘‘red-labeling’’

Human rights violations against suspected ‘‘sympathizers’’ of the CPP–NPA have

long been a feature of anti-insurgency operations in the Philippines. From the 1970s

to the early 1990s the practice of ‘‘red-labeling,’’ the public labeling of leftist critics

of the government as ‘‘subversives’’ or members of Communist ‘‘front organizations,’’

was seen by Amnesty International, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines and

other human rights groups as directly linked to the high levels of extrajudicial executions, ‘‘disappearances,’’ arbitrary arrests, and torture of members of legal political groups and nongovernmental organizations. Peasants, trade unionists, church,

social and human rights activists were portrayed in this manner as ‘‘legitimate’’ targets within the broader counterinsurgency campaign. Many were also placed, without opportunity for rebuttal, on AFP ‘‘Orders of Battle’’ (lists of people wanted by

the security forces for alleged subversion) and, often receiving death threats from

AFP and police personnel, paramilitaries, or unofficial vigilante groups, were at particular risk of serious human rights violations.

Concern over a resurgence of such labeling—and an apparent link to a parallel

rise in the number of political killings—has increased during President Arroyo’s administration as provincial military commanders made public statements linking

legal leftist parties directly with the CPP–NPA. One of the most prominent among

these commanders remains Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan. In a television interview in

August 2002 then-Colonel Palparan labeled Bayan Muna an ‘‘NPA front.’’ He also

publicly accused Karapatan and the women’s organization, Gabriela, of being ‘‘NPA

recruiters.’’

Similarly in September 2002, an army commander in Cebu denied Karapatan

human rights workers permission to visit a man detained on suspicion of being an

NPA rebel. The commander is reported to have said, ‘‘There is the possibility that

we will shoot them (Karapatan members), depending on their action, because they

are our enemies.’’ In a separate radio interview, he is also reported to have described Karapatan as ‘‘an enemy which hasn’t done anything but support the NPA

and find ways of destroying the government.’’

The perception that a group of officers within the AFP recognized no distinction

between the NPA and legal leftist parties, and rejected the legitimacy of leftist progressive groups’ participation in democratic political processes, was also reflected in

the circulation in 2005 of AFP treatises on the CPP–NPA ‘‘revolutionary struggle’’

and what the AFP regarded as necessary resultant counterinsurgency strategies.

The treatises outlined the ‘‘complementary, interrelated, and interactive’’ nature of

the armed, the legal community and parliamentary struggles, and described the targeted infiltration and the CPP–NPA ‘‘capture’’ of particular sectoral communities

(including peasants, urban poor, and indigenous people) to exploit pressing social

issues such as land reform and the impact of mining and other controversial development projects. Referring also to alleged penetration of local government units by

party-list groups and the manipulation of government local development programs,

the treatises listed alleged ‘‘front’’ nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and called

for a coordinated AFP campaign to ‘‘neutralize’’ CPP–NPA programs within vulnerable sectors and communities.

Major General Palparan in particular emerged as the focus of accusations by leftist groups that the military was responsible for sharply increased numbers of

killings of leftist activists in regions where he was given command, including Samar

and, currently, Central Luzon. In February 2006, Major General Palparan publicly

reiterated that the government must confront the insurgency at all levels, reducing

their support systems, including NGO’s infiltrated or controlled by the CPP that

provide the ‘‘materials, the shelter’’ for the NPA. He also described the congressional

party-list members as directing or ‘‘providing the day-to-day policies of the [rebel]

movement.’’ He warned of necessary and tolerable ‘‘collateral damage’’ in the antiinsurgency campaign, and, referring to vigilante killings by anti-Communist elements outside the AFP, stated that the military ‘‘alone’’ should not be blamed. Subsequently, labeling leftist party-list leaders as ‘‘enemies of the state,’’ he also called

for reinstitution of the Anti-Subversion Act to again make membership of the CPP

a criminal offense.

Though reassured by President Arroyo’s public condemnation of political killings

in July 2006, the absence of consistent denunciation, at all levels of government, of

any form of official involvement in political killings contributed to persistent concerns that such counterinsurgency strategies would consolidate, in practice, into an

implicit policy of toleration of such political killings. Such concerns had deepened

24

as senior government officials, including prominent members of the Cabinet Oversight Committee on Internal Security (COC–IS), publicly endorsed such counterinsurgency strategies, and in addition, robustly defended the arrest or threatened

arrest of party-list congressional representatives for rebellion. In March 2006 National Security Adviser Noberto Gonzales declared that the government was beginning a crackdown on all known ‘‘Communist fronts’’ in society, and would achieve

its goal of destroying the CPP–NPA by the year 2010.

The backqround of the victims and location of attacks

The majority of the victims of political killings have been unarmed civilians, members of the legal political left, primarily Bayan Muna, Anakpawis and Bagong

Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN—New Patriotic Alliance), but including activists

from a range of leftist sectoral or community organizations. Those killed have also

included members of leftist groups who have split from the CPP, including the

Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokraysa (KPD—Movement for National Democracy). Both men and women have been targeted, with the victims including community organizers, church workers and priests, human rights activists, trade union and

peasant leaders, journalists, indigenous peoples activists, elected local officials and

political activists.

Attacks have occurred nationwide, though human rights and other organizations

have noted periodic, marked increases in particular regions, notably Mindoro Oriental, Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon (including Bulacan, Pampanga, Bataan,

and Nueva Ecija provinces). According to local human rights groups, these regional

fluctuations were allegedly linked to the assignment of Major General Palparan as

commanding officer in these regions. Major General Palparan has denied any involvement in such killings.

Methodology of attacks and suspected perpetrators

The predominant method of attack has been shootings by unidentified assailants,

mostly riding tandem on a motorcycle, who often obscure their identity with ‘‘bonnet’’ face masks or helmets. At times the assailants are supported by other men on

motorcycles nearby or use unmarked vans. Many attacks were described as having

been carried out in a ‘‘professional’’ manner, with the killers striking in broad daylight in public places, firing a limited number of shots targeted at the head or trunk

of the body of the targeted person, before escaping unimpeded.

According to reports, a significant number of attacks have been proceeded by

warnings or death threats, and by patterns of surveillance by alleged security force

personnel which reportedly led up to targeted attacks in or near the victims’ homes

or offices, or while they undertook routine journeys. Following the killing of at least

three activists in northern Luzon 2005, leaders from the Cordillera Peoples Alliance

(CPA) and Bayan Muna-Cordillera, reported that they had been informed by sources

within the AFP that they had been included on a military list as targets for attack.

They described subsequent intensive surveillance or ‘‘casing’’ operations conducted

by suspected military intelligence personnel, including being followed, vehicles carrying men (at times covering their faces) stationed outside their office or driving repeatedly by, and apparent attempts to break into their offices or cars.

In other cases, well-established AFP counterinsurgency techniques appeared to be

linked to subsequent attacks. The practice of ‘‘zoning,’’ whereby the military target

a village or district believed to be influenced by the CPP–NPA, order the inhabitants to assemble to listen to lectures, at times using former insurgents now being

used as military ‘‘assets,’’ about the Communist threat so as to encourage informants and identify alleged Communist supporters within the community, reportedly

leads to the public labeling of legal-left activists, or their inclusion on military ‘‘orders of battle.’’

Once named, the threat of subsequent assassination attacks by unidentified men

is markedly increased. In this manner Tarlac City Councillor Attorney Abelardo

Ladera shot on the highway in central Luzon in 2005, had reportedly been named

in a news briefing as an NPA contact in the region, while Jose ‘‘Pepe’’ Manegdeg,

shot dead in Ilocos Sur in November 2005, had been labeled by the AFP as a NPA

supporter and had received death threats.

Ineffective investigations and a climate of impunity

Prosecution and punishment break the cycle of crime and impunity. It protects

the public from the culprits repeating their crimes and it helps to deter others from

committing similar crimes by raising the real threat that they too, may be caught

and punished.

Failure to investigate political killings effectively and to prosecute the perpetrators risks perpetuating a cycle of human rights violations, not least by sending a

message of de facto state tolerance for such practices. If military or other officials,

25

or others linked to them, believe that they are, in practice, immune from prosecution for such crimes they will be more likely to repeat them. Such a climate of impunity undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, eroding the rule

of law and respect for human rights.

In the Philippines while the authorities routinely launch police investigations into

political and other killings, and in May 2006 established a special unit—Task Force

Usig—to better coordinate investigations into political killings at a national level,

Amnesty International is concerned at persistent reports that the majority of investigations do not meet international standards as set forth in the U.N. Principles on

the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary

Executions, as supplemented by U.N. Manual Effective Prevention and Investigation

of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. Amnesty International is further concerned that these investigations have reportedly not led to the conviction

of any of the perpetrators of the hundreds of killings of leftist activists since 2001.

An international fact-finding mission of lawyers and judges, who visited the Philippines in June 2006 in response to reported extrajudicial executions of members

of the legal profession within the context of a pattern of political killings, found that

in the cases of 15 lawyers and 10 judges killed since 2001 none of the perpetrators

have been convicted. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, responsible for the police, also informed the mission that Task Force Usig had recorded

a total of 114 party-list members killed since 2001. Out of this total, 27 cases had

been filed in court and the remaining 86 are still under investigation. Out of the

27 cases filed in court, the PNP has arrested suspects in only three cases. No convictions have been reported.

Difficulty in investigating?

In explaining the difficulties in investigating such cases, senior police officers described how forensic capability and technology was not yet sufficiently developed, so

that it cannot stand alone as evidence in the absence of eyewitnesses. In May 2006,

a police director working with Task Force Usig had also acknowledged that the refusal of witnesses to come forward is a major obstacle in PNP efforts to investigate

and to collect evidence sufficient to support the filing of criminal charges. The police

also blamed witnesses for their unwillingness to cooperate, stating that it ‘‘unnecessarily’’ caused undue delays in the prosecution of such cases. While acknowledging

that witnesses are fearful of reprisals, one officer suggested this was due not to government institutions, but to a ‘‘general fear’’ of revenge by the NPA. However the

lawyers and families of the victims questioned by the international fact-finding mission confirmed that they mistrusted and feared the police and that in one case, the

witnesses to a killing had told the victim’s family that they had been instructed to

sign a statement different from the one they had given police.

Families of the victims have repeatedly complained of protracted and inconclusive

police investigations which are reported to be indefinitely ‘‘stalled’’ due to an ‘‘absence of leads,’’ or to have been ‘‘solved’’ if the investigating officers have filed an

initial police investigation report with the prosecutor—which subsequently may not

lead to the prosecutor filing charges and applying for a warrant of arrest. In conjunction with lack of confidence in the impartiality of the police, fear of reprisals,

and a lack of an effective witness protection program, most investigations remain

ineffective and fail to lead to the identification, arrest, trial, and conviction of the

perpetrators.

Based on the requirement of principle 9 of the U.N. Principles on the Effective

Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions

which states that ‘‘there shall be thorough, prompt, and impartial investigations,’’

Amnesty International believes that urgent steps are needed to ensure investigations are indeed effective. In order to exercise due diligence in the protection of the

right to life and to combat the current pattern of political killings, police and other

investigative units must be independent and impartial, be adequately resourced and

have the necessary criminal detection, forensic, and other investigative skills.

Ineffective investigations, which fail to lead to prosecutions and convictions, have

played a role in sustaining a broader climate of impunity that has been allowed to

persist since the Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos (1965–1986). The vast majority of

soldiers, paramilitaries, and police responsible for endemic human rights violations

during the Marcos years have never been prosecuted and most of their victims have

received neither justice nor redress. Although President Marcos’ successor, President Corazon Aquino (1986–1992), promulgated a new constitution, restored democratic institutions, and instituted mechanisms for the protection of human rights,

an entrenched public belief that a climate of impunity protected security forces personnel responsible for past and continuing patterns of grave human violations remained intact. President Aquino’s administration, attempting to manage a political

26

transition from the former martial law regime and facing direct challenges from repeated coup attempts by right-wing military rebels, considered it necessary to maintain the support of loyal military leaders. To this end there was no government

pressure for systematic investigation and prosecution of security personnel accused

of perpetrating human violations under martial law and in the context of past and

renewed counterinsurgency operations.

Impunity

Amnesty International and other international and national human rights groups

repeatedly expressed grave concern that the continuing paucity of prosecutions and

convictions of state perpetrators of human rights violations, including extrajudicial

executions, ‘‘disappearances’’ and torture, risked entrenching a de facto climate of

impunity that emboldened security personnel to commit further violations in the

context of anti-insurgency operations. A bleak picture of persistent failures in the

administration of justice was highlighted by the fact that of the 1,509 cases of

alleged human rights violations filed by the Philippine Commission on Human

Rights before the courts between 1987 and 1990, only 11 cases resulted in sanctions

against the perpetrators.

Amnesty International is concerned that flaws within the administration of justice

that have long underpinned a de facto climate of impunity—including ineffective investigations, reluctance of witnesses to come forward for fear of reprisals, and an

apparent lack of political will to ensure the prosecution of suspects, continues to endure. These flaws were sharply illustrated by a pattern of killings of street children

and other suspected criminals by unidentified ‘‘vigilantes’’ in Davao City (Mindanao)

and Cebu City (Visayas) in recent years. In Davao City at least 390 ‘‘criminals,’’

mostly alleged drugs pushers, solvent abusers, or petty thieves, and including street

children and youth gang members, have reportedly been shot dead in the city since

2001. The majority of attacks were carried out by unidentified men on motorcycles,

and local human rights groups expressed alarm at reports that local police were directly responsible, or else had colluded with private ‘‘vigilante’’ gangs in carrying out

such killings in an effort to combat criminality and ‘‘clean up’’ the city’s streets.

These concerns intensified as the city’s mayor appeared to condone the killings,

while denying any direct official responsibility. Police investigations have failed to

lead to the identification and arrest of those responsible and Amnesty International

is not aware of a single prosecution that has led to the conviction of any of the perpetrators.

National and international journalist groups have also expressed concern at the

high number of unsolved killings of journalists in the Philippines. At least 64 journalists are reported to have been killed since 1986 as a result of their work, with

at least 10 in 2005 and 9 in the first 7 months of 2006. Prosecution and conviction

of those responsible remain rare. The conviction in November 2005 of a former police officer responsible for the murder in 2002 of Edgar Damalerio, a radio journalist

in Pagadian (Mindanao), is reported to be only the third such conviction since 1986.

During the investigation and subsequent trial, Edgar Damalerio’s family were repeatedly threatened and one witness was killed. The court rejected as false evidence

given by the accused associates, including police officers.

Failures to prosecute and convict security personnel suspected of carrying out or

being complicit in grave human rights violations continues to fuel the perception

that a climate of impunity is shielding such officers from being held to account.

Prominent, well-publicized examples include the failure to bring suspects to trial in

the case of the reported extrajudicial execution by police of 11 alleged members of

the Kuratong Baleleng bank robbery gang in a Manila street in 1995, and the failure to hold anyone accountable for the alleged torture by police in 1996 of six men

accused of the murder of Rolando Abadilla, a former Marcos-era police intelligence

officer.

In this context, public trust in the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole remains at a low ebb. Amid periodic allegations of corruption

by some public officers, confidence that the right of victims of human rights violations to justice and redress will be respected continues to be undermined by persistent reports of ineffective, protracted investigations by police, public prosecutors,

or the Office of the Ombudsman; by lengthy delays in the course of criminal trials;

and by the perception that those with wealth or political connections are able to improperly exert influence over the investigative agencies or the courts.

