Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF THE PHILIPPINES
29 April 2009
Share
Committee against Torture
AFTERNOON
29 April 2009
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of the Philippines to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 28 April, the delegation, which was led by Eduardo Ermita, Executive Secretary in the Office of the President of the Philippines and Chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Committee, with regard to the Anti-Torture Bill before Congress for 10 years now, noted that there were many political issues holding up the Bill's passage. The Philippines was faced with a major Communist insurgency, and a Muslim secessionist movement in the South, both of which had presented threats to national security for the past 40 years. The atrocities committed by those groups on Philippine soldiers were well documented. There was an ongoing debate and a legitimate concern that the current Bill only targeted State actors, and would allow non-State actors to continue their despicable acts with impunity. In addition, there was debate over whether the Philippines, by this Bill, could legally expand the coverage of perpetrators of torture as defined in the Convention.
Regarding allegations about extrajudicial killings and disappearances, after investigation into the alleged 836 extrajudicial killings, only 145 cases had been validated, the delegation said. With regard to an alleged 139 cases of torture, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines had referred those to the Government and they would be looked into. The same would be done with regard to the 149 cases of alleged forced disappearances. The delegation also provided answers regarding the Anti-Terrorism Law and human rights protections for suspects; prison overcrowding; recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; training for judicial, police, military, and penitentiary staff; and the burden of proof in torture cases, among others.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of the Philippines towards the end of the session on Friday, 21 November 2008.
As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, the Philippines is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 30 April, it is scheduled to begin its consideration of the initial report of Nicaragua (CAT/C/NIC/1).
Response of the Philippines
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Tuesday, 28 April, the delegation of the Philippines, in response to queries about the 20-year gap in reporting under the Convention, noted that during that period the Philippines had faced serious national and international, natural and manmade challenges. The Philippines took its reporting obligations seriously, last year having presented two periodic reports and undergone the Universal Periodic Review, and this year, in addition to the report to this Committee, the Philippines would present four other periodic reports. In that connection, continuing efforts of international treaty body system to streamline their reporting procedures were most welcome.
The delegation highlighted that the Constitution, via its Bill of Rights, guaranteed that no torture or violence should be used against persons under investigation for an offence. It also provided that secret solitary or incommunicado detention was prohibited, as were confessions obtained under duress. Penal and civil sanctions for acts of torture, as well as compensation and rehabilitation, were also established by the Constitution.
Moreover, the prohibition against torture had been enlarged upon in case law, with the Supreme Court overruling lower court rulings on the basis that the convictions in those cases had been obtained through coerced confessions. The Supreme Court had also constantly spelled out in its rulings the responsibility of judges, for example that they had to use painstaking scrutiny in weighing such evidence. As early as 1985, the Supreme Court defined the procedure that police officers had to undertake in detaining criminal suspects, the so-called "Miranda warning". According to those rights, anyone detained had the right to remain silent and request confidential counsel, preferably of their own choice. If they could not afford a lawyer, one would be appointed to them. Police officers had to provide detainees with a card detailing these rights.
Military personnel who committed acts of torture would be called before a civil court, which would determine in the first instance whether those acts were committed in the performance of their duties or not, the delegation said. Moreover, administrative sanctions for police officers committing acts of torture, force or intimidation did not debar a civil action for harm caused.
It might take three years to try a case, but only because they had to protect the rights of the accused and follow due process, the delegation.
As for the burden of proof, they could not transfer the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused in cases of torture, as the Constitution set out the principle of the presumption of innocence. Therefore the burden was against the accuser. That did not mean that they could not review this issue, but it would require a constitutional change, which would require national debate, the delegation explained.
Regarding the Anti-Torture Bill which had been before Congress for 10 years, the delegation detailed the elaborate process for adopting legislation, which had to go through three readings, including public consultations, before being adopted. However, there were many political issues holding up the Bill's passage. The Philippines was faced with a major Communist insurgency, and a Muslim secessionist movement in the South, both of which had presented threats to national security for the past 40 years. The atrocities committed by those groups on Philippine soldiers were well documented. There was an ongoing debate and a legitimate concern that the current Bill only targeted State actors, and would allow non-State actors to continue their despicable acts with impunity. In addition, there was debate over whether the Philippines, by this Bill, could legally expand the coverage of perpetrators of torture as defined in the Convention.
