December 2010

 

Doctrine divides, Action unites

 ۩ Home Page
 ۩ School of Peace
 ۩ Faith and Peace Archives
 ۩ Photos and events
 ۩ Who are we

e-mail : forumicf@yahoo.com

 

Philippines: Morong 43 Case Exposes a Prosecution System Directly under Political Control

Asian Human Rights Commission


The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) welcomes with reservations President Benigno Aquino III’s order to withdraw the charges against 43 health workers, collectively known as the Morong 43, as reported today on International Human Rights Day. We strongly believe, based on the documents and information that we have obtained, that they should have not been arrested, detained and forced to endure trial on deeply legally flawed charges in the first instance.

The case of the Morong 43 is no different to numerous cases of the prosecution of fabricated charges that are mostly political in nature. However, the number of people tortured and falsely charged and the background of their work in this case—volunteer doctors, nurses and grassroots community health workers—exposes the ugly reality of the prosecution of cases without regard to legality and due process—nothing else.

The victims owe nothing to President Aquino, who used his executive power to withdraw the charges, or to the Dept. of Justice, to whom he had issued his order. It is rather the president and Dept. of Justice that owe explanations to the 43 victims, their families and the Filipino people as to how deeply flawed and procedurally defective charges can be pursued in the courts. The victims’ rights were violated, not only by the police and the military, but also by the prosecution and the judiciary for having the case admitted for trial.

Why did the National Prosecution Service (NPS), under the direct control of the Dept. of Justice, not perform its legal obligation? It is the responsibility of the NPS to examine the legality of charges before they can be filed in court. They have the obligation to weigh the evidence of any case to determine whether or not the crime alleged had “probably been committed” as the basis of its prosecution. However, as already shown, they did not do so. The Dept. of Justice’s review of the case found procedural and legal flaws in the process of filing the case. It was the prosecution service, which is supposed to prosecute violations of penal laws, that committed the violations by allowing the prosecution of fabricated charges.

When the case of the Morong 43 was filed in court, since the prosecution service had legal authority in prosecuting cases in court, the latter took jurisdiction of the case for trial, ignoring questions about its legality and the procedural flaws. The court could have corrected this failure had it exercised its authority to “summarily dismiss” the case for being legally and procedurally flawed. However, again, like the prosecution service, they did not do so. When the case was challenged before the Court of Appeal, which also had the power to initiate a judicial review, they invoked a flawed decision promulgated during martial rule that allows the trial of cases without any regard to questions of legality and due process. They ruled that the victims’ rights have not been violated because questions as to legality and procedure could be addressed during the trial, therefore allowing the trial of a fabricated case.

The process the victims had undergone by having been illegally arrested, detained and tortured by the police and the military, laid with fabricated charges by the Dept. of Justice prosecutors and the court’s ruling to allow the trial of this fabricated case illustrates how highly sophisticated violations of rights are committed. The system procedurally institutionalizes these violations. They are violations of rights that are perpetrated from within, and by, the government’s institution of justice.

President Aquino’s claims, as quoted by the media, that, “as a government that is committed to the rule of law and the rights of man, this [Morong 43] case cannot stand.” At the same time, he said the government “recognizes their right to due process was denied.” These statements are not only conflicting in terms but are detached from what happens in real practice. This claim is good only for publicity purposes—nothing else. They rather prevent public discourse on the reality of the state of the country’s system of justice. A country that is claiming to have upheld the rule of law should not have permitted the prosecution of procedurally and legally flawed cases.

President Aquino’s order, by giving orders to the Dept. of Justice to withdraw the charges and of having direct executive power on what charges can be pursued in court, also demonstrates that the prosecution system is structurally under direct political control. The authority of the prosecution department, on paper, is based on the legality and merit of cases but, in reality, performs at the behest of executive branch. The country’s prosecution system is structurally deeply political in nature. The system does not function within the rule of law, as is being publicized, but rather of the rule of lords. The prosecution service is nothing but an underdog and is subservient to the executive.

This political control explains the people’s attitude that, regardless of their case, they routinely ask the president to intervene in their case for relief and remedy—even cases that are no longer within the president’s authority, like, for example, appeals to overturn court orders, orders of local chief executives independent from the president, appeals to have a crime investigated on which the police did not take action and others. This practice explains that the people know full well the extent of the president’s political control and influence over most of the institutions of the government.

There is a double standard in the application of the rule of law and due process, for they are likely to operate on the basis of how influential are people, groups or foreign governments, how heavy the pressure is applied, how popular the demand would have to be met regardless of their reasons. The system does not operate on legality and due process that is understood in its real sense but rather appears to be so. The system does not operate on its own course but rather on the basis of political consideration, gain and influence. The continued existence of this type of system of justice pushes the weak and the vulnerable even further into the corner without protection.

For a related statement on this case, please refer to Philippines: A Politicized, Underdog System of Justice.


* The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is a regional non-governmental organization monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984. More information is available on AHRC’s web site at <http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php>.