 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
13 NOVEMBER 2009
In a historic moment for human rights in the Philippines , President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law the first Anti-Torture statute, days barely before the enrolled bill would have lapsed into law. The passage of the statute comes in compliance with the foremost obligation of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines under the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), to which the country is a signatory. Such a law paves the way for a domestic legal framework for banning the use of torture.
"The passage of the Anti-Torture Law provides, with greatest clarity, the declaration not only of a 'no torture policy' but matches this with the accountability in certainty of proportionate punishment when torture indeed takes place," Commission on Human Rights Chairperson Leila M. De Lima said.
Salient provisions of the Anti-torture Bill contains, among others, definition of torture in accordance with the Convention definition, enumeration of acts of torture, non-derogability of torture, duties of the law enforcement agencies of regularly submitting an updated list of all detention places in the country to the Commission, prohibited detention, command responsibility, non-applicability of special amnesty law, education and information, compensation and rehabilitation of victims of torture and their families.
For years after the Aquino Government rightfully acceded to the CAT, “the Ramos and Estrada Governments, along with the 10th to 12th Congresses failed to pass a measure criminalizing torture in accordance with international rights standards," De Lima said. The interregnum between assuming the obligation under the CAT and the passage of the Anti-Torture Law had left the Philippines with judicial remedy unable to specifically penalize torture, thereby diluting the grievous nature of torture against human rights by assigning ordinary crimes to blatant incidents of torture. The Anti-Torture Law defines the crime of torture separate and distinct from the other Revised Penal Code crimes, such as murder, serious physical injury, grave coercion, and serious illegal detention, inter alia.
The passage of the Anti-Torture Law is the much anticipated legal foundation in domestic statute that should pave the way for a broader mechanism that will combat the incidence of torture. The law exponentially increases the effectiveness of existing measures that already address all forms of torture. The current mandate of the Commission on Human Rights, for example, to visit all detention facilities for the purpose of securing human rights of detainees and prisoners, serves as a deterrent itself to torture inflicted by detention authorities. International law had always been the basis of the CHR to specifically address reports of torture. Now, with the Anti-Torture Law in place, and a statutory definition of the torture, mechanisms are strengthened not only as to overseeing governmental compliance with international law on torture, and investigating incidence of the same, but also as to obtaining remedies that are specific to infractions qualified as torture.
High-profile cases of torture, such as the Manalo Brothers and Fil-Am activist Melissa Roxas, have illustrated the magnitude of legal framework deficiency in relation to torture. Now that the Philippines has a statute specific to torture, it is hoped that it will a have a domino effect throughout all aspects of mechanisms that address torture. Beyond the statutory definition of the crime and a specific penalty, the law should enable the investigating authorities and the prosecutorial service to zero in on criminal acts characterized as torture. Mechanisms, both by government and civil society, designed to sustain vigilance in identifying perpetrators, victims and venues of torture now have stronger basis in law. Finally, the Judiciary is enabled to mete a penalty that recognizes the heinous nature of torture.
“It is believed that torture is prevalent, especially in the early stages of detention of both criminal suspects and political detainees,” said De Lima. “Many though are unreported and undocumented.”
“Through the Anti-Torture Law and the subsequent efforts which will be improved by such law,” De Lima said, “we can better address detection of torture incidents and better obtain relief and compensation for victims.”