Detailing the provisions of the Anti-Torture Bill, the delegation said it would ensure that the rights of prisoners and detainees would be protected at all times and that they would not be subjected to force, violence or coercion. The advent of war, a state of emergency or other exigency could not be used as an excuse for breaching those obligations and secret detention or places of incommunicado detention, where torture could be carried out with impunity, were prohibited. Confessions obtained under torture would also be prohibited.
The Magna Carta for Women, among other provisions to protect women, provided steeper penalties if violence against women had been committed by State actors.
The passage of the Human Security Act, or the anti-terrorism law, embodied the Philippines’ commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms, in accordance with United Nations resolutions and international directives. The definition of terrorism contained in that law had been formulated with due regard for definitions in United Nations instruments and international law and it provided numerous guarantees. Contrary to the concerns raised by the National Commission of Human Rights, the Government recognized the Commission's independence and its right, along with other organs of State, to look into cases brought under this law.
Turning to training, the delegation said that the Armed Forces of the Philippines had institutionalized human rights and international humanitarian law in all its training, including all career, pre-entry and specialization courses. Moreover, in order to enhance the effectiveness of its programmes, the Armed Forces had partnered with the National Human Rights Commission to monitor the effectiveness of those programmes. Similarly, human rights was a mandatory part of the curriculum for police education and training.
The Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking was mandated with monitoring and implementing the Anti-Trafficking Act of 2003. It conducted different activities to prevent trafficking, to punish perpetrators, and to assist and rehabilitate victims. Regionally, the Philippines was chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations anti-trafficking committee. Domestically, the Philippines had a police unit dedicated to trafficking in persons, in particular women and children. Since 2002, the Philippines had established the women and children's concerns desk throughout the country, and today there were over 1,000 such desks.
Giving some statistics on prosecutions for trafficking in persons, according to the National Bureau of Investigation's Anti-Trafficking Division, for the period from January to December 2008, out of 130 complaints lodged, 112 were under preliminary investigation, seven were under investigation by the Prosecutor's Office, and 11 had been terminated or closed. Also worth noting was an operation carried out by the Airport Task Force on 5 August 2008, in which 36 persons had been rescued, including 20 minors, who were being trafficked to Saudi Arabia for use as domestic workers. In addition, the Task Force had arrested 37 trafficked persons coming into the country, 24 of whom had subsequently filed complaints with the police.
As a result of these anti-trafficking efforts the Philippines had been taking off the United States watch list in this area, the delegation highlighted. The Philippines was now listed as a tier two country.
Turning to corrections issues regarding women, female corrections for women had complete female staff from the level of superintendent to teachers, doctors and nurses. There were now 31 female dormitories nationwide and two youth centres, for over 500 jails. Those facilities were served by female staff, according to law.
As for measures to address overcrowding in the jails, the delegation noted that some 3,677 inmates had been released last year on alternative sentencing or early release provisions, with a view to eliminating unnecessary detentions. Two new jails would be constructed this year. In addition, the legislature was considering a bill that would provide for the physical upgrading of jails and other penitentiary centres.
Concerning treatment of detainees, the delegation pointed to the close engagement of the Government with non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations in this area, in particular with regard to implementing the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which provided for visits to places of detention. To that end, the Government had set up the OPCAT working group, composed of many civil society groups and non-governmental organizations, to look into setting up the national preventive mechanism to visit places of detention, as provided for in the Optional Protocol.
While there might be infractions of the police procedure, the delegation stressed that those were isolated cases and that the police investigated all such infractions and imposed penalties for them.
On high-profile murders, the delegation said that the Task Force of the Philippine National Police remained committed to investigating such murders. Out of 31 validated media practitioner killings, 26 had been filed in court. For killings of political officials, out of 115 cases, 64 had been filed with the Prosecutor's Office or the courts. Recently, the President had brought forward the issue of killings of media personalities and political officials, among others, directing the Philippine National Police to work closely with a multi-agency body to investigate and prosecute political justice cases. Regarding killings of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, from 2003 to the present, 70 cases had been recorded, with 53 cases filed in court, and the rest remaining unsolved. A special investigation task force on the killing of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, had been set up and security escorts for some judges had been provided, as required.
