HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Akbayan
Rep’s Bill Hit: Discriminatory and Anti-Human Rights
Akbayan Rep. Loreta Ann Rosales has found herself in a hot
seat for pushing a consolidated bill in the House that, according to the
leading human rights alliance Selda, will end all expectations by human
rights victims of justice and indemnification.
BY
AUBREY SC MAKILAN
Bulatlat
The Society of Ex-Detainees Against
Detention and for Amnesty or SELDA (literally meaning prison cell), the
organization of former political prisoners under Martial Law, which
initiated and won a
class action suit against the Marcos family before the
U.S. Federal Court, hit the Committee on Civil, Political and Human
Rights of the House for recommending a bill that is anti-human rights and
which disregards the victory won by the victims in the suit.
Selda secretary general Marie Hilao-Enriquez
criticized Akbayan Party-list Rep. Loreta Ann Rosales, chair of the
Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights of the Congress, for
recommending House Bill 3315 (An Act Providing Compensation to Victims of
Human Rights Violations during the Marcos Regime, Documentation of Said
Violations, Appropriating Funds therefore and for Other Purposes). Hilao-Enriquez
said that HB 3315 does not reflect the just demands of the victims of the
Marcos dictatorship. The bill supposedly consolidates Akbayan’s HB 1319
and Bayan Muna’s HB 2962.
The bill, according to Hilao-Enriquez,
has objectionable provisions and “deliberate exclusions,” she added.
First, the proposed bill is
discriminatory and anti-human rights. Among the victims of serious
physical injury, torture, or killings it seeks to compensate only those
who were “peacefully” exercising their civil or political rights. Selda
has objected to the inclusion of the word “peacefully” even in the
previous versions of the bill. Yet, it was still included in HB 3315.
Hilao-Enriquez said that none of the
human rights principles specifies the manner by which a person is to
exercise his/her rights, and Rosales should have known that being the
Committee’s chairperson. Aside from excluding those who took up arms or
engaged in other forms of struggle against the dictatorship, which may not
fall under the category of “peaceful” means, this provision by implication
allows the practice of torture or killings of prisoners of war.
“It’s very basic and she (Rosales)
should have studied it first or at least researched about it,” Hilao-Enriquez
said. “Or it seemed that her lawyer did not study his lessons.”
Victory
Second, the bill, according to SELDA,
does not recognize the victory won by the victims in the class action suit
against the Marcos family. By failing to recognize the victory of the
victims, the bill will make the victims undergo another series of
submission of affidavits and documentation, interviews, etc.
“It is just like making them relive
their traumatic experiences all over again,” said Hilao-Enriquez, “Do they
not trust the rigorous processes of the U.S. Federal Court, which already
studied the documentation and affidavits and conducted interviews on the
victims?”
Third, while specifying that the
chairperson of the Independent Board of Compensation for Victims of Human
Rights Violations be a retired justice of the Supreme Court and that two
of its members be representatives of human rights non-government
organizations, the proposed bill gives the power of appointing these three
members, out of the five, to the President. The other two members, as
stipulated in the proposed bill, will be the chairperson of the Commission
on Human Rights and the secretary of the Department of Justice. This
excludes the victims of human rights violations under Marcos from being
represented in the Board. And since the President has the power to
appoint, she may appoint people out of political expediency, which she is
wont to do, or purposely exclude those who are critical of her
administration, according to Hilao-Enriquez.
Ignoring the victims
In a statement, Rosales said the
consolidated bill underwent a series of deliberations both at the
technical working group and committee levels and was even attended by the
claimants’ representatives.
Hilao-Enriquez said otherwise. She
recalled that the claimants were satisfied with the consolidated bill they
came up with during the previous Congress. Sponsored by Bayan Muna
Party-list, the bill, in its entirety, was deemed satisfactory by the
victims. Contrary to Rosales statement, she told Bulatlat that they
were not represented in the deliberations, they were merely asked to
attend.
In fact, Hilao-Enriquez added,
“Nowhere in the bill was there any mention of the historic landmark case
the victims have won, when in fact, it is because of that case that we
have arrived at this bill today.”
Rosales said that it was Presidential
Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) Chair Haydee Yorac who “correctly
advised the Committee that there cannot be a conclusive presumption that
the plaintiffs in the Hawaii case are HRV victims for purposes of the
bill.”
The indemnification of human rights
victims under the Marcos dictatorship continues to be a major issue in the
peace negotiations between the Government of the Philippines and the
National Democratic Front of the Philippines (GRP-NDFP).
