 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
Fort Bonifacio , Metro Manila
11 December 2009
delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson
KEYNOTE SPEECH
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PHILIPPINE ARMY
Good morning to all of you.
First of all, allow me to thank the Philippine Army, led by Lieutenant General Delfin N. Bangit, its 51st Commanding General. I am honored to have been invited, to participate in today’s event, the culminating activity of the Army’s week-long commemoration, of Human Rights Day.
Almost exactly 61 years ago, on December 10, 1948 , the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This was the first international document proclaiming the rights of all human beings. It marked the beginning of the modern global human rights movement. Its significance is why we celebrate every year, on December 10, Human Rights Day.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came about, because in 1948, the horrors of the Second World War remained fresh in the minds of world leaders and the public at large.
It has been estimated that over 60 million people died in that war, including over 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians. Civilian deaths were caused by disease, starvation, bombing, massacres, and genocide, among others. In certain instances, biological and chemical weapons were used and tested on soldiers and prisoners of war.
It has also been estimated that the Second World War resulted in civilian deaths in the Philippines , of from 500,000 to 1 million people. These Filipinos died due to massacres, forced labor, war-related famine and disease, among others.
In addition, it has been estimated that 57,000 Philippine soldiers died in World War II. An estimated 42,000 Filipino prisoners of war died in Japanese captivity.
That is one reason why we expect the Philippine Army, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines , to be at the forefront of the effort to protect human rights, as well as strengthen international humanitarian law, or the laws and customs of war. Over the recent history of the human race, soldiers and combatants have also been subjected to some of the worst human rights violations on record.
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) speaks of the human right to life, we recall the brutal execution and decapitation of prisoners of war and hospital patients, during the Manila massacre of February 1945.
We recall the Death March of Bataan, where American and Filipino prisoners of war, over the course of a 97 kilometer forcible transfer, were subjected to extrajudicial killings, in the form of beheadings, casual shootings, and bayonet stabbings, among others, as well as a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food and water.
When the UDHR makes mention of the human right to freedom from torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, we recall how some prisoners of war were subjected to lethal human experimentation, involving the removal of organs without anesthesia, the amputation of limbs, starvation, extreme temperatures, and the deliberate infection of diseases, among others.
The horrors of the Second World War, the massive loss of life, the atrocities and inhumanity to which combatants and non-combatants were subjected, were so vile, so completely unacceptable to any decent human being, that the governments of the day came together to proclaim the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The UDHR contained the intent of those leaders to never again allow civilian populations to experience such massive death, injury and devastation, and to never again allow their military forces, especially their prisoners of war, to be subjected to the brutality and inhumanity, which some political and military leaders had shown they were capable of.
We can be especially proud of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because the Philippines was a part of its creation, from the very beginning. Our country was part of the first U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which drafted the UDHR. And our country was one of the 48 nations in the U.N. General Assembly which unanimously voted in favor of the adoption of the Declaration.
The UDHR forms part of our collective history, as a nation and as a people. And international human rights law in general, which includes the many international treaties which we have ratified, as well as the UDHR, these contain the duties and legal obligations, which the government and its forces especially, are honor-bound to comply with.
That brings me back to the present, and to today’s culminating event. I greatly appreciate the fact that the Philippine Army is working to inculcate the importance of human rights, in the minds of its soldiers.
In May of 2009, in his assumption speech as the Commanding General of the Philippine Army, Lieutenant General Delfin Bangit said, and I quote:
“On the continued internalization of upholding human rights, my efforts will go beyond mere advocacy. The Philippine army will live by it every single day.”
These are strong words, serious words. They reflect the message that the Philippine Army must not merely say the right things, it must do the right things. That it must not only create a good impression, for the public and the media, but that it must also carry out the substance of its obligations, under international human rights law.
I appreciated these words of the Army’s Commanding General then, and I appreciate them now. The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines stands ready to aid and support the Philippine Army, as it strives to truly live human rights every single day.
Many people do not realize this, but the Commission on Human Rights and the Armed Forces, despite occasional frictions and animosities, that spans decades. Even now, our institutions are working closely to improve on the Graduated Curriculum on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, for the Military.
This working relationship springs from the mandates of our two institutions. The 1987 Constitution provides, in Article 16, that:
“All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.”
Article 16 goes on to state that:
“The State shall strengthen the patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness of the military, and respect for people’s rights in the performance of their duty.”
