9 July 2010

CHR HISTORY: 2 NAVY OFFICERS FINED FOR CONTEMPT

For the first time ever, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) today cited two officers of the Philippine Navy in contempt and imposed monetary fines on them for their failure to attend several public inquiries of the Commission on the case of a possible enforced disappearance of Muhamadiya K. Hamja. This signals that the Commission will no longer tolerate obstructive and non-cooperative actions by the military and law enforcement agencies.

The officers are Capt. Antonio Habulan and Capt. Bayani Gaerlan, both previous Commanders of the Naval Intelligence and Security Force, who repeatedly ignored multiple CHR orders to appear for 4 public hearings which began on 12 December 2008 despite due notice. They also failed to submit the information required by the independent rights monitoring body.

Because of this, the CHR cited them in contempt on June 10 th and ordered them to appear at an executive session set for today, 9 July, to produce the list of NISF and allied intelligence agency agents involved in the Hamja operation, with a warning that failure to do so would result in disciplinary measures for contempt.

Again, they failed to show up or to inform the body in advance that they would not be able to attend. Thus, the imposition of the fines.

“All military and law enforcement bodies have to observe human rights and have to cooperate with the CHR, which has the constitutional mandate to investigate possible human rights violations including when officers in uniform are implicated,” said Commissioner Cecilia R.V. Quisumbing, OIC of the CHR after today’s executive session .

The Commission announced that this historic move was taken in order to send a strong signal to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police and all other security, law enforcement and intelligence institutions and personnel – that the CHR is determined to fully investigate complaints of violations and will not tolerate any more delaying or obstructing tactics such as repeated non-attendance of inquiries or hearings and failure to produce documents and information.

Such lack of cooperation has been going on at CHR inquiries for the past 22 years but the Commission has never exercised its power to cite persons in contempt until today.

Quisumbing and the other Commissioners present, Comm. Ma. Victoria V. Cardona and Comm. Norberto dela Cruz, agreed that it was time to impose some punitive measure because both officers had enough notice and the means to communicate their absences in advance of the hearings and the executive session even if they were out of town.

They decided on the minimum fine of 3-thousand pesos in accordance with Resolution CHR (111) No. A2005-131 and Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that, “the CHR is constitutionally authorized to cite or hold any person in direct or indirect contempt…To exemplify, the power to cite for contempt should be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant information, or who decline to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative work. (Simon, Jr. vs. Commission on Human Rights)

The body also resolved to order the NISF representatives who attended the session Resolution to produce the list of the names of the operatives who took part in the operation within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Commission’s resolution.

The CHR took on the case of Hamja’s disappearance after his son reported him missing on 28 November 2010 . After the immediate dispatch of a CHR Quick Reaction Team, the victim was located at the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) office in Camp Crame . An inquiry on whether this is a case of arbitrary detention or enforced disappearance in violation of human rights law was instituted.

Several Orders were issued by the Commission directing Habulan and Gaerlan to appear before the Commission and to produce the list of the names of the operatives involved in the Hamja operations. All were blatantly ignored.

For his part, Capt. Habulan contends that he was appointed as the military attaché of the Navy to the United States hence, his absence while Capt. Gaerlan attributed his absence to a prior engagement which was of equal importance to the public inquiry.The Commission still decided to cite him in contempt for failing to even to submit any written explanation on his absence prior to the inquiries.

The Executive Session was attended by 3 military officers, ATC JF Loy and Captain Eric Alcera of the Judge Advocates Office as well as CDR Teddy Quinzon of the Philippine Navy, none of whom were authorized to represent the AFP, the Navy or either of the respondents.

Still, the Commission decided to allow them to enter oral manifestations. They attributed “national security” for the reasons why the lists required by the CHR not been produced and said they had just filed for clearance to release the documents. But Commissioner Cardona pointed out that such a process could have been initiated by Gaerlan or Habulan in the first place at the first order of the CHR.

Quisumbing reminded the officers that the Commission recognizes that there are certain matters that are vital to national security and cannot be divulged but this does not apply to all information of the military. “These things should be dediced on a case to case basis, not a blanket excuse not to share information on human rights cases,” said the OIC.

“The Commission and the AFP should work together to develop guidelines on how to determine this so it does not become an obstacle in every hearing and inquiry,” said Quisumbing.