PATH

UN asked to recall its highest official in RP

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:59:00 +0800

NGOs accuse exec of abuse, harassment

By Veronica Uy
INQUIRER.net
Last updated 10:58am (Mla time) 08/27/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- Former senator Wigberto Tañada and 48 other leaders of non-government organizations have asked the United Nations to recall its highest official in the Philippines for alleged arbitrariness, unilateralism, abuse, and harassment.

In a petition, members of the civil society community said:
“Arbitrariness. Unilateralism. Abuse. Harassment. These are words we do not normally attribute to the UN.”

“Oftentimes we have seen the UN proactively responding to cases involving these. We are alarmed that now, a UN official is associated with the very things that are anathema to UN values,” they said of Nileema Noble, UN resident coordinator and UN development program representative in the Philippines.

“We call upon the UN to deal decisively with the living paradox within its ranks as embodied by its highest official in the country, Ms. Nileema Noble. It is imperative that the UN correct this intolerable situation. We expect far higher standards of ethical conduct and professionalism from its representatives. Otherwise, they must go.”

Noble, who has been at her post for more than a year, is being investigated by the UN for alleged abuse of authority over Filipino employees of the UN office here in Manila.

At least 13 Filipino staffers of the United Nations office here, including two who have left the office, have sought the ouster of the UN-Manila chief for her “autocratic and oppressive behavior,” according to their letter to Kemal Dervis, administrator of the United Nations Development Program in New York, a copy of which was obtained by INQIUIRER.net.

Mary Gemme Montebon, Jennifer Navarro, Amelia D. Supetran, Emmanuel E. Buendia, Morito G. Francisco, Imee F. Manal, Clarissa Arida, Roberto V. Carandang, Anna L. Senga, Frances M. Solinap (former UNDP staff), Francis Gertrud R. Mercado (former UNDP staff), Jay-Ann Arandia, and Elcid C. Pangilinan asked that Nileema be punished for “verbal and physical harassment,” “abuse of authority,” and “violation of the rights” of the staffers, particularly rights to effective remedy and due process.

When asked for comment, Noble’s office said she has been instructed by the UNDP headquarters in New York to refrain from talking about the case.

The petition was preceded by a short note saying: “We hope that you will agree that no international official, no matter if resource-bearing nor how well-intentioned and even progressive, has the right to treat Filipinos shabbily in their own country.”

The petitioners noted that Noble’s behavior to UN staff has been known to them. “We are aware that numerous staff under her, whether temporary or fixed term, have complained and filed cases detailing verbal and physical abuse and arbitrary termination of employment contracts. We are appalled that numerous incidents involving Ms. Noble establish a pattern of systematic abuse of authority and downright harassment,” they said.

The letter said Noble has also been arbitrary in her behavior of lack of consultation, mutual respect, and professionalism toward partner government and academic institutions by invalidating contracts.

“The UN has set historic precedents in human rights observance over the past decades. Ironically now, the human rights and dignity of UN staff in the Philippines are being trampled. We cannot stand idly by,” it said.

The other petitioners are Ana Maria “Princess” R. Nemenzo of the Freedom from Debt Coalition; Rosselynn “Jae” dela Cruz, Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services (IDEALS); Luzviminda “Vim” Santos, People’s Global Exchange (PGX); Mary Aileen D. Bacalso, Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD); Maria “Mars” Mendoza, Children's Initiatives for Learning and Development (CHILD) Inc.; Earl Parreno, Altertrade..."

(Note: The list has been updated since. There are 112 names as of 6 September 2007. Please see separate posting below, A Call to Action," for the complete list).

A Call To Action

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:50:00 +0800

Note: If you want to add your name to the petition, please email your name and particulars to jofti@yahoo.com with cc: http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=upoytao@yahoo.com and http://us.f524.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=erehes@yahoo.com ) to help us update the list.

Thank you.

---------------------

Dear friends in the Civil Society Community:

We are sending you this petition and the attached documents (on the issue of Nileema Noble) for your consideration and support.