With respect to the Commission on Human Rights, the Constitution provides, in Article XIII Sec. 18, that:
“The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions:
xxx
“Investigate … all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights;
“xxx
“Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
“xxx
“Monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights.”
The Armed Forces has its mandate, and so does the CHR. And it is our Constitutional mandates which ensure that our institutions will continue to work with one another, no matter who the persons are at the helm.
I believe in being fair, and I believe in giving credit where it is due. That is why, even as the CHR monitors the compliance of the military with our international treaty obligations, we do not hesitate to point out the many good-faith efforts being undertaken by the uniformed services.
For instance, in my dealings with international organizations and civil society, I do not hesitate to praise the top brass of the uniformed services, for their cooperation with the CHR, in terms of respecting the visitorial powers of the Commission.
I point out that the Philippine National Police has even gone so far as to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the CHR, affirming our Constitutionally-entrenched visitorial powers, and committing to abide by them. And while no such similar Memorandum has been entered into between the Armed Forces and the CHR, I emphasize to various fora and international organizations that the leadership of the military has cooperated with the CHR as well, with respect to our visitorial powers.
Again, I will not hesitate to praise the government or its security forces, for its good-faith efforts to promote and protect human rights in the Philippines . That said, neither will I shy away from being critical of the government, when such criticism is warranted and appropriate. Such is the role of the CHR, and our mandate under the 1987 Constitution.
It is clear that the ideal discussed by Lieutenant General Bangit, of a military which has fully internalized the importance of human rights, is not yet a reality. This was clear even before the Maguindanao massacre took place, and that atrocity only served to underscore this fact even more.
Only recently, the Commission on Human Rights conducted a public inquiry on the extrajudicial killings taking place in Samar . Over the past 8 years, Eastern Visayas has ranked second only to Davao , in the number of extrajudicial killings alleged to have taken place. Known human rights advocates, such as Father Cecilio Lucero, were some of the many victims. And credible information has directed suspicion at government security forces, especially in the context of the government’s counter-insurgency program.
This last August, I was part of a CHR contingent which proceeded to Surigao del Sur, in order to investigate the situation there. Approximately 1,700 persons, mostly indigenous peoples from the Manobo tribe, had fled their homes.
We had received disturbing reports that members of the military were forcing civilians to join auxiliary units, which would be used to engage insurgents in combat. In some cases, civilians were reportedly being arbitrarily labeled as rebels, or rebel supporters or sympathizers. In addition, it was alleged that students and teachers at a local school were being harassed. Soldiers were reportedly asking for lists of the names of the students. They took pictures as well as taking down names.
Local military officials branded the school as illegal, because it was not accredited by the Department of Education. When I asked them if that was sufficient basis for deeming a school illegal, their responses failed to justify their actions.
Even more recently, we have borne witness to the massacre of dozens of individuals, women, members of media, human rights advocates, and others, in Maguindanao. This atrocity only served to underscore credible suspicion of the military and the uniformed services.
Suspected perpetrators of the brutal murders include members of the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) and Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO). Suspects also include police and army officers, who are alleged by witnesses to have been present during the killings.
In addition, we have seen how many of the arms unearthed so far, as the massacre is investigated, from light artillery and heavy infantry weapons, to thousands of bullets and other ammunition, have military and police markings.
Furthermore, it has been noted that the location of the massacre was only 3 kilometers from the main highway, and that there were military outposts near the massacre site. And yet it took the authorities hours to respond. Did none of the individuals nearby hear the many rounds of gunfire being unloaded? Did no person within the area hear the noisy excavation of the backhoe?
The CHR continues to investigate and monitor these and many other reports which are brought to our attention, which involve alleged human rights violations carried out by government security forces. We continue to collect evidence as well as testimony. Patterns are emerging, evidence is accumulating, and the truth is ever so slowly being uncovered. From this, allow me to make a few key points.
One , it is time for the government and the military to revisit its counter-insurgency strategy, especially where it involves the villification, demonization and labeling of civilians and civilian organizations, as fronts or members of insurgent groups. This practice has already received much local and international condemnation, including from the United Nations, and one of the reasons for this is fairly straightforward.
It is one of the most fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law, that a distinction must be made between combatants and non-combatants. This is one of the most basic obligations to come out in international treaties, in the aftermath of the Second World War, and has in fact been a part of the laws and customs of war for centuries.
