Shock, dismay and outrage were the immediate reactions of the relatives and survivors of the “Palo Massacre” with the adversarial resolution released by the provincial prosecutor on the criminal complaints that they filed against the military-perpetrators.

BY JOHANN HEIN B. ARPON
Bulatlat
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Vol. VII, No. 46, December 23, 2007 – January 5, 2008

Shock, dismay and outrage were the immediate reactions of the relatives and survivors of the “Palo Massacre” to the adversarial resolution released by the provincial prosecutor on the criminal complaints that they filed against the military-perpetrators.

In a resolution dated Oct. 30, 2007 but only received by complainants this December, Prosecutor Andres G. Yu, Jr. dismissed the criminal complaints for “lack of merit.” Respondents to charges of multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder, serious physical injuries, robbery with violence against or intimidation against persons and incriminating innocent persons were elements of the Philippine Army’s 802nd Infantry Brigade based in Buraen, Leyte and the strike force coming from the 19th Infantry Battalion based in Barangay (village) Aguitin, Kananga, Leyte.

The said complaints stemmed from an incident that occurred on Nov. 21, 2005 in Brgy. San Agustin, Palo, Leyte, in which 46 farmers and members of progressive people’s organizations who were about to begin a balik-uma (land positioning) through a tiklos (mutual exchange of labor) on land awarded to them by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was fired upon by troops under the command of then Maj. Lope Dagoy (now promoted to colonel after the massacre). Seven lost their lives including seven-month old pregnant Alma Bartoline, more than a dozen were wounded, and six survivors were initially detained (others with warrants issued against them later surrendered). The military claimed it was a “legitimate encounter” alleging that the peasants were members of the New People’s Army (NPA).

Charges of illegal possession of low-powered firearms, illegal possession of high-powered firearms and illegal assembly were filed against them. The charges of illegal possession of low-powered and high-powered firearms have since been dismissed, while the third case is still being tried. The accused are out on bail.

Under duress?

Conveners of Tabang Palo (Help Palo), in a statement, has also expressed its “its total disgust and outrage” over the decision. Tabang Palo is an alliance composed of various organizations, institutions and individuals who provided medical and legal assistance to the victims.

They lamented that Prosecutor Yu gave more weight to the testimony of Marivic Macawile (one for the survivors who was later taken by the military from police custody only to turn up later with an “admission” that she was a member of the NPA and is now a state witness) compared to almost 20 affidavits of survivors and their relatives who claimed that they were ordinary peasants who were mercilessly peppered with bullets and grenades by the military.

Also assailed was the long period that passed before the resolution was made. According to Tabang Palo, the charges were filed last on Nov. 21, 2006 but it was only a year after that the prosecutor decided on the complaint. They also noted that the same prosecutor filed a request to inhibit himself from the case at the Department of Justice (DoJ) but was denied.

“Those circumstances pose many questions,” the Tabang Palo conveners said in their statement. “Why did it take him that long to decide? Was he trying to buy some time until the public would lose interest in the massacre? Why did he attempt to inhibit himself in the first place? Was he being harassed or simply afraid of the military, the respondents in the complaint? Was the decision he made more about saving his own skin than giving justice a chance for the victims of the Palo massacre?

“It also does not escape the thought of Tabang Palo that in many instances, the office of the prosecutor finds it VERY EASY to file charges of rebellion and murder on flimsy allegations, questionable witnesses and fabricated evidences when it is members of the progressive organizations who are being charged. Why the double standard? Is that the standard procedure under the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG), which is tasked by the Arroyo administration to prepare and file cases against ‘enemies of the state’ under her Oplan Bantay Laya 2?”

“Flimsy argument”

Prosecutor Yu in his resolution also used as basis for his decision to dismiss the complaint the decision of the peasants to stay at the farm a night before they were set to implement the “tiklos.” He said that he “finds it rather unusual for a group of 46 persons to converse in a small hut . . . there is no need for these people to spend the whole evening in a small hut and suffer discomfort in order to work in the following morning.”

Tabang Palo finds this observation both “hilarious” and “borne out of pure ignorance.”

“It is very common for organized peasants who are to do a tiklos to gather a day before to ready their equipments, review their plans and for them to be able to start to work early the next day,” the Tabang Palo conveners said. “(More so) when the land is being contested by a landlord as was the case in San Agustin, Palo, Leyte. For us, it was but a flimsy argument or was just an attempt to be an expert on peasant traditions or working methods – obviously, he is simply ignorant.”

CHR recommendation

The office of the Commission on Human Rights in Eastern Visayas also conducted its own investigation on the massacre. Finding probable cause, it has recommended to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices the filing of criminal complaints against the military (MOLEO).

The Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), which has been following up the case, was informed of the same recommendation by the CHR-VIII. The group followed-up the case at MOLEO but it has yet to be acted upon.

Not yet over

The victims-complainants are not surrendering yet, however, and are trying to exhaust “other means” in their search for justice.

Meanwhile, lawyers from the Legal Aid Program of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Leyte Chapter who are handling the case and Tabang Palo are set to have a dialogue with the complainants. They are planning to file an appeal on Yu’s resolution. Bulatlat