After reading them, we hope that you will agree that no international official, no matter if resource-bearing nor how well-intentioned and even progressive, has the right to treat Filipinos shabbily in their own country. If you believe this, please affix your name to the petition and pass it on.

On Human Rights and Democracy:

May the UN Walk the Talk

Arbitrariness. Unilateralism. Abuse. Harassment.

These are words we do not normally attribute to the. Oftentimes we have seen the UN proactively responding to cases involving these. We are alarmed that now, a UN official is associated with the very things that are anathema to UN values.

Ms. Nileema Noble has been the UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in the Philippines for more than a year. We are aware that numerous staff under her, whether temporary or fixed term, have complained and filed cases detailing verbal and physical abuse and arbitrary termination of employment contracts. We are appalled that numerous incidents involving Ms. Noble establish a pattern of systematic abuse of authority and downright harassment.

The UN has set historic precedents in human rights observance over the past decades. Ironically now, the human rights and dignity of UN staff in the Philippines are being trampled. We cannot stand idly by.

We are further alarmed that Ms. Noble’s arbitrariness extends to external partnerships. She unilaterally invalidates existing contractual arrangements between the UNDP and government/academic institutions. Many affected agencies, through sundry statements and letters, have expressed deep concern and disappointment over these actions, citing the lack of consultation, mutual respect and professionalism.

All this, we have learned, is done in the name of "effecting change." Who does not want change? What we cannot be silent about, however, is the use of this supposed "change agenda" as a pretext and a license for excessive behavior with impunity. We are for change in favor of more democracy, more consultation, and more professionalism. We cannot support a change process towards unilateralism, tyranny, and utter disregard for basic rights.

We, from the civil society community in the Philippines, have a stake on how the UN conducts its programmes and operations in the country. We are ready to support and cooperate with the UN, but we remind the UN to heed the words of Cardoso:

“The world stands today at a very delicate juncture. The United Nations needs the support of civil society more than ever. But will not get that support unless it is seen as championing reforms in global governance that civil society is calling for...” (Fernando Cardoso, Chair of the Panel of Eminent Persons on UN-Civil Society Relations. Transmittal letter to the Secretary General , 7 June 2004 .)

It is in this spirit that we call upon the UN to deal decisively with the living paradox within its ranks as embodied by its highest official in the country, Ms. Nileema Noble. It is imperative that the UN correct this intolerable situation. We expect far higher standards of ethical conduct and professionalism from its representatives. Otherwise, they must go.

Please add your name/organization (optional) to express your support for this cause.

****************************************

Note: After affixing your name to the petition, please email it back to us (jofti@yahoo.com) to help us update the list.

Thank you.

**********************************************

Dear friends in the Civil Society Community:

We are sending you this petition and the attached documents (on the issue of Nileema Noble) for your consideration and support.

After reading them, we hope that you will agree that no international official, no matter if resource-bearing nor how well-intentioned and even progressive, has the right to treat Filipinos shabbily in their own country. If you believe this, please affix your name to the petition and pass it on.

On Human Rights and Democracy: May the UN Walk the Talk

Arbitrariness. Unilateralism. Abuse. Harassment.

These are words we do not normally attribute to the United Nations. Oftentimes we have seen the UN proactively responding to cases involving these. We are alarmed that now, a UN official is associated with the very things that are anathema to UN values.

Ms. Nileema Noble has been the UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in the Philippines for more than a year. We are aware that numerous staff under her, whether temporary or fixed term, have complained and filed cases detailing verbal and physical abuse and arbitrary termination of employment contracts. We are appalled that numerous incidents involving Ms. Noble establish a pattern of systematic abuse of authority and downright harassment.

The UN has set historic precedents in human rights observance over the past decades. Ironically now, the human rights and dignity of UN staff in the Philippines are being trampled. We cannot stand idly by.

We are further alarmed that Ms. Noble’s arbitrariness extends to external partnerships. She unilaterally invalidates existing contractual arrangements between the UNDP and government/academic institutions. Many affected agencies, through sundry statements and letters, have expressed deep concern and disappointment over these actions, citing the lack of consultation, mutual respect and professionalism.