And this is precisely what the labeling, being carried out by the government, is in breach of. Civilians are not legitimate military targets. What the labeling attempts to do is blur the line between civilians and combatants, in order to make members of civil society, media personnel, and other individuals who are clearly non-combatants, suddenly fair game.
And the implications of this strategy are clear for all to see. This is why we have soldiers who have stooped to harassing teachers and students. That is why we have reports of barangays being overrun, of community members being subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. That is why members of the uniformed services are surfacing as suspects, in enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
Two , there is a need to revisit the system of force multipliers, pertaining to CAFGUs and CVOs. This system is a recipe for disaster. When there are individuals who are provided with the color of authority, as well as weapons, and yet who did not have to undergo the rigorous entry requirements of the military, as well as the training which Philippine soldiers experience, then we end up with what happened in Maguindanao, a group of thugs and hired guns, under the control of the local warlord, able to abduct, torture, mutilate and murder, women, human rights advocates, members of media and other civilians, when ordered to do so.
Three , there is a need to revisit the response of the military to allegations of human rights violations. Far too often, blanket denials are given in response to credible allegations of misconduct. This is not how things should be done. This is not how, what Lieutenant General Bangit calls, the “internalization of upholding human rights” will come about.
We look to you to conduct forceful, substantial and credible investigations into reports of human rights violations, carried out by suspected members of the Armed Forces. We look to you to uncover the truth, to keep your house in order.
We look to you to police your own ranks, because lack of accountability, and impunity within any institution, is like a cancer. Feeding it will only cause it to grow, and thrive, and expand, until in the end, the institution will find itself, its order and discipline, undermined from within.
One of the core values of the Armed Forces is Honor. The Code of Conduct of the Filipino Soldier states that:
“I am a Filipino soldier. I will fight and die in the true Filipino tradition of valor, honor, duty and loyalty.”
Where is the valor in the anonymous killing of an unarmed civilian? Where is the honor in the harassment of farmers, teachers and children? Where is the duty and loyalty owed to the Constitution, and its Bill of Rights?
There are serious structural obstructions in the make up of the armed forces which make the enforcement of human rights very difficult. First, the armed forces is composed of an incredibly large number of soldiers.
The challenge of inculcating human rights to each and every soldier goes well beyond the typical method of conducting human rights seminars. Just as every soldier is taught and tested in the tenets of warfare, tactics, historical battles, armaments and ordinance, the same must be done in teaching them the tenets of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, criminal law and human rights statutes.
However, testing soldiers of their knowledge is not nearly enough. There must be a host of other projects that should be able to surpass lecture and examination-based education. As combat education relies heavily on practical application, human rights education must extend to practical application. A variety of projects that affirm the humanitarian function of the armed forces is only one. Every time soldiers are sent to carry out civil defense measures in times of natural calamities is only one way of imbibing in our soldiers the value of human rights. The possible application of human rights that are relevant to our servicemen and women are only limited by the imagination of the armed forces leadership.
Teaching soldiers the values of human rights must go further still. It is not enough that they are classroom-taught, and fieldwork-trained. In the hierarchy of the armed forces, soldiers look to their leaders and obey without question. This is the nature of the chain of command. In every unit of the military, there is a designated leader, a commissioned officer, a commander, a platoon leader or a leader by any other name. It is from the leaders that soldiers should seek not only instruction, but values worth emulating as well. Values such as courage and valor in battle are overstated in the military culture, which brings us to the second point – the need for a shift in the cultural structure in the context of leadership and champions in human rights.
It is very difficult to ask soldiers to be both courageous in battle, to be fearless warriors and at the same time, ask them to be kind-hearted and principled. We have found that in engagements with rogue Muslim secessionists and the Abu Sayaff, many of the enemies of the State adhere to no principles, no fairness, and no human rights. They are self-styled warriors who do not fear death. But they do not just kill soldiers, they torture them first, mutilate them before beheading them. So many soldiers have died very painful and gruesome deaths, in the most inhumane manner.
To face off with an enemy that does not adhere to any government or principle of humanitarian law, or even honorable combat, it is not surprising that unidentified soldiers have sporadically reported that they themselves want to inflict the same pain and suffering upon the enemy. If the enemy is limitless in their courage and equally limitless in their savagery, must we meet them at their level, not only to defeat them, but to take revenge for those fallen soldiers killed savagely?