Regarding extradition requests, persons would not be returned to a country where there were valid reasons to believe that their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The Philippines also had bilateral agreements with a number of countries, which included that prohibition. While there were no specific provisions in some of its other bilateral treaties to that effect, in practice, the Philippines had never engaged in extraordinary renditions.
With regard to children and armed conflict, no less than the United Nations Security Council had commended the Philippines for its high legal principles and activities in this regard. Moreover, in December 2008, the Special Rapporteur on children and armed conflict had visited the Philippines, which yielded positive results. The protection of children against involvement in armed conflicts was provided for in the 1985 Constitution and five landmark laws. Providing details of current cases, the delegation said 17 cases were currently under investigation and another six cases were undergoing evaluation. All of those cases were being perpetrated by non-state actors in indigenous areas where conflicts were raging.
Regarding allegations about extrajudicial killings and disappearances, after investigation into the alleged 836 extrajudicial killings, only 145 cases had been validated. With regard to an alleged 139 cases of torture, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines had referred those to the Government and they would be looked into. The same would be done with regard to the 149 cases of alleged forced disappearances. The budget of the National Commission was sufficient.
Further Questions and Comments by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said she was not satisfied with the replies concerning the delays in adopting the Anti-Torture Bill. She noted that the Philippines had managed to enact other legislation in the meantime, including the Anti-Terrorism Law. She wanted to hear what the executive was doing to prioritize the passage of the Anti-Torture Law. She was also concerned that the National Human Rights Commission did not have the authority to independently investigate the allegations of torture, disappearances and extrajudicial killings, and she wanted to know what was being done to address that.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, pointed out that when he questioned the lengthy pre-trial detention, an average of three years, he was merely concerned that the lengthy period of time increased the risk of torture occurring. He wanted to prevent that. He was concerned as well that independent bodies had not been allowed to visit certain detention facilities, notably military detention centres.
Regarding complaints, anyone who had been tortured had the right to complain and such complaints should be investigated promptly and fairly. That was the State's obligation, Mr. Wang said.
Other Experts asked for further information about rehabilitation for victims of torture, in particular mental torture; details of cases brought for judicial murders; and further information about cases of torture that applied the Supreme Court's disposition regarding the burden of proof.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
AFTERNOON
29 April 2009
The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of the Philippines to questions raised by Committee Experts on the second periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Responding to a series of questions raised by the Committee members on 28 April, the delegation, which was led by Eduardo Ermita, Executive Secretary in the Office of the President of the Philippines and Chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Committee, with regard to the Anti-Torture Bill before Congress for 10 years now, noted that there were many political issues holding up the Bill's passage. The Philippines was faced with a major Communist insurgency, and a Muslim secessionist movement in the South, both of which had presented threats to national security for the past 40 years. The atrocities committed by those groups on Philippine soldiers were well documented. There was an ongoing debate and a legitimate concern that the current Bill only targeted State actors, and would allow non-State actors to continue their despicable acts with impunity. In addition, there was debate over whether the Philippines, by this Bill, could legally expand the coverage of perpetrators of torture as defined in the Convention.
Regarding allegations about extrajudicial killings and disappearances, after investigation into the alleged 836 extrajudicial killings, only 145 cases had been validated, the delegation said. With regard to an alleged 139 cases of torture, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines had referred those to the Government and they would be looked into. The same would be done with regard to the 149 cases of alleged forced disappearances. The delegation also provided answers regarding the Anti-Terrorism Law and human rights protections for suspects; prison overcrowding; recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; training for judicial, police, military, and penitentiary staff; and the burden of proof in torture cases, among others.
The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of the Philippines towards the end of the session on Friday, 21 November 2008.
As one of the 146 States parties to the Convention against Torture, the Philippines is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 30 April, it is scheduled to begin its consideration of the initial report of Nicaragua (CAT/C/NIC/1).
Response of the Philippines
Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Tuesday, 28 April, the delegation of the Philippines, in response to queries about the 20-year gap in reporting under the Convention, noted that during that period the Philippines had faced serious national and international, natural and manmade challenges. The Philippines took its reporting obligations seriously, last year having presented two periodic reports and undergone the Universal Periodic Review, and this year, in addition to the report to this Committee, the Philippines would present four other periodic reports. In that connection, continuing efforts of international treaty body system to streamline their reporting procedures were most welcome.