All this, we have learned, is done in the name of "effecting change." Who does not want change? What we cannot be silent about, however, is the use of this supposed "change agenda" as a pretext and a license for excessive behavior with impunity. We are for change in favor of more democracy, more consultation, and more professionalism. We cannot support a change process towards unilateralism, tyranny, and utter disregard for basic rights.

We, from the civil society community in the Philippines, have a stake on how the UN conducts its programmes and operations in the country. We are ready to support and cooperate with the UN, but we remind the UN to heed the words of Cardoso:

“The world stands today at a very delicate juncture. The United Nations needs the support of civil society more than ever. But will not get that support unless it is seen as championing reforms in global governance that civil society is calling for...” (Fernando Cardoso, Chair of the Panel of Eminent Persons on UN-Civil Society Relations. Transmittal letter to the Secretary General , 7 June 2004 .)

It is in this spirit that we call upon the UN to deal decisively with the living paradox within its ranks as embodied by its highest official in the country, Ms. Nileema Noble. It is imperative that the UN correct this intolerable situation. We expect far higher standards of ethical conduct and professionalism from its representatives. Otherwise, they must go.

Please add your name/organization (optional) to express your support for this cause.

Name and Organization

1. Ana Maria "Princess" R. Nemenzo
2. Rosselynn "Jae" dela Cruz, Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through
Alternative Legal Services (IDEALS)
3. Luzviminda “Vim” Santos, People’s Global Exchange (PGX)
4. Mary Aileen D. Bacalso, Executive Director, Asian Federation Against Involuntary
Disappearances (AFAD)
5. Maria “Mars” Mendoza, Executive Director, Children's Initiatives for Learning and
Development (CHILD) Inc.
6. Antonio “Tony” Villasor
7. Earl Parreno, Altertrade
8. Ernesto M. Ordonez, Agriwatch
9. Gil Navarro, Chair, Peace Advocates for Truth, Healing & Justice
10. Niva Gonzales
11. Arnold Tarrobago, Akbayan Citizens' Action Party
12. Jean Enriquez, Executive Director, Coalition Against Trafficking of Women-Asia Pacific
(CATW-AP)
13. Cora Valdez Fabros
14. Alice Raymundo
15. Behn Cervantes
16. Mercedes "Mercy" L. Fabros
17. Claudette “Dette-Dette” Arboleda
18. Soliman “Sol” Santos, South-SouthNetwork (SSN) and Philippine Campaign to Ban
Landmines
19. Edicio “Ed” dela Torre, Education for Life Foundation (ELF)
20. Marianita “Girlie” Villariba, Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD)
21. Ronald Llamas, President, Akbayan Citizens' Action Party
22. Jude Esguerra
23. Susan “Toots” Ople, Blas F. Ople Policy Center
24. Cecilia “Thea” Soriano, Civil Society Network for Education Reforms (E-Net)
25. Edwin Chavez, Center for People's Empowerment

26. Josel Gonzales, Active Citizens Foundation
27. David Andrade
28. Danny Carranza, Peace Foundation
29. Banjo Vina, Bisig
30. Tomas Villarin, Executive Director, SIAD Initiatives in Mindanao-Convergence for Asset
Reform and Regional Development (SIMCARRD)
31. Rhodora A. Abano, Center for Migrant Advocacy
32. Joe Valencia, KASAPI, Organization of Filipino Migrants in Greece

33. Debbie Carlos Valencia, DIWATA Phil. Women's Network in Greece
34. Francisco Cinco, Institute for Popular Democracy
35. Peter Lavina, Councilor, Davao City
36. Annelle P. Rivera-Beckstrom, Sociology Department, New School for Social Research,
NY
37. Roberto Nicolasora
38. Arianne Reyes
39. Etta Pargas-Rosales, Chair Emeritus, Akbayan & Co-Chair, Philippine Coalition for the
International Criminal Court
40. Wigberto "Bobby" Tanada
41. Flor Caagusan
42. Rodolfo Villanueva, Center for Participatory Governance
43. Ronnie Tapnio
44. Maria Luisa Jose-Tapnio
45. Jeselle Papa
46. Frances Therese C. Lo
47. Jose Eliseo "Joel" Rocamora, IPD staff
48. Ibarra "Barry" M. Gutierrez III
49. Sister Arnold Maria Noel,SSpS