Isn't vengeance understandable? Is it not understandable also that every anti-insurgency campaign revives the memory of comrades, friends, brothers-in-arms, killed with such savagery? Then, is it not understandable that soldiers, too, can be savages and animals?
Fortunately or unfortunately, it is not. Neither is it acceptable. This is why you are on the side of the law, the Constitution and the people, because you are not like our enemies. Courage in battle is not the outstanding quality of a heroic armed force. It is that our soldiers fight for our most prized possession – our freedom. It is the same freedom that gives our people peace. It is the same freedom that protects our human rights.
We need not look so far back to find a time when people wept when soldiers returned home to their families in army trucks. People, strangers, wept not out of joy, but out of pure and insuppressible sorrow because soldiers returned in coffins with our country's flag draped over them. This was during the Estrada-administration's military offensive in Mindanao . That was a war waged for our country's territorial integrity, for our freedom from brigandage, from extortion, from harassment, from fear at the hands of secessionists. It was a war for freedom and human rights. And we wept because these were the values that our soldiers fought for.
The culture of soldiers must return to this. The current Oplan Bantay Laya must be for freedom and human rights, as its name suggests, not overpowering strength. It must not be about total annihilation of the insurgency by 2010, but of total peace by 2010. It must not be about neutralization, but about bringing the enemy to justice. It must be about justice, not revenge.
It must not be afflicted with stories of suspected NPAs killed in dubious skirmishes. It must not be about suspected communists who are picked up but never return home, or never face justice in a court of law.
How can this Oplan Bantay Laya be about freedom when human rights are unprotected? Where it is incontrovertibly true that human rights are for everyone, the criminal or the law-abiding citizen, the insurgent or the patriot, how and why can we distinguish between those who have a right to their human rights and those who do not?
Too many are dead, too many are missing, none are turned over to the police and to the courts. In the end, OBL cannot be about human rights if it is selective in recognizing them.
We do not need denials from the military top brass. We need transparent investigations. We do not need conspiracy theories that the insurgents and leftists are telling lies. We need to see that no innocent is hurt, killed or displaced.
To achieve this, we need champions in the armed forces. We need leaders who are courageous not only in battle, but who are courageous in upholding human rights. We do not need them in the top brass, who are openly for human rights. We need them on every level of the chain of command. I must meet champions among the COs , the platoon leaders, the grunts. I must meet men who are on the field and on the front lines, men of outstanding integrity and adherence to human rights. I must meet men whom their subordinates respect for their courage as soldiers and as human rights defenders.
If they are there, if they exist, and they ardently guard human rights, then I promise you, the Filipino people you defend will weep for every soldier that falls in battle.
In September of 2009, Typhoon Ondoy hit the Philippines with the full wrath and awesome might of a natural disaster. In the face of the rain and wind, the flooding and horrific loss of life, it would be understandable for an individual to cringe in mortal terror, to think only of saving his life, or that of his family.
And yet in those fateful days, during the fury and aftermath of that typhoon, individuals who aspired to something greater, to whom the phrase “At your service, across the land,” was more than a mere motto, and instead a calling and something to live by, these individuals ventured forth, braving the rising water, the sometimes lethal debris, they overcame confusion and doubt, fear and selfishness, and instead took to heart the core values, of Honor, Loyalty, Valor, Duty, and Solidarity.
In the midst of Ondoy’s flooding, Private First Class Venancio Ancheta was carrying a resident of Laguna to safety, when he was struck by a log. Notwithstanding what must have been severe pain, he continued to carry that civilian out of harm’s way. He saved 20 people in all, before he was swept away by the waters.
He was a true hero, overcoming the fear and the pain, pushing past the doubt and the hurt, demonstrating true courage and compassion, a sense of true duty and honor, all this in order to save people who might very well have been complete strangers. People are alive today because of his great sacrifice. Again, he was a true hero.
And he was not the only one, in those days. Seven Army men lost their lives in the face of Typhoon Ondoy, seven of the finest examples, not only of Philippine Army soldiers, but also seven of the finest human beings. And many other men and women of the Philippine Army performed heroically that day, and to all of them, a grateful nation continues to pays its respects.
This is the Philippine Army at its finest. This is the ideal that we wish to develop and pursue. Soldiers of honor and integrity, compassion and humanity. Soldiers who will fiercely protect the nation, even as they fiercely protects the rights of its inhabitants.
As you pursue greater progress in terms of human rights, know that you have in the Commission on Human Rights, a steadfast ally and a continuing partner.
Thank you very much.