The delegation highlighted that the Constitution, via its Bill of Rights, guaranteed that no torture or violence should be used against persons under investigation for an offence. It also provided that secret solitary or incommunicado detention was prohibited, as were confessions obtained under duress. Penal and civil sanctions for acts of torture, as well as compensation and rehabilitation, were also established by the Constitution.
Moreover, the prohibition against torture had been enlarged upon in case law, with the Supreme Court overruling lower court rulings on the basis that the convictions in those cases had been obtained through coerced confessions. The Supreme Court had also constantly spelled out in its rulings the responsibility of judges, for example that they had to use painstaking scrutiny in weighing such evidence. As early as 1985, the Supreme Court defined the procedure that police officers had to undertake in detaining criminal suspects, the so-called "Miranda warning". According to those rights, anyone detained had the right to remain silent and request confidential counsel, preferably of their own choice. If they could not afford a lawyer, one would be appointed to them. Police officers had to provide detainees with a card detailing these rights.
Military personnel who committed acts of torture would be called before a civil court, which would determine in the first instance whether those acts were committed in the performance of their duties or not, the delegation said. Moreover, administrative sanctions for police officers committing acts of torture, force or intimidation did not debar a civil action for harm caused.
It might take three years to try a case, but only because they had to protect the rights of the accused and follow due process, the delegation.
As for the burden of proof, they could not transfer the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused in cases of torture, as the Constitution set out the principle of the presumption of innocence. Therefore the burden was against the accuser. That did not mean that they could not review this issue, but it would require a constitutional change, which would require national debate, the delegation explained.
Regarding the Anti-Torture Bill which had been before Congress for 10 years, the delegation detailed the elaborate process for adopting legislation, which had to go through three readings, including public consultations, before being adopted. However, there were many political issues holding up the Bill's passage. The Philippines was faced with a major Communist insurgency, and a Muslim secessionist movement in the South, both of which had presented threats to national security for the past 40 years. The atrocities committed by those groups on Philippine soldiers were well documented. There was an ongoing debate and a legitimate concern that the current Bill only targeted State actors, and would allow non-State actors to continue their despicable acts with impunity. In addition, there was debate over whether the Philippines, by this Bill, could legally expand the coverage of perpetrators of torture as defined in the Convention.
Detailing the provisions of the Anti-Torture Bill, the delegation said it would ensure that the rights of prisoners and detainees would be protected at all times and that they would not be subjected to force, violence or coercion. The advent of war, a state of emergency or other exigency could not be used as an excuse for breaching those obligations and secret detention or places of incommunicado detention, where torture could be carried out with impunity, were prohibited. Confessions obtained under torture would also be prohibited.
The Magna Carta for Women, among other provisions to protect women, provided steeper penalties if violence against women had been committed by State actors.
The passage of the Human Security Act, or the anti-terrorism law, embodied the Philippines’ commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms, in accordance with United Nations resolutions and international directives. The definition of terrorism contained in that law had been formulated with due regard for definitions in United Nations instruments and international law and it provided numerous guarantees. Contrary to the concerns raised by the National Commission of Human Rights, the Government recognized the Commission's independence and its right, along with other organs of State, to look into cases brought under this law.
Turning to training, the delegation said that the Armed Forces of the Philippines had institutionalized human rights and international humanitarian law in all its training, including all career, pre-entry and specialization courses. Moreover, in order to enhance the effectiveness of its programmes, the Armed Forces had partnered with the National Human Rights Commission to monitor the effectiveness of those programmes. Similarly, human rights was a mandatory part of the curriculum for police education and training.
The Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking was mandated with monitoring and implementing the Anti-Trafficking Act of 2003. It conducted different activities to prevent trafficking, to punish perpetrators, and to assist and rehabilitate victims. Regionally, the Philippines was chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations anti-trafficking committee. Domestically, the Philippines had a police unit dedicated to trafficking in persons, in particular women and children. Since 2002, the Philippines had established the women and children's concerns desk throughout the country, and today there were over 1,000 such desks.
Giving some statistics on prosecutions for trafficking in persons, according to the National Bureau of Investigation's Anti-Trafficking Division, for the period from January to December 2008, out of 130 complaints lodged, 112 were under preliminary investigation, seven were under investigation by the Prosecutor's Office, and 11 had been terminated or closed. Also worth noting was an operation carried out by the Airport Task Force on 5 August 2008, in which 36 persons had been rescued, including 20 minors, who were being trafficked to Saudi Arabia for use as domestic workers. In addition, the Task Force had arrested 37 trafficked persons coming into the country, 24 of whom had subsequently filed complaints with the police.