Victims of human rights violations and their families, particularly those from poor

or marginalized communities, often consider that they face overwhelming obstacles

in accessing justice—particularly when the alleged perpetrators are military or police personnel. As noted above and reflected in the case studies in this report, a

major obstacle in combating impunity in the Philippines is the reluctance of witVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:01 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 PHILIPPINES.TXT sforel1 PsN: sforel1
27

nesses to come forward. Serious intimidation of witnesses has long been a feature

of cases involving attempts to investigate and prosecute cases of human rights violations taking place within the context of the counterinsurgency campaign. Death

threats and other intimidation of witnesses, at times accompanied by offers of financial compensation or other inducements, have frequently led to ‘‘amicable’’ settlements out of court.

In addition, many victims and their relatives from poorer communities are unable

to sustain the protracted financial and emotional strain of pursuing a complaint or

a criminal case, especially when required to travel to distant investigative offices or

courts for hearings that may be subject to repeated last-minute delays, administratively ‘‘shelved’’ or transferred to a different tribunal. Amid such pressures complainants and key witnesses or relatives of the victims are liable to refuse to involve

themselves in police investigations, or to withdraw from further participation in

court proceedings or investigations conducted by the Philippine Commission on

Human Rights or Office of the Ombudsman, thus restricting the ability of prosecutors and the courts to secure convictions.

Witness protection

Amnesty International believes that effective protection of witnesses and the relatives of the victims must be a priority element within PNP investigation efforts.

A number of groups including the Asian Human Rights Commission have campaigned to ensure that witness protection programs in the Philippines are robust

and effective. Amnesty International shares their serious concerns that the implementation of the relevant legislation, the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit

Act (RA 6981), fails, in practice, to ensure the safety of witnesses. Under the act,

the Department of Justice is empowered to deliver a program of protection to witnesses to grave felonies, including secure housing facilities, relocation or change of

personnel identity, and assistance in obtaining a means of livelihood. The law also

provides that the court or investigating authority shall assure a speedy trial, where

a witness admitted into the program shall testify, and shall endeavor to finish the

proceeding within 3 months for the filing of the case. However as noted by the

Ateneo Human Rights Centre, the reality is that most cases take far longer than

3 months not least because of postponements, usually requested by the accused, and

the length of time that the Supreme Court takes in deciding change of venue petitions for the protection of witnesses. Most witnesses are reported to lack confidence

in the program, and fear that, given prolonged delays in criminal proceedings, it will

not be able to offer protection to them or their families which may be needed to extend over years.

Duty of the State

As described earlier, article 6 of the ICCPR, which provides for the right to life,

further states that ‘‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.’’ In order to effectively combat patterns of politically motivated extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings in the Philippines, the government has a clear duty to consistently

condemn and prohibit all such killings, to ensure each is thoroughly and independently investigated, to bring suspected perpetrators to justice and to ensure reparations to victims.

As stated in 2005 by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or

arbitrary killings these duties lie on the authorities in relation to killings by

nonstate actors, when they act with the knowledge or acquiescence of the authorities and as a result are not subject to effective investigation, prosecution, or punishment. In addition the Special Rapporteur state that crimes, including murder, carried out by individuals can also give rise to state responsibility in instances where

the State has failed to take all appropriate measures to deter, prevent, and punish

the perpetrators as well as address any attitudes or conditions in society which encourage or facilitate such crimes. ‘‘In most situations, isolated killing of individuals

will constitute a simple crime and not give rise to any governmental responsibility.

But once a pattern becomes clear in which the response of the Government is clearly

inadequate, its responsibility under international human rights law becomes applicable. Through its inaction the Government confers a degree of impunity upon the

killers.’’

An essential part, of due diligence of the part of the state, and a crucial component in the battle against impunity, is the conduct of effective investigations which

lead to prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of extrajudicial killings. The

U.N. Human Rights Committee, responsible for monitoring compliance of state signatories with obligations under the ICCPR, identified this as among its principal

subjects of concern after considering the periodic reports of the Philippines in October 2003. Amnesty International shares this conviction and urges the government

28

to address the problem of adequate investigations and prosecutions in the Philippines. This is particularly urgent in relation to the continuing pattern of political

killings.

CONCLUSIONS

Unearthing the evidence establishing responsibility for the current pattern of political killings will take political will. It will require political determination and persistent practical efforts to undo the legacy of impunity, which has the potential to

undermine efforts to hold perpetrators of political killings accountable and is aided

by the assumption that such killings are to some degree an acceptable by-product

of continuing armed conflict.

It will take sustained efforts to unravel the chronology of events that led each attack, to establish the facts constituting every political killing and to establish

whether there was an official chain of command underlying both the crime and its

coverup. Effective, robust measures are necessary to protect those who come forward

to assist the case.

Unless these steps are taken, the corrosive impact of political killings will continue and hopes for a just and lasting peace, as outlined in the government’s 2004–

2010 Peace Plan will remain unrealized.

The struggle for respect for human rights, fought with high cost from the time

of President Marcos and reflected in the 1986 Constitution and the Philippines’ ratification of international human rights treaties, is facing a serious challenge. Within

the context of ‘‘all-out-war’’ against Communist insurgents the rising incidence of

political killings risks a retaliatory spiral of killings by armed groups. The need is

pressing for both sides of the conflict, supported by all sectors of civil society, to assert and commit to renewed respect for human rights.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Government of the Philippines

(1) Not to treat this as a public relations problem; but to take serious steps to

find out who was behind these systematic killings and to make public those findings.

(2) Fully implement the Melo Commission recommendations.

(3) Accept offer of assistance from the U.N. and other countries.

(4) Allow international observers to monitor investigations and trials.

(5) Ensure that the administration speak with one voice on condemning these

killings.

(6) Ensure that the new antiterror law is not used to commit human rights

abuses.

(7) Announce a comprehensive strategy to stop political killings and to bring those

involved to justice.

(8) Amnesty International’s 14-Point Program for the Prevention of Extrajudicial

Executions, based on the U.N. Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, provides a framework within which the pattern of political killings can be stopped. The organization urges the

Government of the Philippines to implement the program in full.

Given reports of continuing political killings, Amnesty International has made a

number of recommendations, addressed to the government, international organizations, civil society organizations and the armed groups. A summary of key recommendations include:

A. Reassert Respect for Human Rights

(1) Official Condemnation: Consistently and at every level of government condemn

all political killings.

(2) Chain of Command Control: Prohibit orders from superior officers or public authorities authorizing, inciting or tacitly encouraging other persons to carry out unlawful killings, even through silence or failing to take action to investigate, and ensure that those in command exercise appropriate and effective control over those

within their command.

(3) Action Against ‘‘Death Squads’’ and Vigilantes: Prohibit and disband any

‘‘death squads,’’ private armies, vigilantes, criminal gangs, and paramilitary forces

operating outside the chain of command but with official support or acquiescence.

B. Guarantee the Administration of Justice

(1) Investigation: Ensure that all complaints and reports of political killings are

investigated promptly, impartially, independently, thoroughly, and effectively. An

independent and impartial body should exercise oversight to ensure investigations

29

are conducted by the police and other investigative agencies in accordance with

international standards.

(2) Prosecution: Ensure that those responsible for political killings are brought to

justice in accordance with international standards of fairness.

(3) Protection Against Death Threats and Other Intimidation: Take action to fully

implement the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (RA 6981) in order to

ensure safe, reliable, and durable mechanisms guaranteeing the participation in the

legal process of witnesses to political killings.

C. The Peace Process: Ensure Compliance With the Human Rights Agreement

(1) All sides of the armed conflict should recommit to and ensure compliance with

the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International

Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL).

(2) Respect for human rights the ground should be enhanced by taking steps to

ensure the operation of the Joint Monitoring Committee of the CARHRIHL.

D. Action by Other Human Rights Institutions

National: The Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement

should conduct prompt, impartial, and effective investigations of all reported political killings which should, as appropriate, lead promptly to recommendations to the

Department of Justice to file criminal charges against those found responsible.

To the United States Government

(1) The Leahy Law must be vigorously implemented. The U.S. Embassy must be

proactive in identifying members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, who may

be involved in political killings.

(2) The United States should give a strong and clear message to the Government

of the Philippines that United States-Philippines relations will suffer if the current

trend in political killings continues and if Philippine authorities fail to bring past

abusers to justice.

(3) Report to appropriate congressional committees about the reported assistance

given to the Government of the Philippines in fighting Communist insurgency.

(4) Insist on specific benchmarks from the Government of the Philippines to address political killings.

(5) Offer technical and other assistance to help solve the cases.

Thank you for inviting Amnesty International to this important hearing.

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin, executive director,

Philippine Facilitation Project, U.S. Institute of Peace here in

Washington.

STATEMENT OF G. EUGENE MARTIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

PHILIPPINE FACILITATION PROJECT, U.S. INSTITUTE OF

PEACE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. MARTIN. Madame Chairman, Senator Webb, thank you very

much for giving me the opportunity to talk this afternoon about

some of my experiences in the Philippines. My remarks, however,

do not reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace,

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

I have been working at the Institute of Peace for nearly 4 years

to end violent conflict in one of the most violent parts of the country, in the Island of Mindanao. We try to further the peace process

between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. I

believe the work of the Institute of Peace provides a model for addressing extrajudicial killings. Institute efforts to counter public

prejudice and discrimination against the Muslim minority, through

education and advocacy can be replicated in mitigating public apathy over the killings.

USIP’s experience in training military officers in conflict management and negotiation skills can heighten military discipline,

and civilian control over security forces. Institute programs to enhance the rule of law complement State Department and USAID

30

efforts to strengthen judicial institutions. By working with the U.S.

agencies the Institute can contribute to the alleviation of the

present violence.

I believe, Madame Chairman, that the violence is caused by two

underlying causes: A weak political system and the legacy of the

Marcos dictatorship. You mentioned being in the Philippines in

1986. I was there a year later, and you’re absolutely right, it was

a totally different view. The often corrupt and ineffective justice

system forces people to resolve disputes through direct and extralegal, and often violent, means. Elite families tend to hold political

power and economic power through threats or violence. Elections

tend to be corrupt, candidates are often targets of harassment, and

voters are threatened with retribution for supporting opposition.

Marcos martial law politicized many institutions, including the

military and the police. Violence against anyone perceived to be opposed to government policies was tolerated, if not authorized.

Extra-legal arrests, disappearances and killings—known as salvaging—were condoned and used by the military and the regime.

Many opponents allied themselves with the National Democratic

Front, and the Moro Islamic and National Liberation Fronts, to

provide protection and to fight against Marcos martial law. The

alienation generated by martial law violence between civil society

elements suspicious of government policies, and security personnel,

who see a Communist hand behind every civil society protest, continues today.

I believe the present rash of violence and killings is a result of

political instability and weakness. President Arroyo has expressed

a determination to solve the problem and resolve the killings. However, I question her capability to take the necessary steps to end

the killings on her own. She depends upon military and provincial

elites to remain in office, promoting military officers who support

her and allowing political supporters considerable latitude. Her

challenge to the Armed Forces to eliminate, in 2 years, a decadesold Communist NPA insurgency has given some in the AFP a green

light to take any action against the NPA and their civil societyfront organizations.

I do mention, however, that the Communist insurgency is a serious threat to the Philippine Government, and to democracy. They

are not serious, unlike—as Mr. Kumar said—the MILF, which is

ready to reach an agreement with the government. I don’t believe

the CCP—OCCP is. As the last remaining Maoist insurgency, they

use violence and abuse their legal democratic space, to advance

their power. Their goals are to destabilize and weaken the government, gain power through coalitions, and eventually replace the

democratic system with an ideological Communist dictatorship.

I’m not optimistic about the short-term chances of stopping the

killings. The National Election Campaigns are underway, chances

of an upsurge in campaign-related violence is possible. Leftists candidates will be particular targets. National Security Advisor Gonzalez stated that such candidates will not be allowed to win seats

in the election. His view will, in a sense, give potential hunting

licenses to the military and local officials who agree with him.

Many observers feel the new law, an antiterrorism law, will increase military operations against civilian opponents. Security

31

Advisor Gonzalez has already stated the NPA will be labeled a

terrorist organization. I believe Ambassador Kenney was right in

expressing her concern over the killings, and I think there are

ways of linking our economic and military assistance to try to resolve some of these problems.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF G. EUGENE MARTIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PHILIPPINE

FACILITATION PROJECT, U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE, WASHINGTON, DC

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing on the tragic

extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. Having lived in the Philippines for 6 years

and now working to facilitate the peace process in Mindanao between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), I am well aware of the many

political, economic, and social issues underlying these violent acts.

The Philippine Facilitation Project of the Institute of Peace is an excellent model

for active U.S. engagement in conflict situations. At the request of the State Department, the Institute has been working for nearly 4 years to end conflict between the

central government in Manila and the Islamic Moro people of Mindanao. The centuries-long conflict has made the southern Philippines one of the most violent areas

of the country. The Institute is actively exploring with negotiators from the Philippine Government and the MILF alternatives for resolving the long conflict. As an

independent, nonpartisan Federal institution, the USIP is able to promote U.S. interests unofficially. Our work gives us insights into the causes of violence in society,

not only in Mindanao but nationwide. That said, my remarks represent my opinion

based upon my experience and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United

States Institute of Peace, which does not advocate specific policy positions.

ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE

I believe there are two underlying causes of the violence. First, weak political and

social institutions, particularly a corrupt and ineffective justice system, prompt citizens to resolve conflicts on their own. When one cannot obtain justice through the

police or courts, alternative means are found. This can be through direct personal

action, drawing upon family or clan support, or arranging for criminal or revolutionary organizations to settle matters.

In Philippine society, family is primary. Nearly any action can be justified if it

is to support the family. Kinship ties extend well beyond the nuclear family, into

clans and tribal or community groups. Identities often are based on familial or,

being an island nation, geographical relationships rather than broader nationalism.

In Mindanao much of the violence is caused by clan conflicts, known as ‘‘rido,’’ which

can continue for generations. Absent access to, or confidence in, justice through legal

mechanisms and institutions, the aggrieved party often takes direct action against

the perceived offender to obtain satisfaction.

The fractious nature of society leads to weak political institutions. Elite families

who hold political and economic power in much of the country often seek to maintain their power in any way possible. Elections tend to be corrupt, candidates running against incumbents are often the targets of harassment if not violence, and voters are threatened with retribution for opposition to power holders. Prime targets

also for threats and violence, including killings, are media or civil society investigators into political and economic corruption.

The second underlying cause of violence is the legacy of the Marcos dictatorship.

Martial law politicized the institutions of government and violence against anyone

perceived to be opposed to government policies was tolerated if not authorized. Soldiers, police, judges, and prosecutors became perpetrators of violent actions against

broad segments of the population. Extralegal arrest, detention, incarceration, disappearances, and killings (known as salvaging) were condoned and used to advance

the regime’s power and reduce political opposition.

Many of those who opposed the Marcos regime responded in similar fashion. Lacking legal of safe alternatives, many allied themselves with revolutionary organizations for protection and influence. These included the National Democratic Front

(NDF) of the Communist Party of the Philippine (CPP) and, in Muslim areas, the

Moro National Liberation Front and subsequently the Moro Islamic Liberation

Front. While many if not most of those who affiliated with the NDF during martial

law years were not Communist, the NDF provided the only available support network against Marcos. Marcos’ militarized response to the historical struggle of the

32

Moros against Manila’s colonial policies enhanced the appeal of those who advocated

armed violence to counter military and militia pogroms against Muslim civilians.

The violence of the Marcos regime abetted the Communist insurgency and Moro decisions that safety was possible only through independence from the Philippines

rather than by working within the political system.

CURRENT SITUATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

I believe the present rash of violence and killings is the result of political instability and weakness. President Arroyo has expressed her determination to address

and resolve the killings. She established the Independent Commission to Address

Media and Activist Killings, headed by former Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose

Melo. She also welcomed the investigation of Professor Philip Alston, the Special

Rapporteur of the U.N. Human Rights Council. However, I question her capability

to take the necessary steps to end the killings. She has been politically weak since

her controversial election in 2004, depending upon support from military and provincial leaders to counter impeachment measures by her opponents in Congress. She

has promoted military officers who support her and placed retired military and police officers in high-level civilian offices. Her challenge to the Armed Forces of the

Philippines (AFP) to eliminate the decades old Communist New Peoples Army

(NPA) insurgency within 2 years has given the AFP a green light to take any action

it wishes against the NPA and their allies. Faced with a persistent low-level NPA

insurgency, the military resorts to stretching counterinsurgency strategies to branding leftist organizations as enemies of the state that can be intimidated or eliminated by any means.

The Communist insurgency is a serious threat to the Philippine Government and

democracy. The world’s last remaining Maoist insurgency, the NDF, uses violence

and abuses democratic privileges to advance its power. As a legal political movement, NDF leaders are elected to Congress where they continue to oppose the administration and seek to block or destabilize government policies. During election

campaigns, the NDF uses kidnappings, ‘‘revolutionary’’ taxes, threats, and violence

to support its candidates and harass opponents. The party’s political goals are to

weaken the government, gain power through coalitions, and eventually replace the

democratic system with an ideological Communist dictatorship.

One of the legacies of the Marcos regime is the continued alienation of many civil

society elements from the government and especially the military. NGOs, religious

bodies, academics, small farmers, and indigenous peoples remain suspicious of government officials and military personnel because of the oppression and violence used

against them during martial law. Many government officials, particularly in the

armed forces and police, reciprocate the mistrust, seeing a Communist hand behind

civil society protests against administration policies and actions. Powerful elites influence local police or military commanders to use force against farmers’ complaints

over land grabs or workers’ demonstrations over working conditions. Murders of

activist farmers and labor leaders in rural provinces are covered up. Journalists investigating the crimes become targets. Similarly, prosecutors and judges are intimidated. Tragically, the result is further alienation from and resistance to the government.

The killings have become a major issue within the Philippines, yet there is little

public outrage despite the release of the Melo Commission report and the initial

criticisms of the Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Public perceptions are influenced by military and official attributions that most of the killings

are internal CPP–NPA purges. Most civil society reaction has been from leftist oriented NGOs rather than mainstream organizations, further limiting public concern.

SHORT-TERM PROSPECTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

While we all hope the killings will stop immediately, I am not optimistic in the

short run. I am confident, however, that through conscientious efforts by Philippine

political and civil society leaders, as well as international partners such as the

United States, this cycle of violence can be halted.

My pessimism over short-term remedial action by the government is based upon

the following:

—It is election time again. Campaigning for national elections on May 14 is well

underway. Little if any serious effort will be exerted to investigate killings of political significance. In fact, as contesting parties struggle to win by any means,

there will likely be an upsurge of campaign related violence.

—Candidates from left-wing political parties will be particular targets. National Security Advisor Norberto Gonzales stated on March 8 that such candidates must

not be allowed to win seats in the Congress. The Gonzales view that party-list

33

candidates ‘‘are under the direct influence of the Communist Party’’ gives a potential hunting license to military and local officials who agree with him.

—The new antiterrorism law, which President Arroyo signed on March 6, gives new

‘‘legal teeth’’ to the government’s war on terrorism. The Arroyo administration describes the law, titled the ‘‘Human Security Act of 2007,’’ as being ‘‘very concerned

on human rights.’’ Many observers fear the law may increase unfettered military

operations against opponents deemed to be terrorists. National Security Advisor

Gonzales has already stated that the NPA will be labeled a terrorist organization

when the new law is promulgated. Legal leftist organizations and elected individuals may be designated.

—The new Defense Secretary, Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr., is a retired police officer.

He succeeds a civilian. Senior Department of National Defense officials are now

mostly former military officers rather than civilians. Secretary Ebdane likely will

promote military perceptions of security threats. U.N. Rapporteur Alston stated

‘‘the AFP is in a state of almost total denial . . . of its need to respond effectively

and authentically to the . . . killings . . . attributed to them.’’

The killings and the state of democracy in the Philippines have implications for

U.S. interests. Prolonged United States support for the Marcos regime in order to

save our military bases alienated many in the Philippines. U.S. Ambassador Kenny

has rightly expressed official U.S. concern over the extrajudicial killings. However,

other U.S. interests—counterterrorism cooperation and training opportunities the

AFP provide U.S. forces—may limit pressure on the Arroyo administration.

The U.S. Institute of Peace involvement in the Mindanao peace process provides

insights into many of these issues. It is readily apparent that there are multiple,

often uncoordinated, policymakers in the Arroyo administration with diverse agendas. The President has authorized her negotiators to propose a forward-looking selfdetermination package to the MILF. Yet, military officers in central Mindanao continue to support local political leaders who use their militia as private armies to

contest MILF influence. The Arroyo administration avoids exercising national authority over local political and economic interests opposed to a peace agreement with

the Moros so as to retain their support against administration opponents. It expends

little effort to counter biased or incorrect media reports on Mindanao events.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The United States and other nations are not without influence to help end the

violence of extrajudicial killings. The Philippines is sensitive to and dependent on

the goodwill and support of its neighbors and international donors. Some useful

tools include:

• Donor nations and international financial institutions already have strong

anticorruption requirements for economic assistance. Linking assistance to

forceful judicial reform and independent investigations of the killings would enhance the resolution of the cases. • Philippine desires to qualify for the Millennium Challenge Corporation assistance gives the U.S. influence to demand rigorous action against the killings. • The sizeable defense relationship the United States has with the Philippines

provides a mechanism to encourage civilian control over the armed forces. • Forceful public U.S. official support for human rights reforms and protections

would counter some Filipino perceptions that U.S. concern over the killings is

tempered by our efforts to counter terrorism.

MODEL FOR SUCCESS

The U.S. Institute of Peace has established a unique relationship with key players

in the peace process in Mindanao. Working with minimal publicity, the Institute has

made a significant contribution to the progress in the talks over the past 4 years.

The Institute has worked closely with civil society to foster open debate to mitigate

Filipino public prejudice and discrimination against the Moro minority. Engaging

NGOs, church leaders, educators, and media representatives, the Institute seeks to

change public perceptions of the conflict and the benefits a durable peace agreement

would bring the nation. Similar programs focused on highlighting a need to end the

extrajudicial killings and to bring perpetrators to justice could help strengthen judicial institutions and public demands for resolution of the killings.

The Institute’s peace efforts supplement Embassy, USAID, and the Pacific Command’s counterterrorism and developmental programs and priorities. Working independently but cooperatively with these official U.S. agencies, the Institute addresses

the political, religious, historical, and social issues underlying the conflict. Parallel

programs dealing with judicial reform, civilian control over security forces, and amelioration of the Communist insurgency could begin to address the causes of the

34

killings. Institute efforts to reduce intra-Moro clan and tribal conflict through support for dialog and cooperation among the next generation of Moro leaders could be

duplicated in other conflict situations, which now end in political killings.

Regrettably, the State Department’s support for the Institute’s facilitation project

is ending just as the peace process is at a critical juncture. Once the negotiators

reach agreement on outstanding issues, a politically contentious, long-term transition period to implement the agreement will require close monitoring and engagement. Granting the Moros self-determination will alter power relationships in

Mindanao. The potential for extralegal violence is real. Continued Institute presence

is critical to help both Muslim and Christian communities through this difficult period. Without renewed funding, however, the Institute’s unique investment of trust

and credibility with key players will be lost prematurely.

The coordinated approach U.S. agencies, the Institute of Peace, neighboring countries, and international donors have used to advance the Mindanao peace process

can be replicated to resolve the extrajudicial killings. U.S. interests would be served

and the Philippines would benefit.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I welcome your questions and those of your colleagues.

Senator BOXER. Thank you for that excellent testimony, both of

you.

And now, Bishop, we welcome you. We know it took some courage. We really welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF BISHOP ELIEZER PASCUA, GENERAL SECRETARY, THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES

Bishop PASCUA. Hello. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer,

Senator Webb. Good afternoon.

I’m Bishop Eliezer Pascua, general secretary of the United

Church of Christ in the Philippines. I was elected by our Eighth

Quadrennial General Assembly that was held in Mindanao last

May 2006. But, before my election, I was serving as jurisdictional

Bishop of the Southern Luzon jurisdiction—the area where many

of our church workers, pastors, and lay leaders were killed.

I’ve come to the United States of America, first by the invitation

of our partner church, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., through the

sacramento presbytery, particularly. And, also being delegate to the

Ecumenical Advocacy days just concluded, and a delegate also of

the ongoing International Ecumenical Conference on Human

Rights situation in the Philippines, here in Washington DC.

I appear before this hearing as a witness to the fact that political

and extrajudicial killings are happening in the Philippines. I think

it is not superfluous to repeat, coming from us, that extrajudicial

killings have been happening in our country. And included among

numerous victims were church people, priests, pastors, even

bishops, and lay leaders, working for the church. I am speaking

from the ground, so to speak, but let me inform this body that our

general assembly—in May of last year—which elected me to the position of general secretary, passed a strongly worded resolution condemning the ongoing, unabated political killings in the country

that were then—as far as we know—more than 600 victims already

and 9 members and pastors of the UCCP. About 15 or so are coming from the whole of the churches.

But right during the course of our discussion, one of our active

lay leaders was also slain—Mr. Noli Capulong, who was an active

member of Calamba UCCP, 45 kilometers south of Manila. He was

35

a brother of Noli Capulong, Atty Emilio Capulong, who was the

principle author of this resolution.

Such an event made the general assembly discussion about the

resolution more intense, and therefore they passed an action, or

asked to hold, and call for a Peace and Human Rights Summit in

which we did last July where we called International Ecumenical

Partners and organizations aside from other church partners.

I am speaking now from representing the voices of the victims

from the churches. Our pastors who are victimized suffered just

like many others. Most of them were killed in broad daylight by

two motorcycle-riding men. There were supposed to have been

many witnesses, but until now their cases remain unsolved, just

like the 836 fatalities or victims. Those cases of those who were

killed, until today, remain unsolved.

So, Madame Senator may I make this call as part of our summary of calls. One, we ask this committee to ask the Philippine

Government to immediately stop the extrajudicial killings, abductions, and other forms of human rights violations. And that the

revocation of all hit lists, which target church people, and others,

and label us as Communist Front Organizations. No. 2, to ask the

Philippine Government to take effective measures to bring to justice members of its Security Forces and their agents against whom

there is credible evidence of human rights violations. And No. 3,

call upon the Philippine Government to comply with its obligations

under international law, and rescind its national security policy

under its current counterinsurgency and counterterrorism campaign, which has the effect of legitimizing and encouraging the

killing of innocent civilians. This includes making the distinction

between combatants and noncombatants, as well as labeling, as

falsely accusing critics of the Philippine Government’s policies, or

those who advocate for human rights, or being enemies of the state.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Bishop Pascua follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BISHOP ELIEZER M. PASCUA, GENERAL SECRETARY, UNITED

CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES

INTRODUCTION

I am Bishop Eliezer M. Pascua, General Secretary of the United Church of Christ

in the Philippines (UCCP). I was elected to this office during our 8th Quadrennial

Session of our General Assembly held May 2006 in Digos City, Davao del Sur.

However, before my election as General Secretary, I was serving as Jurisdictional

Bishop assigned in Southern Luzon Jurisdiction for a total of 14 years with only 2

years break (1990–98 then 2000–2006). From 1998–2000 I served as administrative

pastor of a local church in College, Los Banos, Laguna. The Southern Luzon Jurisdiction covers the UCCP churches in areas within three political regions, namely,

National Capital Region which is mainly Metro Manila area, southern Tagalog and

Bicol region.

I have come to the United States of America first, by the invitation of the Presbyterian Church (USA) particularly through the Presbytery of Sacramento in keeping with our church-to-church partnership and their solidarity with us under the

present predicament we and the Filipino people are in, especially with respect to

the human rights situation, and second, by being a delegate to the Ecumenical Advocacy Days and to the International and Ecumenical Conference on Human Rights

Situation in the Philippines which is taking place in Washington, DC, March 12–

14, 2007.

Now, I appear before the hearing of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on East Asian

and Pacific Affairs as a witness to the fact that political or extrajudicial killings are

36

happening in the Philippines and included among numerous victims were church

people: Priests, pastors, even bishop and lay leaders working for the church.

ATTACK AGAINST THE CHURCH

Let me inform this body that during our General Assembly in May last year,

which elected me to the office of General Secretary of the UCCP, the delegates

passed unanimously a strong resolution condemning the extra judicial killings being

done against human rights activists and church people and calling the Office of

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to put a stop to it. But coupled with that resolution was a mandate that the UCCP hold a Human Rights and Peace Summit in cooperation with partner churches and civil society groups and ecumenical international bodies.

Let it be put on record that at the height of the deliberation on such resolution

by the General Assembly, Mr. Noli Capulong, an active lay leader of UCCP-Calamba

of the Northeastern Southern Tagalog Conference and spokesperson of Southern Tagalog Environmental Action Movement, was shot dead by two unidentified motorcycle-riding gunmen at around 6 p.m. of May 27, 2006, in Calamba, Laguna (about

45 kms south of Manila). Noli had long been under military surveillance for his advocacy work for justice, peace, human rights, and environmental concerns. And he

happened to be the youngest brother of Atty. Emilio Capulong who was the principal author of such resolution and also a staunch defender of human rights himself.

All the more our demand for justice and call for the stopping of political killings

and other forms of human rights violations became more intense. We just held the

Peace and Human Rights Summit last July 21, 2006, in cooperation with the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, the Ecumenical Bishops Forum and

the Roman Catholic Benedictine Sisters for Peace. It was participated in by many

representatives from various churches and organizations locally and internationally

where we invited also some living victims themselves and/or relatives of the killed

victims to share about their grim experiences of human rights violations.

I am sharing this story to say that even this trip of mine to the USA is part of

that whole advocacy of our church to stop the killings, end the violence, and work

for and promote change to make current life in the Philippines different from what

it is now.

From the year 2001 to the present we came to know that there may already be

as high as 836 persons killed extralegally in the Philippines. The victims actually

came from all walks of life: Farmers, fisherfolks, workers, indigenous people, Moro

people, journalists, lawyers, doctors, teachers, students, young persons, women, and

even children. I would like to make particular mention that church people were also

not spared.

Among the 836 or so who were killed, 26 were church people, clergy, and lay persons. The church people killed came from the Philippine, Independent Church,

United Methodist Church, Born Again Christian Church, United Church of Christ

in the Philippines, and Roman Catholic Church for many of the lay persons. Out

of the 25 church martyrs, 15 belonged to the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. That is why we are called the hardest hit among the churches.

With such an appalling death toll of extrajudicial killings in our country at this

time of the Arroyo administration, nobody could ever claim that she/he is not afraid

and is safe. I admit that I have that fear rather now and later when I go back to

the Philippines. How much more with those who have always been there who were

close or in proximity with the victims within their household or even in their community when they were assassinated. You can all imagine the chilling effect among

the people that this extralegal killings have been causing.

Reportedly, almost all of these cases actually remain unsolved, and that even

those cases that the military or police ruled as either the work of the antigovernment group or ordinary crimes that they claimed solved, however, remained to

be the result of unsatisfactory and unbelievable police crime investigation work.

Example of this was the killing of Bishop Alberto Ramento last October 3, 2006,

right inside his convent in Tarlac City. Bishop Ramento was receiving death threats

already before he was killed. The Philippine National Police (PNP) report said that

Bishop Ramento was stabbed to death by robbers. Simply because Bishop Ramento’s

cellular phone and ring were discovered stolen after the incident, the PNP was

quick to dismiss the case as a simple case of robbery with homicide. But people were

in wonderment, particularly those who conducted a fact-finding mission, that the

crime scene investigation by the police was perfunctorily and hastily finished in

about 2 hours and, thereafter, they did not cordon off the crime scene, thus, allowing everyone in.

37

Apparently no fingerprint was taken during the crime scene investigation because

the police report never came up with a fingerprint finding. Except for the sworn

statement of the church caretaker, Archimedes Ferer, there was also no interview

done on the family and the people close to Bishop Ramento after the crime scene

investigation and before the PNP single-mindedly declared it just a few hours after

the crime scene investigation that it was a case of robbery with homicide.

A few days after the tragic incident, the Philippine National Police presented four

men as suspects in the case. However, according to observers, an analysis of their

investigation would reveal questionable results.

In most of the earlier cases of killings, however, the police and military were hastily concluding that the crime was the work of the New People’s Army (NPA) or

antigovernment groups since the assailants usually were unidentified men riding in

motorcycles and since no witnesses are willing to testify so the cases just lied there

unsolved.

Let me tell you that in virtually all cases of killings of the church people, just

like in the rest of the cases, the police and military were always in complete denial

of their accountability and responsibility despite their having clear leads or evidence

in most cases that apparently point to them. I would like to cite the following cases:

The killing of Rev. Edison Lapuz along with Mr. Alfredo Malinao on May 12,

2005, in Sitio Motor, Barangay Crossing, San Isidro, Leyte (in the major island

group of Visayas). Reverend Lapuz was the Conference Minister of the United

Church of Christ in the Philippines-North Eastern Leyte Conference, where Mr.

Malinao was a village councilor. They were killed pointblank by two motorcycleriding men wearing bonnet masks and helmets right just at the back of Reverend

Lapuz’ house when they were whiling away some hours after having done the funeral for his father-in-law that afternoon.

But the lead was more on the instances a few days before the incident. Mr.

Fortunato Lapuz, father of Edison, reported to the Fact Finding team that Lieutenant Mangohon, the commanding officer of the local military detachment visited their

house several times. On May 1, 2005, Mr. Lapuz was asked whether he knew of

Reverend Lapuz’ organizational involvements and whether he knew Benito

Montecena, Alberto Mauring, Benjamin Tumbiga, and Fernando Kiling, all members

of local small farmers group. Then he was told that Reverend Lapuz and the said

farmers were under surveillance by Lieutenant Mangohon’s team. On May 3, 2005,

the same Lieutenant Mangohon returned with another person and requested if they

could look into the family album. Mrs. Lapuz who was the only person at the house

allowed them to do so. Lieutenant Mangohon, being a soldier well identified as such

by Reverend Lapuz’ parents is an indispensable person that must be included in the

investigation. But until now we don’t know of any investigative action that has been

done on this Lieutenant Mangohon if only to find out the real truth.

The assassination of Rev. Jemias Tinambacan and the frustrated killing of his

wife, Rev. Marilou Tinambacan is another good case to have a lead for evidence.

Reverends Jemias Tinambacan and Marilou are both UCCP Pastors in Misamis Occidental and both are active members as well of ecumenical organizations Ecumenical Center for Development (KASIMBAYAN) and Promotion of Church Peoples’ Response (PCPR). The tragic incident took place on May 9, 2006, at about 5:30 p.m.

along the national highway in Barangay Mobod, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental

in Mindanao. Four armed men on board two motorcycles suddenly appeared on the

side of their van and began shooting them.

Reverend Jemias after being hit by those gunshots lost control of the wheel of

their van and crashed onto a tree. Reverend Jemias sustained three gunshot

wounds at his head while Reverend Marilou luckily, however, was not hit as badly

as she was able to hide beneath the dashboard of the van. As the suspects continued

firing at the vehicle Reverend Marilou even saw and identified one of them as

Orland ‘‘Mamay’’ Guimalan, a known military intelligence agent in their place.

Madame Senator and members of this subcommittee, friends, I can cite many

more of these cases of extrajudicial killings whose perpetrators could have been

identified and brought to the bar of justice if the authorities and our government

would make the force and order of law to operate.

You may also have been asking in your mind at this point why these church people are being killed. I tell you they were killed not merely because of the church

where they belong to, but more so because they have been actively involved in doing

their task as servants of God. Their expression of faith is not confined within the

four walls of the church but extend among the people in their community. They

were like modern-day prophets whose commitment and service to God is seriously

being carried out in journey with the poor people in their struggle for abundant life.

And because of this, their names are being listed down under the military’s Order

of Battle as presented in their CD entitled ‘‘Knowing the Enemy.’’

38

CONCLUDING REMARKS

But so long as our government and the police and military would always look at

the whole country and particularly the restless and critical citizens as a battlefield

for their counterinsurgency and war on terror, political killings, enforced disappearances, and other forms of human rights abuses shall not be abated.

And so long as the government and the military would continue to be in complete

denial of their responsibility of any degree to any of these innocent lives that have

been sacrificed unnecessarily there is no way that we could force them to stop the

killings. Their sense of impunity had reached to a point like having the ‘‘hardened

heart of Pharaoh’’ in the Exodus story.

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir.

Ms. Enriquez.

STATEMENT OF MARIE HILAO-ENRIQUEZ, SECRETARY GENERAL OF ALLIANCE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLE’S

RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES (KARAPATAN), QUEZON CITY,

PHILIPPINES

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. Yes; good afternoon to this honorable committee, and thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Thank you very

much, Senator Webb, for giving us this opportunity to relate to you

what’s happening in our country.

I’m Marie Hilao-Enriquez, secretary general of the Human

Rights Organization called KARAPATAN, which documents and investigates cases of human rights violations in my country. We have

15 regional centers, and we put out annual reports on human

rights in the Philippines.

Today is the birthday of my sister, Liliosa Hilao, who was killed

in a detention center in Camp Crame 34 years ago during the martial law period of President Marcos.

The killings, tortures, and horrors of those days of martial law

are now being brought back in by the Arroyo administration. We

have seen a worsening human rights situation under President

Arroyo’s watch. From 2001 up to the present, our group has documented 836 victims of extrajudicial killings, 196 victims of enforced

disappearances, 355 victims of frustrated killings. Military deployments are happening in the rural areas identified by the military

as priority areas for counterinsurgency. Lately, we are alarmed

that not only military deployments are happening in the rural

areas, but in urban slum areas as well.

The victims of extrajudicial killings—as has been already said—

include lawyers, farmers, leaders of trade unions, indigenous people, the Moro people, women, youth activists, church people, and

out of the 836 victims, 31 KARAPATAN workers have been killed

under the Arroyo administration.

In areas of counterinsurgency programs, cases of human rights

violations, like harassment of individuals, evacuations, torture, and

illegal arrests are also happening. In many of the cases of

extrajudicial killings, we found out the responsibility or culpability

of the military and police.

What are the reasons for these human rights violations under

Mrs. Arroyo’s Presidency? The country has not experienced any

substantial changes, especially in our economic conditions. People

remain poor, and as the policies of globalization are being implemented by this administration, people have become restive and

39

protests—which are constitutionally guaranteed rights under our

Constitution—are happening.

But the response of the government is like that of the dreaded

Marcos regime, one of repression. President Arroyo, has resorted to

a calibrated preemptive response, banning all rallies in Metro Manila, and other parts of the country. She has resorted to Executive

Order 464, which stipulates that no government official can testify

in congressional or Senate hearings, unless she has permission.

She resorted to a national State of Emergency last year in what we

term as a ‘‘foray of Mrs. Arroyo’’—of President Arroyo—into having

martial law powers. Lately, she has signed into law the Anti-terror,

or Human Security Act, which we think will pave the way for a

more martial law-like atmosphere in the Philippines.

She has resorted to an all-out war against the insurgents, implementing a counterinsurgency program called Oplan Bantay Laya,

which purportedly is the endgame strategy to end the insurgency.

But, to us, this has remained the state policy under the aegis of

the U.S. Bush’s War on Terror, and she has given 1 billion pesos

to this counterinsurgency program. This, to us, is the cause of

many of the extrajudicial killings, because the military has resorted to labeling many of the victims as ‘‘Communists’’ or ‘‘terrorists’’ under this Oplan Bantay Laya.

A surveillance of, and harassments happen to these victims before the killings, and perpetrators conceal their identities. We call

on the Senate subcommittee to please adopt the documents that we

submitted to this body as part and parcel of my oral and written

testimony before this honorable subcommittee. My testimony adds

to what Bishop Pascua has said.

We call on the Senate committee to conduct an investigation, review and examination of the U.S. security cooperation, and military

assistance, and aid to the Philippine Government, and ensure that

it does not support the national security policy that exacerbates the

violations of human rights, including the killing of church people

and human rights activists.

We call on you to review U.S. development assistance to the Philippine Government, as well as trade and economic arrangements,

and look into whether such aid and investments exacerbates, instead of reduce, social and economic inequities, and aggravate—

rather than stop—the prevalent violations of human rights. It must

be ensured that such appropriations and investments are not, in

any way, used to promote or contribute to the perpetration of such

violations. We ask your committee to ensure——

Senator BOXER. You need to wrap up now.

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ [continuing]. Ensure that any future U.S.

military appropriations and economic and official development assistance to the Philippine Government be conditioned to a strict adherence to international laws and standards of human rights and

good governance.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hilao-Enriquez follows:]

40

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIE HILAO-ENRIQUEZ, SECRETARY GENERAL OF ALLI- ANCE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLE’S RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

(KARAPATAN), QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES

To the distinguished Senators of the subcommittee: First, let me express my sincerest gratitude to Senator Barbara Boxer and the members of the Subcommittee

for East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for

conducting this hearing on the events happening in the Philippines. The rest of the

members of our delegation share the same sentiment.

I am Marie Hilao-Enriquez, secretary general of the human rights group in the

Philippines, called KARAPATAN. My organization has been documenting cases of

human rights violations in the country since 1995. Let me also say that I am one

of the martial law survivors and my parents as well as one of my sisters are among

the named lead plaintiffs in the historic class action suit against Marcos that we

filed in the U.S. Federal Court system in 1986. In 1992, the class action suit won

for the Filipino martial law victims a landmark ruling holding Marcos guilty of

crimes against humanity.

I have come before you, after several trips here in the United States and other

countries, in an effort to inform the Filipinos abroad as well as citizens of the countries I visited of the alarming human rights violations happening under the watch

of the sitting President—Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Let me put on record at the outset that complementary to the following, I am

hereby adopting and incorporating by way of reference the Summary of Calls of the

Ecumenical Voice on Peace and Human Rights in the Philippines, ‘‘Let the Stones

Cry Out,’’ an ecumenical report on the human rights situation in the Philippines,

released by the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) March

2007, and the compendium of selected documents accompanying the foregoing as

part and parcel of my oral and written testimony before your honorable subcommittee.

When Mrs. Arroyo was catapulted to the Presidency in 2001, the country’s human

rights situation has not improved but has gone for the worst. Immediately upon

assuming office, Mrs. Arroyo implemented the same economic policies of past administrations that did not change the conditions of the majority poor and ordinary Filipinos.

Her boasted ‘‘sound economic fundamentals’’ have sent more of our fellow Filipinos out of the country seeking for jobs abroad, sometimes even in countries where

war is raging and their lives are placed at great risk. The economic conditions of

our people have worsened to a point that the latest surveys would indicate that

more Filipinos would consider themselves poor and hungry.

Instead of promoting democracy and human rights consistent with the spirit of

a People Power uprising that catapulted her to power in 2001, Mrs. Arroyo’s administration has curtailed civil liberties, disregarded human rights and international

humanitarian laws, and launched attacks on the people.

The infractions on civil liberties and human rights occur against the background

of a worsening political crisis of the Arroyo government and increasing foreign military involvement by President George Bush’s administration.

Mrs. Arroyo is facing calls to vacate the executive office on serious charges of massive electoral fraud and graft and corruption, intense and vicious extrajudicial

killings, political persecution and serious affronts to civil liberties consistent with

her constant agenda for political survival.

Mrs. Arroyo has so far faced two impeachment complaints in the Philippine Congress for violation of the 1987 Constitution, betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption and human rights violations. Those who dare criticize the Arroyo government publicly risk being labelled as ‘‘destabilizers’’ or ‘‘Communist sympathizers’’ or

even ‘‘terrorists.’’

Mrs. Arroyo and her allies recently enacted into law the ‘‘antiterrorism bill’’

(ATB), now called the Human Security Act of 2007 which will practically kill the

constitutionally enshrined bill of rights and, many Filipinos fear, could be used as

a legal ground for declaring martial law.

In the aftermath of the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, Mrs.

Arroyo declared her support to the U.S. ‘‘war on terror.’’ The Philippines began receiving increased U.S. military aid and was named America’s major ‘‘non-NATO ally

in Asia.’’

Based on the June 2005 World Policy Institute Special Report, the Philippines has

a requested Foreign Military Funding (FMF) aid from the U.S. Government of

US$4.5 billion in 2006, a full $1 billion increase from the FY 2001 level. The worrisome part of this aid, the same report says, is that ‘‘arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or

41

enabling human rights abuses in the process.’’ The report also posits the fear that

giving arms to countries with active armed conflicts will exacerbate the conflict.

An internal security plan, code named Oplan Bantay Laya (OBL or Operation

Freedom Watch), viewed as patterned after the Phoenix Program in Vietnam in the

1960s, was created in early 2002. The OBL was approved by Arroyo’s Cabinet Oversight Committee for Internal Security (COCIS) and became a blueprint of the

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).

Although OBL purportedly aims to crush decisively the three-decade old Communist rebellion, it highlights the ‘‘neutralization’’ of what the Philippine authorities call ‘‘front organizations,’’ leaders and members as ‘‘enemies of the state.’’ In effect, the new antiterrorist-insurgent campaign makes no distinction between armed

guerillas and unarmed activists, making the latter fair targets of political assassinations and abductions by suspected state-organized death squads.

The executive policy that is merged with the aforementioned military strategy had

also taken the form of restrictions on civil and political rights, specifically through

the Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR) issued on September 21, 2005, the anniversary of Marcos’ martial law, and Presidential Proclamation 1017 that placed the

Philippines under a state of emergency on February 24, 2006, after which arbitrary

arrests and illegal detention particularly in the cities became prevalent. Several

arrests have been made including that of Representative Crispin Beltran, a labor

leader and representative in the House of Representatives from the Anakpawis (toiling masses) party list. Five other members of progressive party-list groups Bayan

Muna (people first), Gabriela (women’s group) and Anakpawis were able to protect

their liberty but are now facing what they and their lawyers say are illegal arrests

on false charges.

In the 6 years of the Arroyo Presidency, democracy and human rights continue

to deteriorate in the Philippines. A total of 836 victims of extrajudicial killings has

been recorded and documented since 2001 when she came to power. Three hundred

fifty-seven more were documented to have survived attacks on their lives. At least

196 other persons have been documented to have been abducted and remain missing

to this day. Scores have been tortured while thousands have been displaced and

harassed, hundreds have experienced physical assault in the course of military operations or while exercising their rights to assembly and free speech. The National

Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) recorded 47 journalists killed in the

course of their work during the same period.