In an email interview, NDFP Chair Luis
Jalandoni said the “blatant trampling” on the rights of the 9,539
plaintiffs grossly violates the Part III Respect for Human Rights, Article
5 of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and
International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL): "The Parties hereby respect and
support the rights of the victims of human rights violations during
the Marcos regime, taking into consideration the final judgment of the
United States Federal Court System in the Human Rights Litigation Case
Against Marcos; Senate Resolution 1640; Swiss Supreme Court Decision of 10
December 1997; and pertinent provisions of the U.N. Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the 1984 U.N. Convention Against Torture."
Aside from not being recognized, Hilao-Enriquez
added, their recommendation regarding the process of compensation was even
ignored. For the speedy indemnification, Selda recommended to give
priority to the 9,539 class plaintiffs by giving 50 percent of the funds
for the victims. Since the U.S Federal Court already recognized them, they
would only have to bring identification papers.
Aside from being ignored, the victims,
according to Hilao-Enriquez were even excluded from being members of the
Board, which is tasked to process the claims.
The intention of the bill to exclude a
representative of the victims because of a seeming conflict of interest
even surpasses the meticulousness of the Supreme Court (SC), said Bayan
Muna lawyer Neri Colmenares. The SC merely asks a justice, whose relatives
are involved in a case, to inhibit him or herself.
Discouraging developments
The bill penalizes those who will be
found to have filed “fraudulent and malicious claims.” If convicted, one
will be imprisoned for eight to 10 years and/or pay a fine of not less
than P50, 000 but not more than P500, 000.
This provision, according to Hilao-Enriquez,
would discourage victims from filing complaints, especially those who do
not have enough papers to support their claims. “Where have you seen a
bill principally laid on a framework of doubt?” she asked.
Hilao-Enriquez added that the reason
for not recognizing the claimants in the class action suit for the reason
that the bill should not be an “enforcement of a foreign judgment” or
because of the issue “sovereignty” is laughable.
She angrily said that the Hawaii
complainants were authentic because when they filed the class action suit,
nobody expected to be compensated. In fact their original intention was
to show to the world that then President Ferdinand Marcos was a human
rights violator.
“If any of the victims was a fake
would s/he be a fool as to risk being subjected to military surveillance
after submitting his/her name as claimant even as we believed then that
there is no hope of being compensated?,” she argued.
Meanwhile, the victims fear that the
money meant to compensate them may already be dissipated.
PCGG Information Officer Nick Suarez
confirmed the
transfer of the $ 684 million (approximately PhP38 billion)
held in an escrow account at the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to the
National Treasury in March last year. Selda fears that the fund,
which was transferred at the height of the campaign for the presidential
elections, may have been used by the Arroyo administration.
This issue has been raised by the
victims during the committee hearing on Nov. 4, 2004 but Hilao-Enriquez
said that no investigation has been done so far.
Meanwhile, Jalandoni told Bulatlat
that the GRP Negotiating Panel said that the money is still there. But
the GRP panel has not acted on the demand of the NDFP panel to place the
money in a separate escrow account.
Back to the committee?
Rosales had earlier expressed her
intention to deliver her sponsorship speech for HB 3315. Selda however
threatened to issue an open letter, through Bayan Muna, asking other
lawmakers not to support Rosales’ version of the bill.
“We are the victims,” she said. “Why
is it so difficult for them to include what we think will serve our
interests?”
On Jan. 18, Bayan Muna Rep. Satur
Ocampo delivered a privilege speech at the House articulating the
claimants’ objections to the proposed bill. Rosales later interpellated
Ocampo. The House speaker decided to bring the bill back to the House
Committee on Rules, which will determine if the bill will be returned to
Rosales’ committee for further deliberations.
“If the Committee chair, Akbayan
partylist representative Loreta Ann Rosales, will continue to give more
weight to the pressures of some lawmakers who are opposed to the
compensation of the Marcos victims instead of listening to the victims’
demands, she might as well resign,” said Hilao-Enriquez. Progressive
congressmen from Bayan Muna also expressed their intention to withdraw
their names as co-sponsors of the bill if the victims’ recommendations
will be disregarded.
“By prolonging the process, the
government does not seem to be, by implication, interested in compensating
the victims of the Marcos dictatorship,” Hilao-Enriquez concluded.
Bulatlat
BACK TO TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified. |