As a result of these anti-trafficking efforts the Philippines had been taking off the United States watch list in this area, the delegation highlighted. The Philippines was now listed as a tier two country.
Turning to corrections issues regarding women, female corrections for women had complete female staff from the level of superintendent to teachers, doctors and nurses. There were now 31 female dormitories nationwide and two youth centres, for over 500 jails. Those facilities were served by female staff, according to law.
As for measures to address overcrowding in the jails, the delegation noted that some 3,677 inmates had been released last year on alternative sentencing or early release provisions, with a view to eliminating unnecessary detentions. Two new jails would be constructed this year. In addition, the legislature was considering a bill that would provide for the physical upgrading of jails and other penitentiary centres.
Concerning treatment of detainees, the delegation pointed to the close engagement of the Government with non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations in this area, in particular with regard to implementing the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which provided for visits to places of detention. To that end, the Government had set up the OPCAT working group, composed of many civil society groups and non-governmental organizations, to look into setting up the national preventive mechanism to visit places of detention, as provided for in the Optional Protocol.
While there might be infractions of the police procedure, the delegation stressed that those were isolated cases and that the police investigated all such infractions and imposed penalties for them.
On high-profile murders, the delegation said that the Task Force of the Philippine National Police remained committed to investigating such murders. Out of 31 validated media practitioner killings, 26 had been filed in court. For killings of political officials, out of 115 cases, 64 had been filed with the Prosecutor's Office or the courts. Recently, the President had brought forward the issue of killings of media personalities and political officials, among others, directing the Philippine National Police to work closely with a multi-agency body to investigate and prosecute political justice cases. Regarding killings of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, from 2003 to the present, 70 cases had been recorded, with 53 cases filed in court, and the rest remaining unsolved. A special investigation task force on the killing of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, had been set up and security escorts for some judges had been provided, as required.
Regarding extradition requests, persons would not be returned to a country where there were valid reasons to believe that their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The Philippines also had bilateral agreements with a number of countries, which included that prohibition. While there were no specific provisions in some of its other bilateral treaties to that effect, in practice, the Philippines had never engaged in extraordinary renditions.
With regard to children and armed conflict, no less than the United Nations Security Council had commended the Philippines for its high legal principles and activities in this regard. Moreover, in December 2008, the Special Rapporteur on children and armed conflict had visited the Philippines, which yielded positive results. The protection of children against involvement in armed conflicts was provided for in the 1985 Constitution and five landmark laws. Providing details of current cases, the delegation said 17 cases were currently under investigation and another six cases were undergoing evaluation. All of those cases were being perpetrated by non-state actors in indigenous areas where conflicts were raging.
Regarding allegations about extrajudicial killings and disappearances, after investigation into the alleged 836 extrajudicial killings, only 145 cases had been validated. With regard to an alleged 139 cases of torture, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines had referred those to the Government and they would be looked into. The same would be done with regard to the 149 cases of alleged forced disappearances. The budget of the National Commission was sufficient.
Further Questions and Comments by Committee Experts
FELICE GAER, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, said she was not satisfied with the replies concerning the delays in adopting the Anti-Torture Bill. She noted that the Philippines had managed to enact other legislation in the meantime, including the Anti-Terrorism Law. She wanted to hear what the executive was doing to prioritize the passage of the Anti-Torture Law. She was also concerned that the National Human Rights Commission did not have the authority to independently investigate the allegations of torture, disappearances and extrajudicial killings, and she wanted to know what was being done to address that.
XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of the Philippines, pointed out that when he questioned the lengthy pre-trial detention, an average of three years, he was merely concerned that the lengthy period of time increased the risk of torture occurring. He wanted to prevent that. He was concerned as well that independent bodies had not been allowed to visit certain detention facilities, notably military detention centres.
Regarding complaints, anyone who had been tortured had the right to complain and such complaints should be investigated promptly and fairly. That was the State's obligation, Mr. Wang said.
Other Experts asked for further information about rehabilitation for victims of torture, in particular mental torture; details of cases brought for judicial murders; and further information about cases of torture that applied the Supreme Court's disposition regarding the burden of proof.
_________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: