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>.
|