The killings have victimized Filipinos coming from a wide range of sectors—farmers, workers, indigenous peoples, Moro people, lawyers, church people, human rights

workers, youth activists, women and members of progressive groups, especially the

new parties that were able to seat representatives in Congress. Twenty seven

KARAPATAN human rights workers and leaders were killed from 2001 up to the

present.

The killings continue to be committed with impunity far surpassing that of the

Marcos dictatorship. As a survivor of Marcos’ martial law, I can say that the dictator was able to violate our rights because he declared martial law. Under Mrs.

Arroyo, a virtual martial atmosphere is obtaining in the country without the formal

declaration, under a supposed democratic society. Gross and systematic violations

of human rights happen in the country now with such impunity that the victims

are left with no recourse or redress from the institutions in the country.

A case in point is that of the case of my colleague, Eden Marcellana, secretary

general of KARAPATAN-Southern Tagalog and Eddie Gumanoy, a farmer leader

who was with her in an 11-member fact-finding team.

From 19 to 21 April 2003, Marcellana, a staunch and vocal oppositor to various

military atrocities in Mindoro Island and elsewhere, together with Eddie Gumanoy,

chair of the peasant organization KASAMA–TK, led a group of human rights volunteers in a Fact-Finding Mission (FFM)—Quick Reaction/Response Team (QRT) in

Mindoro Oriental, Philippines, to verify and document reports of human rights violations committed reportedly by then-Col. Jovito Palparan and elements of his 204th

Infantry Brigade. On their way back from the mission, about a mere 5.5 kilometers

from the military camp, the vehicle which they were riding in was stopped and commandeered by armed men. The dead bullet-ridden bodies of Marcellana and

Gumanoy were found near each other in another town in the morning of 22 April

2003.

Due to widespread calls and public criticism, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

was for the first time forced to form a task force from the Department of Justice

(DOJ) to look into the subject kidnappings and murders. The task force recommended the filing of charges against a sergeant working directly under Col.

Palparan and several rebel returnees under the latter’s control. In the meantime,

42

the sergeant was arrested for an unrelated charge of robbery but was able to post

bail at once.

But the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors recommended the dismissal of the charges of

arbitrary detention, murder, and robbery against the respondents despite the independent, credible, and positive identification by four survivors-witnesses and other

overwhelming evidence. The Chief State Prosecutor dismissed the case accordingly

on 17 December 2004.

Prior to such dismissal, congressional investigations were held before the House

of Representatives and the Senate in May 2003. The House Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights in its report called for a further probe and the temporary

relief of then-Colonel Palparan while the investigation was ongoing. The Senate

Committee on Justice and Human Rights, after conducting an initial hearing, suspended its inquiry due to the ongoing preliminary investigation before the DOJ.

Almost contemporaneously, Colonel Palparan’s promotion to brigadier general and

then to major general was eventually confirmed by the congressional Commission

on Appointments despite various oppositions from different sectors. While the case

was still pending preliminary investigation before the DOJ, General Palparan was

quietly sent to Iraq in early 2004 to head the Philippine mission in the U.S. invasion and occupation.

Separate hearings before the national Commission of Human Rights (CHR) were

also heard. But after submitting testimonial and documentary evidence in support

of their charge of human rights violations, the victims and their heirs were compelled to withdraw from the CHR hearings because they sincerely believed at that

point and under the circumstances then that they cannot get justice, that the hearing was to be used to clear Colonel Palparan and remove obstacles to his pending

promotion to major general, and in view of another high profile extrajudicial execution in Mindoro of an activist lawyer and of Marcellana’s successor. Nonetheless, the

CHR issued a resolution castigating Colonel Palparan for his responsibility and inaction for various violations in his area of responsibility.

A separate complaint for violation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect

for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHIRHL) was filed before the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) of the Government of the Republic of

the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP)

on 4 June 2004. The JMC has not yet acted on the complaint as the GRP has refused to convene with its counterpart after having met previously only twice in April

2004.

The victims and their heirs filed a Petition for Review/Appeal of the DOJ Panel

dismissal on 22 February 2005 before the present Justice Secretary.

While the said Petition for Review/Appeal remained unresolved despite several efforts to follow it up or calls to resolve the same, the victims and the heirs participated in two nongovernmental people’s tribunals to submit their testimonial and

documentary evidence for the killing, namely: The International People’s Tribunal

(IPT) of the International Solidarity Mission (ISM) on August 2005 and the Citizen’s

Congress for Truth and Accountability (CCTA) on November 2005. In the IPT, General Palparan and his military were particularly adjudged guilty of crimes against

humanity and the extrajudicial killing of Marcellana and Gumanoy, among others.

The victims and their heirs were also compelled to file a specific complaint on 16

March 2006 before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) in New

York against the Philippine Government for violation of the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) under its Optional Protocol. The complaint remains outstanding.

In the meantime, there were reports that the sergeant implicated in the case was

also sent to Haiti as part of the Philippine mission to the U.N. peacekeeping forces.

Earlier, on October 2003, representatives of the victims and the heirs brought the

case to the attention of the UNHRC in Geneva during its 79th session. In that session, then acting Justice Secretary Merceditas Gutierrez (now Ombudsman) openly

claimed before the UNHRC that the case had already been filed in court when in

fact it was still at the preliminary investigation before the DOJ at that time.

The present Justice Secretary eventually approved the dismissal of the charges

by the DOJ Panel and denied the Petition for Review/Appeal of the victims and

heirs only after almost 2 long and agonizing years on 20 November 2006 through

a minute perfunctory resolution. The victims and the heirs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 7 December 2006 while the respondents filed their Comment on 22

December 2006. The incident is still pending.

From the above, this case is emblematic of the search for justice of human rights

violations victims as it is clear that they and their heirs have tried practically every

available legal remedy to seek justice not only before the domestic fora but even in

the international arena. It is also clear that the acts of different agencies and

43

branches of the Philippine Government have individually and collectively engendered the impunity for this and other human rights violations.

From 2005 until August 2006, several separate and independent international

peace and solidarity fact-finding missions were conducted in the Philippines by eminent human rights advocates and organizations. Members of these missions expressed dismay and alarm over the gross and systematic violations of human rights

after finding out for themselves the magnitude of the violations and worse, the apparent failure of government authorities to address the problem or at least rein in

the Philippine military, police, and paramilitary forces.

In August 2005, 86 delegates from 18 countries came to the Philippines in an

International Solidarity Mission (ISM) to look into reported cases of human rights

violations. Evidence gathered and witnesses interviewed during the mission were

presented before an International People’s Tribunal (IPT) on August 19, 2005. The

tribunal was presided by Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Irene Fernandez (Malaysia), civil liberties lawyer Prof. Lennox Hinds (USA) and human rights lawyer

Hakan Karakus (Turkey) with a College of Jurors. Among others, the IPT found the

Arroyo government guilty of human rights violations.

Alarmed by reports that lawyers and judges are also being killed or threatened,

an independent delegation of two judges and six lawyers from The Netherlands and

Belgium belonging to the Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation, Dutch Lawyers

Without Borders, joined by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers

(IADL), came to the Philippines for an International Fact Finding Mission on Attacks against Filipino Lawyers and Judges and investigated the violence committed

against their Philippine colleagues in June 2006. Completing their mission, the

group concluded that many lawyers and judges in the Philippines have been threatened and killed, especially since the beginning of 2005 and a remarkable number

of these lawyers and judges have been involved in human rights-related cases confirming likewise that some authorities tagged many of the victims as ‘‘enemies of

the state’’ that made them vulnerable to political assassinations.

In August 2006, the 68-member International Peasant Solidarity Mission (IPSM),

composed of 16 foreign participants from nongovernment and people’s organizations

in the United States, Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, Japan, and Nepal, found

that there were clear indications of the military’s culpability, in particular the notorious Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, Jr., in most cases of extrajudicial killings of leftist

activists.

Furthermore, religious denominations from different countries also voiced their

alarm. The United Church of Australia, the third largest Christian denomination in

Australia, released a report in Canberra on its inquiry into the deaths over the last

2 years of 14 clergy and members of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines.

In August last year, the Hong Kong Christian Institute (HKCI) likewise expressed

its deep concern over the increasing number of political killings and human rights

violations in the Philippines and urged the Arroyo government to take stronger action to address this issue and prevent further killings from taking place. Similarly,

the Methodist Church in the United States as well as different groups from Canada

led by the British Columbia Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines

(BCCHRP) also voiced their concern.

Earlier, similar concerns were expressed by the World Council of Churches, the

National Council of Churches in the Philippines and the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), among many other institutions. The Inter-Parliamentary Union,

an international assembly of parliamentarians, as well as the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) and prominent lawyers’ groups in the United States,

Europe and even Africa, have voiced the same alarm.

Even representatives from embassies of a number of countries have also expressed

their condemnation of the extrajudicial killings, abductions, and enforced disappearances in the Philippines.

In a comprehensive report it released in August 2006, the London-based Nobel

Peace Prize winner, Amnesty International, stated in no uncertain terms that ‘‘the

methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the

victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from

prosecution, has led Amnesty International to conclude that the attacks are not an

unconnected series of criminal murders but constitute apolitically motivated pattern

of killings. The organization remains gravely concerned that members of the security forces may have been directly involved in the killings, or else have tolerated,

acquiesced to, or been complicit in them.’’

Because of mounting and widespread criticisms on the extrajudicial killings, the

President was compelled to order the police to look into these cases and solve them

as soon as possible. Thus, the Philippine National Police formed the Task Force

44

Usig. However, the head of the Task Force immediately announced that the perpetrators of the killings are the Communists or the rebels themselves because of an

‘‘internal purge’’ within the Communist movement.

Amidst even greater pressure on both the national and international leaders,

President Arroyo also formed the Melo Commission on August 21, 2006, which she

said she empowered to make independent investigations into the killings. This was

declared amidst calls for an independent investigative body that would look into

these cases. But human rights organizations, as well as victims’ relatives, simply

did not have trust in this commission and thus did not participate in its hearings.

The President did not consult the victims or the human rights organizations on the

composition of the commission, the members of which she handpicked and thus, was

perceived as not the independent body that will look into the cases.

In September 2006, the President went to Europe and facing international protest

actions, invited European nationals to go to the country to look into these killings

as the European Union called on her to resolve the cases.

Criticisms continued to hound the Arroyo administration as the killings of leaders

and key members of progressive people’s organizations went on. Because of pressure, the administration was forced to formally invite the U.N. Special Rapporteur

on Extrajudicial, Summary of Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Phillip Alston, to visit the

Philippines in February of this year.

After a 10-day visit and a series of meetings between nongovernment organizations, government offices as well as witnesses and relatives of victims, Mr. Alston

said that, ‘‘The AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) remains in a state of almost

total denial (as its official response to the Melo Report amply demonstrates) of its

need to respond effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings

which have been convincing attributed to them. The President needs to persuade

the military that its reputation and effectiveness will be considerably enhanced,

rather than undermined, by acknowledging the facts and taking genuine steps to

investigate. When the Chief of the AFP contents himself with telephoning Major

General Palparan three times in order to satisfy himself that the persistent and extensive allegations against the general were entirely unfounded, rather than launching a thorough internal investigation, it is clear that there is still a very long way

to go.’’

He further went on to say, ‘‘The increase in extrajudicial executions in recent

years is attributable, at least in part, to a shift in counterinsurgency strategy that

occurred in some areas, reflecting the considerable regional variation in the strategies employed, especially with respect to the civilian population. In some areas, an

appeal to hearts and minds is combined with an attempt to vilify left-leaning organizations and to intimidate leaders of such organizations. In some instances, such

intimidation escalates into extrajudicial execution. This is a grave and serious

problem . . .’’

Mr. Alston’s visit also paved the way for the public release of the report of the

Melo Commission, which was initially not made public by the government despite

public clamor from different camps. However, after a scathing statement from the

U.N. Special Rapporteur, the President was forced to order the release of the report

to the public. In spite of the fact that the Melo Commission based its findings on

documents that came mostly from the police that are themselves widely believed to

be complicit, the Melo report still says that extrajudicial killings are going on in the

country and ‘‘rogue elements’’ in the military may ‘‘have a hand’’ on these killings.

But the killings are going on with such a brazen impunity and unless stopped,

will continue to erode the foundations of a democratic society and rule of law in a

supposed democratic Philippines. Recently, the Chief of Staff has announced the

continuation of the Oplan Bantay Laya II with the deployment of military troops

in urban slum areas where progressive party lists gained high number of votes in

the 2004 elections. Terror grips these communities and we fear a further escalation

of killings and violence in the runup to the 2007 elections in May. Just recently,

the government has finally issued a warrant of arrest on the basis of trumped up

charges to one of the progressive party-list candidates. Harassments and surveillance on our offices are getting to be frequent.

Thus, unless the extrajudicial killings are ordered stopped by our President, as

commander in chief, who has supervision and effective control of the armed forces,

there will be no letup in these human rights violations. And unless adherence to

basic due process, democratic principles, civilian supremacy over the military and

elementary principles of international humanitarian law that distinguishes combatants and civilians are faithfully done by the Arroyo government, the killings will

continue.

And it is at this juncture that even more effective international moral and other

pressure be brought to bear upon the Philippine Government especially that the

45

brutal and unmitigated killings, disappearances, torture, harassment, and persecution of its citizens still haunt the Filipino people with unbridled impunity despite

the wide array and breadth of national and international criticism and condemnation.

Senator BOXER. Thank you. You’ve been excellent panel.

Here’s how we’re going to proceed. I can stay here until about 5

to 4. Senator Webb will stay here as long as he would like to, to

do his questions. And so, let me just start off by thanking, thanking you very much for adding to our body of knowledge on this.

And I’d like to ask unanimous consent to place into the record

a summary of the Alston Report, the Alston Report that—he’s the

Special Rapporteur of the U.N. Human Rights Council and

Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions, without objection.

I think this document is a very fair document, and I think that

it points out what has to happen.

Now, both Senator Webb and I have stated and cited this very

special relationship we have with the Philippines, and how much

we treasure that friendship. And, if I might say, I think this is a

very important turning point for the government, and for the people. Because as Mr. Alston says, the Philippines remains an example to all of us—these are his words—in terms of the peaceful ending of martial law by the People’s Revolution and the adoption of

a constitution reflecting a powerful commitment to ensure respect

for human rights.

And again, I was there in 1986. The spirit of that day and that

time will never leave me. And it is with a heavy heart that I see

some of the things that are happening now.

I think that Mr. Alston puts the response of the Government into

context. He says, ‘‘There’s been some important first steps, but

there’s a huge amount that needs to be done.’’ And as long as I

have this gavel, I hope I can use it in a way to shine the spotlight

on what’s going on, and to make sure that this critical juncture—

the government moves in the best direction, in the most democratic

direction—rather than in the other direction. Because that would

be a very sad time, indeed, for the people in the Philippines, and

for all of us who really care about the Philippines.

So, we’re placing this in the record, because you know, everyone

ought to read it—it’s a very important document that raises the

critical issues, and the problems.

Now, I want to share with Senator Webb, and some of you, something that happened as we were setting this particular hearing up.

And, I mention it, because I believe that the truth is important to

talk about.

Now, we all followed the press in the Philippines when we decided to have this hearing. And, I say to my colleagues, we had a

statement issued that there were going to be people here from the

government, which is fine with us, this is a place for everyone to

come. But, it was specifically stated that the people they were

going to send were going to be police and military, to this hearing.

Now, I don’t understand, why you would have to send military

and police to a hearing that a couple of Senators are holding to

look at human rights and allegations of human rights abuses. And,

we made it very clear—and to their credit, they responded, ‘‘OK,

46

we won’t send any military, we won’t send any police,’’ and they

added, ‘‘we won’t send any intelligence officials.’’ [Laughter.]

But, if you’re here today, I don’t know who you may be, we welcome you. But we don’t need to have military and police and intelligence officials at an open hearing where there’ll be a public discussion and a public record.

So, I think the need to have more collaboration, and I see—I’m

so pleased that our State Department is still here—this is a pretty

basic point, that we don’t try to intimidate witnesses at an open

hearing. People from the church; people from the human rights

community—that’s the wrong signal to send this committee.

And, I mention it because, again, I think it’s almost maybe a lack

of understanding here about how we should proceed. And the good

news is, there’s so many good people both in this country, and the

State Department, and the human rights organizations, and also

leaders in the Philippines who understand what a true democracy

is. And, the fact is, of course we have dissent—my God, you should

see some of the arguments we get into here. We all see the world

slightly different from what, each other. But the beauty of a free

democracy is that you respect the other person’s views. And you

battle it out in the court of public opinion, and on the floor of the

Senate, and the votes that are taken, and you don’t come after your

adversaries in a way that intimidates them, or subjects them to

fear, and worse.

So, I just have a couple of questions, I want to ask one to Mr.

Martin, because Mr. Martin, you made a prediction here, which

was very disturbing to me. You told us that there was kind of a

signal sent that there may well be more violence around the election. And, I want you to tell me, when is the election, and one more

time, if you can say—what was this sort of signal that you’ve

heard, and who was it from?

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Senator.

The election is scheduled for May 14. These are national elections; campaigning has already begun.

The quote I gave you was from National Security Advisor

Norberto Gonzalez, who stated on March 8, that such candidates

must not be allowed to win seats in the Congress. His view is that

party list candidates, i.e., those who run as party members, are

‘‘under the direct influence of the Communist Party.’’ I think this

gives a very powerful message to people who may feel that they

should be stopped from winning the election.

Senator BOXER. And you predicted violence around the elections.

Mr. MARTIN. Unfortunately, Philippine elections are often accompanied by violence; yes, Ma’am.

Senator BOXER. Do you think it would help to send in some international observers for a period of time, starting as soon as possible,

through the election period?

Mr. MARTIN. I should let my State Department colleagues answer that. My understanding is that Embassy officers will be monitoring the elections in various parts of the country. I understand,

also, this morning, that the Carter Center has been approached—

whether or not they’ve decided, I don’t know.

Senator BOXER. OK.

47

And, I would say, Bishop, I found your testimony to be pretty

compelling, and I’m asking you if you could repeat for the record,

your three recommendations at the end of your testimony. Could

you repeat those? The three recommendations you made? For the

government?

Bishop PASCUA. In the light of the realities of the extrajudicial

killings, we propose that this committee ask the Philippine Government immediately stop the extrajudicial killings, and other forms

of human rights violations, and including the revocation of all hit

lists that target church people, farmers, workers, party-list members and leaders, human rights defenders, community organizers,

activists, indigenous people, moral people, national minorities,

women, lawyers, members of the press, and other civilians, most of

whom are suspected or labeled by Philippine authorities as alleged

Communist sympathizers, or affiliated with Communist-front organizations.

No. 2, ask the Philippine Government to take effective measures

to bring to justice members of the Security Forces and their agents,

against whom there is credible evidence of human rights violations,

including immediately suspending those persons and former members who have been credibly alleged to be responsible for gross violations of human rights, and investigating, prosecuting, and punishing them.

And, No. 3, call upon the Philippine Government to comply with

its obligations under international law, and receive its national security policy under its current counterinsurgency, and counterterrorism campaign, which has the effect of legitimizing and

encouraging the killing of innocent civilians. And this includes

making no distinction between combatants, and noncombatants, as

well as labeling and falsely accusing critics of Philippine Government’s policies, or those who advocate for human rights, as being

enemies of the State.

Senator BOXER. I wanted to thank you, because I thought you

just really honed in on the problem.

I’m going to turn it over to Senator Webb, but I wanted to note

that Senator Lugar has repeatedly asked the Philippine Government to investigate the incidents of journalists being killed—you

mentioned journalists, Reporters Without Borders 2007 report said

that at least 6 journalists were reportedly killed in the Philippines

in 2006. The report states that authorities have failed to stem the

wave of violence against journalists, and then, according to some

estimates, 50 journalists have been killed since 2001.

And, critics of the Philippine Government have complained that

in many cases, the personalities had exposed local government corruption or human rights abuses, and that police beholden to local

elites did not perform a proper investigation.

So, let me just say, in turning it over to my colleague to go as

long as he would like, and ask as many questions to complete this

record—that I’m very appreciative to you for coming out here

today—all four of you.

And again, I know, because I can get a sense of it—that this isn’t

easy for you to do. But you know, when you shine light on an issue,

and you come out of your fear, and you’re out there, that—I

48

think—is the best antidote to these kinds of problems. We have to

step out and give a face to these issues.

And again, I will do everything I can to make sure that the Government of the Philippines fulfills the hopes and dreams of the people there, in a way that we all can move forward, with prosperity,

and security and yes, we’re in it, on the war against terror—I cited

the fact that I had lost a constituent who was beheaded by the Abu

Sayyaf, and we all—we all want to work to stop terror, in its

tracks. We don’t, however, want to use it as an excuse to do bad

things to people who don’t deserve this kind of treatment.

And again, we’re going to have our differences, in America, we’re

going to have our differences, in the Philippines between people,

but we don’t resolve it with violence and killing, and fear and intimidation.

I again, want to thank the State Department representative for

staying, it means a lot to me that you did. We will continue to work

together on this committee, we will be following up with some letters, after we go through the testimony, very—line by line—and

again, I want to thank you, and I want to thank my good colleague

for coming over here today and completing the hearing, and I will

turn the gavel over to you, so you are now the chairman.

Senator WEBB [presiding]. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

I’d like to echo the chairman’s comments, in terms of expressing

my appreciation for your testimony today. This is an issue that I

am coming in on without having dealt with it, obviously, in a previous Congress. I just assumed the mantle of serving in the Senate,

but as I said, I do have a good bit of time in Asia over my adult

lifetime, and some of that time has been spent in the Philippines.

I’m quite aware of the potential for violence, quite frankly, in

Philippine society. You can’t drive down the street in a place like

Manila without seeing some security guard standing outside of a

bank somewhere with an M–16. And I know that is, you know, it’s

an easy thing for violence to occur, below the water line in societies

like that. I guess the reality that we’re dealing with here.

I have four or five questions that may be appropriate to the State

Department witnesses as much as to the panel here, but for the

record, I think for the benefit of the committee as we analyze this

issue, and I’m pledging to you that we will, my staff, we’re going

to look at this information and the recommendations that were

given, and see where we could assist in the resolving the problem,

if appropriate.

But, I’d like to start with some fairly basic questions about the

facts, I think we can’t really solve problems unless we know what

the facts really are, and the first question I have is—how we have

arrived at these figures, the 836 figure, in one of the reports it was

listed as between 136 and 800—but how exactly have we determined that there were this number of people who were assassinated?

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. Yes; thank you, sir.

My organization, as I said, has 15 regional centers, and our documentation is such that we have workers in the field and the 836

that we have documented, includes—a majority of this includes

farmers in the areas that have been deployed with military troops.

But these farmers are civilians. And, in some cases, when military

49

operations occur, some of the troops vent their ire on these

civilians.

I understand that there has been a report from the Philippine

National Police saying that the number is lower, and I think they

have a different category, in fact they have recategorized the

killings, and telling our group that some of the cases that we documented are victims of legitimate encounters.

But, in our investigation, many of these alleged—the alleged victims of legitimate encounters, are not victims of legitimate encounters, but victims of military troops directly shooting them.

Senator WEBB. But, you could say that a percentage of that 836

would be attributable to the excessive use of military force, rather

than politically targeting someone. Would that be fair?

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. I would say that these are the result of

counterinsurgency operations by military forces, and for us, we also

consider these as extrajudicial killings.

Senator WEBB. But, in terms of trying—for us, trying to understand the political nature, as opposed to reckless behavior, or soldiers in an area unjustifiably taking out their anger. There would

be a percentage of these that were killed as a result of inappropriate behavior by soldiers in an area, as opposed to targeted political killings. Would that be—is that fair to say?

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. As I said, in our documentation, we consider these cases as not only as simple—what’s this—behavioral

problem on the soldiers, but because they are related to

counterinsurgency operations, we consider these as extrajudicial

killings, especially that State Security Forces are involved in such

cases. Under our Constitution, State Security Forces should protect

the people and——

Senator WEBB. Right.

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ [continuing]. Our citizens’ rights.

Senator WEBB. Do you know the percentage of the 836 that were

killed as a result of military activities like that? Farmers, you

know, the soldiers—shooting people? Like, in the fields, that sort

of thing you’re talking about?

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. I would say that in many of these instances—because it’s around half of the 836 we consider the victims as civilians being killed by the military during counterinsurgency operations. Like, if I can just illustrate my point.

There was this group of farmers in Palo Leyte, and they were

conducting farming activities in the area early one morning, in November 2005, and then the soldiers came and just shoot at them,

and so seven of the farmers were killed.

But then, the victims were portrayed as rebels, and the military

said that they were New People’s Army. So, this was the report

given by the military. But, when we went to the area and investigated, they were ordinary farmers, with no arms.

Senator WEBB. You say geographically, what would be the breakdown of these killings, between, say, Luzon, Mindanao, and other

areas?

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. The highest number that has registered in

our documentation is southern Tagalog Region. These are the areas

south of Manila, and then next would be central Luzon, north of

50

Manila, and then next would be the Bicol Region, and eastern

Visayas and southern Mindanao.

Senator WEBB. What—do you know—could you tell us what percentage are religious figures?

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. Pardon?

Senator WEBB. How many are religious figures? People who are

in the church, serving in the church?

Bishop PASCUA. In our accounting, there are already 26 religious

people—clergy and lay persons who are working with the church.

And out of that, 16 belong to the United Church of Christ in the

Philippines. Other churches who have offered their members and

church workers are United Methodist Church, the Philippine Independent Church, where Bishop Romento belonged, and that is a

born-again Christian church. And the Roman Catholics for those

lay persons who are working in the community-based programs.

Senator WEBB. And how many are media? How many have been

media figures? Reporters? Journalists?

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. Well, from our information, coming from

the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines, I think the

figure now comes to 49 since President Arroyo came to power.

Senator WEBB. Are you comfortable with the newly created office,

the Human Rights Office, of the Armed Forces of the Philippines?

The activities that they’re engaging in? This is for the panel.

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. I am not very comfortable with that. I

think it’s not only a newly created office, before they have already

a certain section in the military they call a human rights desk, or

office. And, because in the years past, we had dialogs with them,

and what they do is just to receive the complaints, and then write

us and say that, ‘‘We will look into the complaint,’’ and then nothing has been heard from them.

I don’t know, now, if this office will perform in the same manner

that it performed in the past, but I’m not very confident—especially

since that—they have been—even after the Melo Report and the

Alston Press Statement came out, the military maintains that the

rebel forces are the ones committing these killings.

Senator WEBB. Are any of you aware of any precedent in Philippines’ history where government officials have been held accountable when civilians have been killed for political reasons, other

than deposing President Marcos. But, I mean, in a general sense.

Are you aware of any point in the Philippines’ history where government officials who have engaged in this kind of conduct have

been held accountable?

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. Not to my mind, sir. As I said, I am a survivor of martial law.

Senator WEBB. Right.

Ms. HILAO-ENRIQUEZ. I cannot recall——

Senator WEBB. Does any of the other panel know of any time in

the history of the Philippines that people have been held accountable for this kind of conduct?

[No response.]

Senator WEBB. All right.

This has been helpful, I think, as I’ve said before, these kinds of

issues are best addressed first by developing the right kind of factual information so that we can evaluate and make policy deciVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:01 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 PHILIPPINES.TXT sforel1 PsN: sforel1
51

sions. And, I can tell you that the questions that I just asked you

have been very helpful to me.

With that, I thank you again, for your testimony, I thank all of

you for being here, and this hearing will be closed.

[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLY C. GAA, PHILIPPINE AMBASSADOR TO THE

UNITED STATES

We welcome the initiative of the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on East Asian and

Pacific Affairs conducting a hearing on the issue of unexplained killings in the Philippines which the Philippine Government is addressing with resolve.

The Senate move is a positive step that will shed more light into this complex

issue. It provides a vital forum for constructive dialog among all concerned parties

and opens a new avenue for us to work together in promoting human rights and

in upholding the rule of law.

President Gloria Arroyo’s decision to extend the mandate of the Melo Commission—its recommendations have been fully adopted by the government—and her invitation for U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston to conduct his own fact-finding

mission in the Philippines, have yielded encouraging results.

It is our hope that militant groups and relatives of the victims will now be more

willing to cooperate with the Melo Commission, in response to the swift action by

the Philippine Government on the panel’s recommendations. Karapatan, a representative of which has been invited to speak before this Senate subcommittee, had

questioned the Commission’s independence even before the panel could even start

its fact-finding work and had subsequently ignored its repeated invitations to participate in the investigations.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur himself had assessed that the Commission had conducted an independent probe, and had cited the sincerity of the Philippine Government in addressing and finding solutions to this problem of unexplained killings.

There have been allegations that Philippine military personnel are involved in

these killings despite the fact that no charges against particular military men have

been filed by the accusing parties.

The Melo Report itself states: ‘‘From the evidence gathered, and after an extensive

study of the same, the Commission comes to the conclusion that there is no direct

evidence, but only circumstantial evidence, linking some elements in the military to

the killings. There is no official or sanctioned policy on the part of the military or

its civilian superiors to resort to what other countries euphemistically call ‘alternative procedures’—meaning illegal liquidations.’’

It further states: ‘‘While state responsibility is possible for private acts, there is

no basis to hold liable the entire military leadership or even the entire leadership

of one of its branches, under the doctrine of command responsibility. The findings

herein do not justify a ruling that each and every high-ranking officer in the military, or the institution itself, should be held liable for the killings.’’

Nonetheless, President Arroyo issued an instruction on 31 January 2007 to the

Department of Justice and the Department of National Defense directing them to

coordinate with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in constituting a joint

fact-finding body. Its task is to ‘‘delve deeper into the matter of possible involvement

of military personnel in unexplained killings, filing the corresponding charges

against, and prosecute the culpable parties.’’

The CHR is an independent body created by virtue of our 1987 Constitution.

President Arroyo has recently allocated an additional funding of 25 million pesos to

the CHR so that it can best carry out its mandate to check reported human rights

violations.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) also deemed it imperative to issue on

4 February 2007 a directive to all levels of command underscoring strict adherence

to the doctrine of command responsibility.

Under this doctrine, ‘‘any AFP officer shall be held accountable for neglect of duty

under the doctrine of command responsibility if he has knowledge that a crime or

offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others within his area of responsibility and despite such knowledge,

he did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during, or immediately

after its commission.’’

52

The same directive incorporates the principle of ‘‘presumption of knowledge’’ by

a commanding officer of ‘‘the Commission of irregularities or criminal offenses within his area of responsibility in any of the following circumstances: (a) When the

irregularities or illegal acts are widespread within his area of jurisdiction; (b) when

the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within

his area of responsibility; or (c) when members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved.’’

Commanders of erring military personnel found in violation of this directive ‘‘shall

be held accountable either for violation of the Article of War 95 or as an accessory

after the fact upon deliberate refusal or failure or neglect to act accordingly and decisively as requited by existing AFP laws.’’

On 13 February 2007, the General Headquarters of the AFP released a Staff

Memorandum delineating the functions and organization of the AFP Human Rights

Office (AFPHRO). Among its specific functions is ‘‘to plan, implement and supervise

programs, measures and mechanisms’’ to protect and promote respect for human

rights and adherence to international human rights laws, and to monitor the litigation of cases against the AFP.

At present, 94 cases of alleged political killings ‘‘where (Philippine) security forces

are probably involved’’ are now being investigated by the newly created AFP Human

Rights Office. These 94 cases are among the 240 and 113 cases that the Melo Commission and the Department of Interior and local government-created Task Force

Usig, respectively, recommended for investigation. The cases indicate the names, incidents and circumstances pointing to the probable involvement of security forces.

On 31 January 2007, President Arroyo requested the Supreme Court (SC) to establish special courts for the expeditious trial of cases involving unexplained killings

of a political or ideological nature. The Supreme Court has already designated 99

regional trial courts as special tribunals with the order for these courts to resolve

the cases at the soonest.

To strengthen the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Witness Protection Program, the

DOJ liberalized the admission requirements for witness protection coverage, particularly when the threat level on bona fide witnesses to alleged media and politically motivated killings is high. Regional state prosecutors have also been authorized to grant provisional coverage to high-risk witnesses under threat pending

confirmation of their admission to the program. The economic benefits and social

services for witnesses under the program have also been enhanced.

Within a long-term framework, the AFP has been implementing the Philippine

Defense Reform Program (PDRP). It is the product of the Joint Philippines-United

States Joint Defense Assessment (JDA) that was completed in 2003. Its aims include, among others, the reform and professionalization of the military.

A similar reform-oriented management assessment—a joint undertaking of the

U.S. Government and the Philippine National Police (PNP)—is being conducted

under the auspice’s of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Given the aforementioned efforts, we wish to take strong exception to related allegations being raised by some quarters that U.S. assistance, particularly military

logistical equipment, are being misused by Philippine security forces as instruments

for human rights violations and in conducting these political killings.

The Joint U.S. Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) serves as a strong oversight

mechanism which strictly inventories and monitors the use of U.S.-provided military

equipment. The AFP must even secure its prior approval before it could dispose of

equipment which have already been rendered unusable.

U.S. military assistance is vital to the AFP’s counterterrorism campaign which we

are winning, particularly resulting to the recent killing of the top two leaders of the

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). The ASG was responsible for the hostage-taking of the

American couple Martin and Gracia Burnham and the beheading of another American, Guillermo Sobero. The Philippine Government has also made headways in its

campaign against the New People’s Army (NPA), the armed wing of the Communist

Party of the Philippines (CPP), which had assassinated JUSMAG Chief Col. James

Rowe, among its terroristic acts. The CPP–NPA is presently included in the State

Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).

The reason for our government’s success rests on the fact that our counterterrorism strategy is a wholistic one, with both military and socioeconomic components. The Philippine Government fully recognizes that reliance on military solution

alone would not eliminate the scourge of terrorism unless the prevailing conditions

such as poverty, and the despondency and despair, that it breeds are thoroughly addressed.

We desire peace because hostilities exact a heavy toll in terms of human lives and

divert resources which are better utilized to alleviate people’s economic and social

well-being. It was for this reason that we had engaged the CPP–NPA in peace talks.

53

Unfortunately, they failed because of the CPP–NPA’s repeated violations of the

cease-fire agreement which underscored its bad faith. Moreover, it waged countless

and relentless terroristic acts for which reason it was tagged as a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union.

The Philippine Government has likewise engaged the Muslim secessionist groups,

namely the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in the peace process. Abandoning the ‘‘all out war’’ strategy of

its antecedent administration, the Arroyo administration decided to adopt an ‘‘all

out peace’’ strategy.

Owing to U.S. economic assistance, about 28,000 former MNLF combatants have

been reintegrated into our democratic mainstream and are gainfully pursuing various kinds of livelihood. USAID assistance to Muslim Mindanao, in southern Philippines, has generated US$441 million in investments and created 77,000 jobs.

Around 60 percent of total USAID assistance to the Philippines has been channeled

to this region. We wish to point out that U.S. economic assistance is administered

by the USAID which ensures its responsible and cost-effective use.

Complementing USAID’s assistance is the U.S. Institute of Peace’s (USIP) public

diplomacy and awareness projects in Mindanao to sustain broad popular support for

the peace process.

We have a cease-fire agreement with the MILF which is holding. One unique aspect of this agreement is our joint conduct of counterterrorism operations as part

of our confidence-building measures. We remain hopeful that this peace and development process will move forward. We are thankful for the U.S. Government’s commitment that once a final peace accord between the Philippine Government and the

MILF is forged, it will provide additional assistance for post-conflict rehabilitation

and economic programs.

Integral to our efforts toward achieving durable peace and sustainable development in Muslim Mindanao are the interfaith dialogs, evident in the creation of a

Bishop-Ulama Conference. This forum fosters religious tolerance and cultural understanding and which are essential aspects of respect for human rights.

Related to this, we wish to convey our profound appreciation to the U.S. Embassy

in the Philippines for the proactive programs it has initiated in promoting respect

for and adherence to human rights, in promoting the rule of law, and in strengthening the judicial system in the Philippines. Some of these programs are instrumental in inculcating the values and principles of human rights among our military

and police forces.

We also appreciate the encouraging words of the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines that our Government is on the right track in its efforts at addressing the

issue of extrajudicial killings.

U.N. Special Rapporteur Professor Alston himself recognized the Arroyo administration’s ‘‘willingness to permit outside scrutiny, and a very welcome preparedness

to engage on this issue.’’

He also pointed out that ‘‘the Government’s invitation (for him) to visit (the Philippines) reflects a clear recognition of the gravity of the problem’’ and that ‘‘(it)

showed good faith in responding to allegations by setting up an independent commission.’’

We are earnest in engaging all stakeholders and concerned parties who wish to

become part of the solution as we strive to deal with this urgent issue.

We are committed in strengthening our institutions and in building our capacity

to eradicate a culture of violence which threatens our democratic way of life.

It is in our national interest to build a culture of justice and we look forward to

the partnership of this subcommittee and of the entire U.S. Congress in our pursuit

of this goal.

I wish to express my deep gratitude to Senator Barbara Boxer and to the honorable members of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs for granting

to me this privilege and opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of the Philippine Government, for the official record.

Thank you very much.

SUMMARY REPORT OF PROF. PHILLIP ALSTON, SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR OF THE UNITED

NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ON EXTRAJUDICIAL, SUMMARY OR ARBITRARY

EXECUTIONS—MANILA, FEBRUARY 21, 2007

I have spent the past 10 days in the Philippines at the invitation of the Government in order to inquire into the phenomenon of extrajudicial executions. I am very

grateful to the Government for the unqualified cooperation extended to me. During

my stay here I have met with virtually all of the relevant senior officials of GovernVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:01 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 PHILIPPINES.TXT sforel1 PsN: sforel1
54

ment. They include the President, the Executive Secretary, the National Security

Adviser, the Secretaries for Defense, Justice, DILG and the Peace Process. I have

also met with a significant number of Members of Congress on different sides of the

political spectrum, the Chief Justice, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the

Philippines (AFP), the Chair of the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman,

the members of both sides of the Joint Monitoring Committee, and representatives

of the MNLF and MILF. Of particular relevance to my specific concerns, I also met

with Task Force Usig, and with the Melo Commission, and I have received the complete dossier compiled by TF Usig, as well as the report of the Melo Commission,

and the responses to its findings by the AFP and by retired Major General

Palparan. I have also visited Baguio and Davao and met with the regional Human

Rights Commission offices, local PNP and AFP commanders, and the Mayor of

Davao, among others.

Equally importantly, roughly half of my time here was devoted to meetings with

representatives of civil society, in Manila, Baguio, and Davao. Through their extremely valuable contributions in the form of documentation and detailed testimony

I have learned a great deal.

Let me begin by acknowledging several important elements. The first is that the

Government’s invitation to visit reflects a clear recognition of the gravity of the

problem, a willingness to permit outside scrutiny, and a very welcome preparedness

to engage on this issue. The assurances that I received from the President, in particular, were very encouraging. Second, I note that my visit takes place within the

context of a counterinsurgency operation which takes place on a range of fronts, and

I do not in any way underestimate the resulting challenges facing for the Government and the AFP. Third, I wish to clarify that my formal role is to report to the

U.N. Human Rights Council and to the Government on the situation I have found.

I consider that the very fact of my visit has already begun the process of acting as

a catalyst to deeper reflection on these issues both within the national and international settings. Finally, I must emphasize that the present statement is only designed to give a general indication of some, but by no means all, of the issues to

be addressed, and the recommendations put forward, in my final report. I expect

that will be available sometime within the next 3 months.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The first major challenge for my mission was to obtain detailed and well-supported information. I have been surprised by both the amount and the quality of

information provided to me. Most key Government agencies are organized and systematic in much of their data collection and classification. Similarly, Philippines

civil society organizations are generally sophisticated and professional. I sought, and

obtained, meetings across the entire political spectrum. I leave the Philippines with

a wealth of information to be processed in the preparation of my final report.

But the question has still been posed as to whether the information provided to

me by either all, or at least certain, local NGO groups can be considered reliable.

The word ‘‘propaganda’’ was used by many of my interlocutors. What took them to

mean was that the overriding goal of the relevant groups in raising EJE questions

was to gain political advantage in the context of a broader battle for public opinion

and power, and that the HR dimensions were secondary at best. Some went further

to suggest that many of the cases were fabricated, or at least trumped up, to look

more serious than they are.

I consider it essential to respond to these concerns immediately. First, there is

inevitably a propaganda element in such allegations. The aim is to win public sympathy and to discredit other actors. But the existence of a propaganda dimension

does not, in itself, destroy the credibility of the information and allegations. I would

insist, instead, on the need to apply several tests relating to credibility. First, is it

only NGOs from one part of the political spectrum who are making these allegations? The answer is clearly ‘‘no.’’

Human rights groups in the Philippines range across the entire spectrum in terms

of their political sympathies, but I met no groups who challenged the basic fact that

large numbers of extrajudicial executions are taking place, even if they disagreed

on precise figures. Second, how compelling is the actual information presented? I

found there was considerable variation ranging from submissions which were entirely credible and contextually aware all the way down to some which struck me

as superficial and dubious. But the great majority are closer to the top of that spectrum than to the bottom. Third, has the information proved credible under crossexamination. My colleagues and I heard a large number of cases in depth and we

probed the stories presented to us in order to ascertain their accuracy and the

broader context.

55

As a result, I believe that I have gathered a huge amount of data and certainly

much more than has been made available to any one of the major national inquiries.

EXTENT OF MY FOCUS

My focus goes well beyond that adopted by either TF Usig or the Melo Commission, both of which are concerned essentially with political and media killings. Those

specific killings are, in many ways, a symptom of a much more extensive problem

and we should not permit our focus to be limited artificially. The TF Usig/Melo

scope of inquiry is inappropriate for me for several reasons:

(a) The approach is essentially reactive. It is not based on an original assessment of what is going on in the country at large, but rather on what a limited

range of CSOs report. As a result, the focus then is often shifted (unhelpfully)

to the orientation of the CSO, the quality of the documentation in particular

cases, etc.;

(b) Many killings are not reported, or not pursued, and for good reason; and

(c) A significant proportion of acknowledged cases of ‘‘disappearances’’ involve

individuals who have been killed but who are not reflected in the figures.

HOW MANY HAVE BEEN KILLED?

The numbers game is especially unproductive, although a source of endless fascination. Is it 25, 100, or 800? I don’t have a figure. But I am certain that the number is high enough to be distressing. Even more importantly, numbers are not what

count. The impact of even a limited number of killings of the type alleged is corrosive in many ways. It intimidates vast numbers of civil society actors, it sends a

message of vulnerability to all but the most well connected, and it severely undermines the political discourse which is central to a resolution of the problems confronting this country.

Permit me to make a brief comment on the term ‘‘unexplained killings,’’ which is

used by officials and which consider to be inapt and misleading. It may be appropriate in the context of a judicial process but human rights inquiries are more

broad-ranging and one does not have to wait for a court to secure a conviction before

one can conclude that human rights violations are occurring. The term ‘‘extrajudicial

killings’’ which has a long pedigree is far more accurate and should be used.

TYPOLOGY

It may help to specify the types of killing which are of particular concern in the

Philippines:

—Killings by military and police, and by the NPA or other groups—in course of

counterinsurgency. To the extent that such killings take place in conformity with

the rules of international humanitarian law, they fall outside my mandate.

—Killings not in the course of any armed engagement but in pursuit of a specific

counterinsurgency operation in the field.

—Killings, whether attributed to the military, the police, or private actors, of activists associated with leftist groups and usually deemed or assumed to be covertly

assisting CPP–NPA–NDF. Private actors include hired thugs in the pay of politicians, landowners, corporate interests, and others.

—Vigilante, or death squad, killings.

—Killings of journalists and other media persons.

—‘‘Ordinary’’ murders facilitated by the sense of impunity that exists.

RESPONSE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

The response of Government to the crisis of extrajudicial executions varies dramatically. There has been a welcome acknowledgement of the seriousness of the

problem at the very top. At the executive level the messages have been very mixed

and often unsatisfactory. And at the operational level, the allegations have too often

been met with a response of incredulity, mixed with offence.

EXPLANATIONS PROFFERED

When I have sought explanations of the killings I have received a range of

answers.

(i) The allegations are essentially propaganda. I have addressed this dimension

already.

(ii) The allegations are fabricated. Much importance was attached to two persons

who had been listed as killed, but who were presented to me alive. Two errors, in

circumstances which might partly explain the mistakes, do very little to discredit

the vast number of remaining allegations.

56

(iii) The theory that the ‘‘correct, accurate, and truthful’’ reason for the recent rise

in killings lies in purges committed by the CPP/NPA. This theory was relentlessly

pushed by the AFP and many of my Government interlocutors. But we must distinguish the number of 1,227 cited by the military from the limited number of cases

in which the CPP/NPA have acknowledged, indeed boasted, of killings. While such

cases have certainly occurred, even those most concerned about them, such as members of Akbayan, have suggested to me that they could not amount to even 10 percent of the total killings.

The evidence offered by the military in support of this theory is especially unconvincing. Human rights organizations have documented very few such cases. The

AFP relies instead on figures and trends relating to the purges of the late 1980s,

and on an alleged CPP/NPA document captured in May 2006 describing Operation

Bushfire. In the absence of much stronger supporting evidence this particular document bears all the hallmarks of a fabrication and cannot be taken as evidence of

anything other than disinformation.

(iv) Some killings may have been attributable to the AFP, but they were committed by rogue elements. There is little doubt that some such killings have been

committed. The AFP needs to give us precise details and to indicate what investigations and prosecutions have been undertaken in response. But, in any event, the

rogue elephant theory does not explain or even address the central questions with

which we are concerned.

SOME MAJOR CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE

(a) Acknowledgement by the AFT

The AFP remains in a state of almost total denial (as its official response to the

Melo Report amply demonstrates) of its need to respond effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings which have been convincingly attributed

to them. The President needs to persuade the military that its reputation and effectiveness will be considerably enhanced, rather than undermined, by acknowledging

the facts and taking genuine steps to investigate. When the Chief of the AFP contents himself with telephoning Major General Palparan three times in order to satisfy himself that the persistent and extensive allegations against the General were

entirely unfounded, rather than launching a thorough internal investigation, it is

clear that there is still a very long way to go.

(b) Moving beyond the Melo Commission

It is not for me to evaluate the Melo Report. That is for the people of the Philippines to do. The President showed good faith in responding to allegations by setting up an independent commission. But the political and other capital that should

have followed is being slowly but surely drained away by the refusal to publish the

report. The justifications given are unconvincing. The report was never intended to

be preliminary or interim. The need to get ‘‘leftists’’ to testify is no reason to withhold a report which in some ways at least vindicates their claims. And extending

a commission whose composition has never succeeded in winning full cooperation

seems unlikely to cure the problems still perceived by those groups. Immediate release of the report is an essential first step.

(c) The need to restore accountability

The focus on TF Usig and Melo is insufficient. The enduring and much larger

challenge is to restore the various accountability mechanisms that the Philippines

Constitution and Congress have put in place over the years, too many of which have

been systematically drained of their force in recent years. I will go into detail in

my final report, but suffice it to note for present purposes that Executive Order 464,

and its replacement, Memorandum Circular 108, undermine significantly the capacity of Congress to hold the Executive to account in any meaningful way.

(d) Witness protection

The vital flaw which undermines the utility of much of the judicial system is the

problem of virtual impunity that prevails. This, in turn, is built upon the rampant

problem of witness vulnerability. The present message is that if you want to preserve your life expectancy, don’t act as a witness in a criminal prosecution for killing. Witnesses are systematically intimidated and harassed. In a relatively poor

society, in which there is heavy dependence on community and very limited real

geographical mobility, witnesses are uniquely vulnerable when the forces accused of

killings are all too often those, or are linked to those, who are charged with ensuring their security. The WPP is impressive—on paper. In practice, however, it is

deeply flawed and would seem only to be truly effective in a very limited number

of cases. The result, as one expert suggested to me, is that 8 out of 10 strong cases,

57

or 80 percent fail to move from the initial investigation to the actual prosecution

stage.

(e) Acceptance of the need to provide legitimate political space for leftist groups

At the national level there has been a definitive abandonment of President Ramos’

strategy of reconciliation. This might be termed the Sinn Fein strategy. It involves

the creation of an opening—the party-list system—for leftist groups to enter the

democratic political system, while at the same time acknowledging that some of

those groups remain very sympathetic to the armed struggle being waged by illegal

groups (the IRA in the Irish case, or the NPA in the Philippines case). The goal is

to provide an incentive for such groups to enter mainstream politics and to see that

path as their best option.

Neither the party-list system nor the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Act has been

reversed by Congress. But, the executive branch, openly and enthusiastically aided

by the military, has worked resolutely to circumvent the spirit of these legislative

decisions by trying to impede the work of the party-list groups and to put in question their right to operate freely. The idea is not to destroy the NPA but to eliminate

organizations that support many of its goals and do not actively disown its means.

While nonviolent in conception, there are cases in which it has, certainly at the local

level, spilled over into decisions to extrajudicially execute those who cannot be

reached by legal process.

(f) Reevaluate problematic aspects of counterinsurgency strategy

The increase inextrajudicial executions in recent years is attributable, at least in

part, to a shift in counterinsurgency strategy that occurred in some areas, reflecting

the considerable regional variation in the strategies employed, especially with respect to the civilian population. In some areas, an appeal to hearts and minds is

combined with an attempt to vilify left-leaning organizations and to intimidate leaders of such organizations. In some instances, such intimidation escalates into

extrajudicial execution. This is a grave and serious problem and one which intend

to examine in detail in my final report.

CONCLUSION

The Philippines remains an example to all of us in terms of the peaceful ending

of martial law by the People’s Revolution, and the adoption of a constitution reflecting a powerful commitment to ensure respect for human rights. The various measures ordered by the President in response to Melo constitute important first steps,

but there is a huge amount that remains to be done.

RESPONSE OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY ERIC JOHN TO QUESTION SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD BY SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question. The FY08 budget outline reflects a major drop in foreign assistance for

the Philippines. The proposed cut in the FY08 budget request is $28.5 million below

the FY 2006 funding level. Democracy and governance programs were cut from

$13.1 million to $8.1 million, and FMF programs from $29.7 million to $11.1 million.

What is the rationale for this drastic change in financial assistance to the Philippines? The figures suggest that the Philippines is no longer a key component in

the U.S. war against terror. How was this calculation achieved? How will Philippine

reformers view the zeroing out of anticorruption efforts? How will this cut in

funding impact efforts to further promote the rule of law and democracy in the

Philippines?

Answer. The Philippines remains an important treaty ally and partner of the

United States. Our relations are based on our history, shared values, and personal

ties, with more than 3 million Filipinos resident in the United States and more than

100,000 American citizens living in the Philippines. We are pleased with United

States-Philippines cooperation on issues that affect the region and the international

community, including U.S. support for the Philippine Government’s considerable recent success against al-Qaeda-linked terrorists.

The Department reduced its FY08 request for assistance to the Philippines not

because we value our alliance any less, but because of the tough decisions required

in a constrained budget. In addition, the Philippine Government has decided to increase its budgetary contribution to key areas, reducing the need for U.S. funding.

Our most important goal in FY 2008 remains counterterrorism and promoting stability and security, not only in the Philippines, but in the southeast Asian region.

About 60 percent of our development resources will continue to be directed to conflict-affected Mindanao. In addition, the United States continues its longstanding

58

support for institutional reform within the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the

Philippine National Police. Besides bolstering these forces’ capabilities, our support

of these institutional reforms also seeks to improve respect for human rights. The

Philippine Government has contributed $4 million of its own funding to this effort,

and we encourage this partnership.

Despite the substantial budget challenges we face, we recognize the need to continue and even enhance our most critical democracy and governance program activities. Democracy funding is concentrated on promoting good governance, where it will

best support the success of the 2-year $21 million MCC Threshold Program, which

focuses on supporting Philippine anticorruption efforts. Our programs to support judicial reform, improve economic governance, and strengthen local governance also

contribute to anticorruption efforts. President Arroyo has announced that the Philippine Government will contribute $21 million of its own matching funds to this

effort.

RESPONSES OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY ERIC JOHN AND PRINCIPAL DEPUTY

ASSISTANT SECRETARY JONATHAN FARRAR TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD BY SENATOR NORM COLEMAN

Question. Role of the Philippine Military: Philip Alston, the U.N. expert on

extrajudicial executions, stated in his initial findings that: ‘‘The Armed Forces of the

Philippines remains in a state of almost total denial of its need to respond effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings which have been convincingly attributed to them.’’ An Amnesty International Press release dated February 23 states: ‘‘The Body of Evidence is now so compelling that it can no longer

be ignored: There is substantial confirmation of the pattern of political killings in

the Philippines.’’ Amnesty International and other investigative teams report that

many of the victims have been threatened by the military, including being informed

that their names are on an ‘‘order of battle’’ list indicating who should be targeted

in offensive military operations.

• Do you agree with these statements? Do you believe the killings, harassment,

and disappearances taking place in the Philippines are being conducted by the

Armed Forces of the Philippines? • Do local commanders have a list of targeted members of legal organizations?

Answer. We are concerned about unlawful killings in the Philippines, whoever

may be responsible, but particularly about allegations that members of the security

forces have been involved. As the State Department’s ‘‘Country Report on Human

Rights Practices’’ indicates, elements of the military and the police apparently were

involved in some of the killings. We have strongly urged, and will continue to encourage, the Philippine Government to investigate thoroughly any alleged involvement by its security forces in these killings and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

We have heard reports from NGOs that local military units list ‘‘enemies of the

state’’ in a presentation made to local communities and that an ‘‘order of battle’’ list

may exist; however, we are unable to confirm the existence of these lists.

Question. Impunity: What is being done to bring the killers to justice and address

the apparent climate of impunity in the Philippines?

• If the military has evidence of illegal activities, why are the perpetrators not

arrested and brought into the justice system?

Answer. We are encouraged that President Arroyo has taken several steps to address this problem. We were pleased that the Arroyo administration decided to

make the Melo Commission findings public and is taking steps to implement Commission recommendations. We also note that President Arroyo invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Mr. Phillip

Alston, to conduct a 10-day fact-finding mission in February. No previous Philippine

Government has done as much substantively and institutionally as the Arroyo administration has done to address this issue. President Arroyo’s initiatives include

establishing a police task force, called Task Force Usig (‘‘to prosecute’’), to investigate the killings and to file charges against the perpetrators, as well as a Presidential commission under the leadership of former Philippine Supreme Court

Justice Melo. The Melo Commission has examined this problem and made policy

recommendations, on which the government has promptly acted.

Following the Melo Commission report, the Armed Forces of the Philippines

issued a new directive reiterating the principle of command responsibility and established a human rights office to investigate—along with the Philippine Commission

on Human Rights—cases in which military involvement is alleged. President Arroyo

ordered the Philippine Department of Justice to strengthen and expand the governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:01 Feb 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 PHILIPPINES.TXT sforel1 PsN: sforel1
59

ment’s witness protection program. At President Arroyo’s request, the Philippine

Supreme Court has established special courts to handle these cases. President

Arroyo also instructed the Department of Justice and the Presidential Human

Rights Committee to give priority to cases for trial by these special courts. In addition, President Arroyo ordered the release of 25 million pesos (US$500,000) to the

Commission on Human Rights (CHR), which the CHR will use to establish human

rights centers in local communities.

U.N. Special Rapporteur Alston’s report cites the Philippine Government’s recognition of the gravity of the problem, expresses concern about the views of the

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) regarding the situation, and states that the

various measures ordered by President Arroyo in response to the Melo Commission

report constitute important first steps, but much remains to be done. We concur

with that assessment.

According to the records of Task Force Usig, Philippine authorities have filed

charges in 50 cases of extradjucial killings, with 10 individuals under arrest and 27

suspects at large. At least 11 cases have alleged links to the military, with criminal

charges filed in 6 cases already, while 29 cases have alleged links to the Communist

Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA). Another 60 cases remain

under investigation.

Question. U.S. Assistance: Given the United States significant role in the arming

and training of the AFP, how can the U.S. Congress and the American people be

sure that our tax dollars and soldiers are not contributing to this crisis?

• What accountability measures are in place to track U.S. military aid to the

AFP?

Answer. As required by the Leahy amendment, all candidates for U.S. Government sponsored training who are members of the Philippine security forces, both

military and police, are thoroughly vetted before approval. This includes training in

the United States, in the Philippines, or elsewhere, including the International Law

Enforcement Academy in Bangkok.

The U.S. Embassy in Manila submits names of candidates for vetting to the constitutionally mandated Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the

Philippine National Bureau of Investigation. Concurrently, vetting is conducted by

the U.S. Embassy, including the Consular Section, the Regional Security Office, and

other USG agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration.

If there is no locally available questionable information on the candidate, the Embassy then forwards the name of candidate or unit to the State Department in

Washington for another tier of vetting that also includes the Department of Defense,

FBI, and CIA. Once the Embassy receives notification back from the Department’s

office in Washington that it possesses no credible information of gross violations of

human rights by the candidate, they are permitted to attend training. Candidates

for whom questionable information is available have been and will continue to be

excluded from receiving U.S. assistance.

In addition to these immediate efforts to protect the integrity of our training programs, the United States has provided longstanding support for institutional reform

within the AFP and the Philippine National Police, as well as the Philippine judiciary. This assistance has included human rights training for Philippine security

forces. The United States is also a firm supporter of Philippine Defense Reform,

which aims to strengthen a professional and effective military that respects and protects civil liberties and human rights.

Question. Press Freedoms: What is the status of press freedoms in the Philippines?

• To what do you attribute the larger numbers of journalists murdered in the

Philippines in recent years?

• Dana Dillon from the Heritage Foundation has stated that ‘‘No one claims

President Arroyo ordered or knew of any of the killings of reporters. But government foot-dragging when it comes to apprehending the killers is unacceptable

for a country that receives such large amounts of American aid.’’ Do you agree

with this statement?

Answer. Philippine law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and, except for a few instances during a week-long imposition of a state of national emergency, the government has generally respected these rights in practice. The media

are active and express a wide variety of views without restriction. Broadcast and

print media are freewheeling and are often criticized for lacking rigorous journalistic

ethics. They tend to reflect the particular political or economic orientations of owners, publishers, or patrons, some of whom are close associates of present or past

60

high-level officials. Special interests often use bribes and other inducements to solicit one-sided and erroneous reports and commentaries that support their positions.

Journalists continued to be murdered. The National Union of Journalists of the

Philippines (NUJP) recorded 12 journalists killed in 2006. Task Force Usig classified

two of these cases as work-related slayings. According to the task force, 7 of more

than 70 cases of journalist killings since 1986 resulted in convictions. In many

cases, the suspected killers were local government officials retaliating against

‘‘hard-hitting reporters.’’ It is difficult to determine definitively who was responsible

given the low number of convictions in these cases. Two mayors and two village

chairmen have already surrendered, with charges now filed against them. Two police and one soldier have been arrested in other cases. Out of 26 cases involving

journalists from 2001–07, the police have filed cases in 21 and are still investigating

the remaining 5.

We take this problem seriously, and are committed to helping our Philippine allies

bring those responsible to justice. We are encouraged by the steps that the Philippine Government has taken to date, but we will continue to make clear that more

progress is essential and that we stand ready to be of assistance.

In respect to Philippine journalism we currently have a State Department Human

Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF) grant awaiting congressional notification that

will help Filipino media reduce sensationalist reporting, highlight the human cost

of ongoing violent conflict, and encourage reconciliation and reasoned debate. This

project will contribute to democracy and human rights by working to make the

media a more constructive and responsible force for social and political cohesion,

and will create a national association of human rights journalists.

Question. New People’s Army: Please explain the rationale for placing the New

People’s Army on the U.S. State Department list of international terrorist organizations.

• What has been the effect on the ongoing peace negotiations with the National

Democratic Front?

• Has the placement of the NPA on the terrorism list diverted the focus from the

pursuit of radical Islamic terrorists?

• Do you believe there has been an increased destabilization in the Philippines

countryside? If so, to what do you attribute this unrest, and do you believe that

unrest has been exploited by the NPA in their recruiting?

Answer. The Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA)

has been seeking the violent overthrow of the Philippine Government since the

1970s. Two CPP/NPA members were convicted in connection with the 1989 murder

of Col. James ‘‘Nick’’ Rowe, the deputy commander of the Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group.

The Communists broke off peace negotiations in August 2004 after the Philippine

Government refused to ask the United States and the European Union to remove

the CPP/NPA from their lists of foreign terror organizations. We have consistently

stated that we are willing to examine the question of removing the CPP/NPA from

the list once it fully renounces terrorism in pursuit of its political objectives.

The Philippine Government is combating multiple insurgencies and terrorist

groups. The CPP/NPA’s violent nationwide insurgency has forced the Philippine

Government to divert resources from combating jihadist terrorists. Nonetheless,

Philippine Armed Forces have been able to achieve major successes against alQaeda linked Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu Sayyaf Group terrorists in Mindanao and

the Sulu Archipelago. Recent successful military operations led to the deaths of Abu

Sayyaf Group Leader Khadaffy Janjalani and Operations Chief Abu Solaiman.

While we don’t see any increased destabilization in the Philippines countryside,

we note that the CPP/NPA regularly attacks AFP and Philippine National Police

units and installations and targets their officers and government officials for assassination. The CPP/NPA continues to extort money from local businesses and demand ‘‘permit to campaign fees’’ from politicians in areas under its control.

Æ