The first two lawyers who won their plea for a writ of amparo recounted how they had to struggle against seemingly insurmountable odds and how their efforts led to the surfacing of two farmers in Mindanao.
BY DABET CASTANEDA
Bulatlat
Vol. VII, No. 44, December 9-15, 2007
So far, two disappeared farmers have been surfaced after writ of amparo petitions were filed for their release – Ruel Muñasque in Pagadian City and Luisito Bustamante in Davao City, both in Mindanao, southern Philippines.
But their release did not come easy, the lawyers who handled their cases said, and the hardest obstacle to surmount was that the victims, at first, refused to be freed.
At the forum and case conference sponsored by the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) Dec. 8 at the Sulo Hotel in Quezon City, three valiant human rights lawyers from Mindanao namely, Emil Deleverio, Tirsendo Poloyapoy and Manuel Quibod, discussed how they had to struggle against seemingly insurmountable odds in their petition for a writ of amparo to cause the surfacing and eventual liberty of their clients.
Voluntary custody
Both Poloyapoy and Quibod said it seemed at first that their clients refused to cooperate for their liberty.
“We started a difficult fight,” Poloyapoy, Muñasque’s counsel, said. The judge stood firm on his ground that the continuous confinement of Muñasque was a “matter of national security” and was for the “personal security” of the victim, the lawyer added.
“But it was more difficult because Ruel refused to cooperate for his own liberty,” Poloyapoy said. The lawyer said, however, that this was because Muñasque was “mentally tortured, he was coached by the military.” During court deliberations, Poloyapoy said, Muñasque’s responses “were not actually his.”
Muñasque, a Bayan Muna (People First) party-list leader in Pagadian, was abducted Oct. 24 in Pagadian City, the very same day the writ of amparo took effect. After two weeks under military custody, he was brought to court upon the issuance of a writ of amparo by Judge Abraham Ramas.
Lt. Col. George Avila, civil military operations officer of the Army’s First Tabak Division, in an Inquirer.net interview said Munasque was a member of the New People’s Army (NPA) who surrendered to the military and requested for “custody.”
In fact, one of the evidences of the military was an affidavit of voluntary custody signed by Muñasque. Also, Muñasque admitted in court that he was a member of the NPA.
The military had a similar defense in the Bustamante case.
Bustamante’s lawyer, Quibod, in his case testimony at the NUPL forum, said his client was made to appear by his military abductors as a member of the NPA who “surrendered and voluntarily went to the military to ask for help because he wanted to go back to the mainstream.”
Bustamante, a farmer-activist from Paquibato District in Davao, was stopped at a military checkpoint on Oct. 27 while distributing campaign materials. He was detained at the checkpoint on suspicion he was a member of the NPA. Nothing was heard of him since then.
Lt. Col. Alexander Ambal of the Army’s 73rd Infantry Battalion (IB), and Noli Ambat, a member of the CAFGU and the head of the team manning the checkpoint where Bustamante was stopped, who were named as respondents in the case, were represented by the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG).
Bustamante was also made to sign an affidavit of voluntary custody.
“Hostile witness”
When Poloyapoy sensed that Muñasque was giving “untruthful statements” during his testimony, the human rights lawyer recounted, “He was supposed to be the subject of the petition but I was forced to harass him.”
Poloyapoy said he tried to explain to his client that the case at bar is a writ of amparo to release him from military custody but Muñasque seemed not to heed. “That was the time I was compelled to declare him a hostile witness,” the lawyer said.
By then, Poloyapoy said, he was allowed by the judge to ask leading questions to his client. “When he (Muñasque) came to his senses, I went to destroy to pieces the affidavit of voluntary custody,” he said.
During cross examination, Muñasque admitted that he did not know about the affidavit of voluntary custody, Poloyapoy said. The victim said it was the first time he was showed the affidavit, that it was not his request and that it was prepared for him by the military to sign.
The worst part of the defense, Poloyapoy said, was that Muñasque admitted he did not know the witnesses who testified about his affidavit.
Tainted
In Bustamante’s case, Quibod said the worst that the military did was to have their lawyer assist his client in doing his affidavit of voluntary custody.
In the return of the Solicitor-General who also represented the military in this case, they had an affidavit of Bustamante saying that he volunteered to go with the military, Quibod said. In the same affidavit, Bustamante said he was treated well while he was moved from one camp to another.
But during cross-examination, Bustamante said the affidavit was prepared inside a military camp. When asked who assisted him with his affidavit, Quibod said his client stood up and pointed to a lawyer who was among the lawyers of the respondents.
The lawyer was caught by surprise, Quibod said. “Medyo napahiya s’ya, namula s’ya du’n” (He was rather embarrassed and his face turned red with that), Quibod said of the defense lawyer.
Tortured
Poloyapoy and Quibod said the initial statements of their clients were understandable because they both suffered from severe torture while in the custody of the military.
In his own testimony, Muñasque said he was blindfolded, handcuffed and beaten during his interrogation inside the military camp where he was detained. “I had sleepless nights and indigestion,” he said.
“They forced me in a subtle way to sign an affidavit of voluntary surrender,” he said, and the military “took pictures of me with those planted and fabricated documents and a grenade.”
“I felt so humiliated and helpless but I could not move nor could I speak the truth,” he added.
Bustamante, meanwhile, had cigarette burns on his back and neck, Quibod said.
Both lawyers said their clients were eventually released when the judges handling their respective cases asked where they wanted to stay. At first, however, Muñasque and Bustamante hesitated to go back to their families as they still feared for their lives as well as the security of their loved ones. Bulatlat
