02 Jul 2010

Our beloved speaker Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, colleagues in the profession, friends and co-workers in the human rights struggle, Good afternoon.

We live in a time of political turmoil where impunity in human rights violations and general lawlessness grip the nation and serious economic disorder.

The Arroyo government’s national counter-insurgency blueprint Oplan Bantay Laya (OBL) or Oplan “Freedom Watch”, which it extended in 2007, resulted only in the extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances of hundreds of men and women from among political activists, peasants, workers, journalists, church people, lawyers and other civilians from various sectors of Philippine society.

The number of extrajudicial killings reached more than 800 and enforced disappearances 185 as of October 2007, as documented by the human rights organization Karapatan.   

We human rights lawyers felt the desperation of our clients because the legal remedies to protect human rights were no longer sufficient, in the wake of killings and disappearances.

Refusing to remain in the safety of the sidelines when human rights are under assault, the Supreme Court led by our beloved Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, took significant and innovative steps to address the dismal human rights situation in the country and, in particular, the extra-judicial killings.

Chief Justice Puno pointed out that it was time for the judiciary to “unsheath its unused power to enact rules to protect the constitutional rights of our people, the first and foremost of which is the right to life itself.”

On September 25, 2007, the High Court issued the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, which took effect on October 24, 2007,   Not long after, the High Court issued the Rule on Habeas Data which took effect on February 2, 2008.
The writ of amparo was aimed at providing the victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances the protection they need and the promise of vindication for their rights.  On the other hand, the writ of Habeas Data aims to protect and insure the individual’s right to privacy.

We welcome these innovations of the rules by the High Court.

Since the rule on the writ of amparo became effective, a number of petitions have been filed in various courts all over the country.  The rule gives the victims and the relatives of the victims of rights abuses a glimmer of hope in their quest for justice.

Since the rule on the writ of amparo became effective, we have had small victories.  For instance, the military, through the writ of amparo, was compelled to surface and eventually release Ruel Muñasque on November 7 and Luicito Bustamante on November 14 by virtue of two separate petitions for their protection.

Muñasque, 33, is a UCCP leader based in Mindanao. He and Roger Morales were abducted on October 24, 2007 at a checkpoint manned by elements of the 53rd IBPA in Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur. They were blindfolded, handcuffed and were brought to a camp where they were physically tortured.

On the other hand, Bustamante, a 21-year old peasant, was accosted with two other young men while distributing campaign leaflets on October 27 by a paramilitary group task force, led by a Noli Obat at a checkpoint in Paquibato District, Davao City.  Obat accused Bustamante of being an NPA member and detained him. Physical examination upon his release showed cigarette burns and other torture marks on Bustamante’s body.

Despite our initial victories, we must however remain vigilant to protect the remedies provided under the rules on the writ of amparo and habeas data.

Based from the experiences of several Latin American countries where the writ of amparo has long been applied, the writ of amparo may also be misused to prevent prosecution of human rights violators.   

In a conference on Impunity and Press Freedom held last month in Makati, Argentinian lawyer Eduardo Bertoni and Spanish Judge Santiago Pedraz Gomez mentioned the experiences of Latin American countries where the perpetrators of human rights violations “resorted to writ of amparo using frivolous reasons and to block prosecutions in human rights violations.”

Our office, the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) is currently handling three Petitions for Writs of Amparo filed against two progressive party lists the KABATAAN and BAYAN MUNA, and another against the human rights organization KARAPATAN.  Although the petitioners are the relatives of the alleged victims, the petitions were clearly filed with strong intervention from the military or state forces with the intention to muddle and abuse the use of the writ of amparo.  

In the petition for Writ of Amparo against BAYAN MUNA for instance, the case is actually a simple misunderstanding between the parents of Marissa Espedido, an 18 year old student of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), over the latter’s decision to become a full-time activist and to immerse and live with the farmers.

The military however intervened and convinced the parents to file a Petition for Writ of Amparo against Marissa’s school mates who are also students and activists of PUP.  Their ages range from 18-20 years old.  Their parents were also impleaded as respondents.  Military and police personnel in civilian clothes went to the respective houses of the respondents-students and gave them and their parents a lecture to dissuade their children from participating in political activities.  The picture of Marissa and two of the respondents-students were placed in a leaflet with a caption, recruiters of the New People’s Army (NPA), while under Marissa’s picture was description that she already went to the mountains and joined the NPAs.  Several leaflets containing their pictures were distributed in the University; some were posted on the walls/bulletins of the University.   

During the hearing, Marissa appeared to dispute the allegation that she went to the mountains and joined the NPAs, and to dispute the claim that BAYAN MUNA allegedly brainwashed her to make such a decision.  During the hearing, we asked the RTC judge to give Marissa and her parents an opportunity to discuss the matter among themselves only, without the presence of the military handlers and the lawyers.  After the conference, when asked by the judge, Marissa decided not to go home with her parents because of fear and due to threats to her life and security.  She felt unsafe in her own home because of the presence and intervention of the military.  In the same petition, we asked the judge to issue a protective order for Marissa and the other respondents for the threats and harassments inflicted by military and police personnel against their lives and security.


The petition filed against KABATAAN has the same set of facts. The case is also a simple misunderstanding between the parents of Khristine Calido, a student activist of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), over the latter’s decision to become a full-time activist and to immerse and live with the farmers.

The respondents-students were also visited in their respective houses by military and civilian personnel.  One of the respondents’ parents were even shown the power point presentation “Knowing the Enemy” to dissuade the parents from allowing their children to join the progressive party-lists.

The filing of the aforesaid petitions is clearly part of a vicious plan to frustrate the noble quest of the Honorable Supreme Court to provide strong protection to the constitutional rights of our people.  Clearly, in the aforesaid petitions, the writ of amparo was being used as a weapon for counter-insurgency.

We should, therefore, guard against these sinister moves to misuse and abuse the writ of amparo and now the writ of habeas data.  We must ensure that these innovations of the rule by the Highest Court led by Chief Justice Puno, become effective tools in protecting the people and in the battle against impunity.   

################################################################