50. Arnel Ramos, ODA Watch

51. Dong Calmada, Peace Foundation, Inc.

52. Byron D. Bocar, Akbayan! Citizens' Action Party

53. Rosemary Cheung-Bocar

54. Joel Saracho, Tbak Inc

55. Floyd Buenavente, MBS TEK

56. Aida Santos

57. Reden B. Recio

58. Nelson B. Sanchez

59. Klaid Sabangan

60. Rodel P. Abenoja Student Council Alliance of the Philippines Vice-Chairperson for Mindanao

61. Daisy Valero, General Manager, Kalatas

62. Jerome Bailen, forensic anthropologist

63. Richard Taduran

64. Delfin “Ted Borrero”

65. Auxilium "Inday" Toling-Olayer, Human Rights Advocate, Board of Trustees of various HR organizations in the Philippines

66. Cecilia Jimenez, Human Rights Lawyer. Geneva, Switzerland

67. Joseph Francis

68. Jose “Joey” Flora

69. Amado "Bong" Mendoza, Jr., Department of Political Science, University of the Philippines

70. Rebecca "Beckie" Malay

71. Mylene Saluta, Panbansdang Koalisyon ng Kababaihan sa Kanayunan (PKKK)

72. Carlos Ocampo, Christian World Service, Sydney, Australia

73. Christian “Bong” Ramilo, Australia

74. Orlando “Dong” Tizon

75. Jesse C. Agbulos

76. Sylvia Estrada Claudio

77. Ian Rivera Jr., Kalayaan

78. Teresita M. Borgoños, Makalaya

79. Rachel “Che” Aquino

80. Genie Chavez, Philippine-Australia Partnership for Economic Governance Reforms

81. Ellene A. Sana, Center for Migrant Advocacy

82. Ronnie Abeto, Pusong Mamon Task Force / V-Team

83. Arnold M. Tenerife, Filipinos for Better Philippines (FBP-KSA)

84. Fr. Ben Moraleda, CSsR

85. William C. Yerro, V-Team
86. Ramon Mapa, People's Initiative for Learning and Community Development (PILCD) Baguio City
87. Dorothy Grace Guerrero, Focus on the Global South, Thailand.

88. Reynaldo S. Orbon, Member-V-Team, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

89. Wilson Requez, Regional Coordinator, Young Progressives Southeast Asia

90. Victor S. Barrios, Chair, Global Filipinos Coalition Convenor/Moderator, Global Filipino Forum

91. Ritchel Salve

92. Terry Olayta – Canada
93. Bobby Diciembre
94. Noel C. Esquela, Center for Migrant Advocacy
95. Renato Mabunga, Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA).
96. Debbie Anne F. Soriano-Garcia
97. Al Obre
98. Melba de Guzman Marginson, Centre for Philippine Concerns Australia
99. Aliza L. Belarmino
100. Bonn Juego
101. Rene R. Raya, Action for Economic Refors (AER) Baguio City
102. Angging Aban
103. Nethz M. Salvan, TAO-Pilipinas
104. Ma. Fe Nicodemus, KAKAMMPI Chairperson

105. Ka Domingo Legario, OFW, West Australia
106. Patricio "Jojo" N. Abinales, Professor, Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University.
107. Reynaldo S. Orbon, Member-V-Team, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
108. Maria Cecilia Angeles-Cabrera
109. Anna Navarro, Center for Migrant Advocacy
110. Hazel Cotoner, Center for Migrant Advocacy
111. May Cinco

112. Himayat Rizvanqizi, Himayadar Humanitarian Progress Public Union
113. Unlad Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation, Philippines
114. Risa Hontiveros, Representative, Akbayan Party List
115. Milabel Cristobal Amar

116. Dondon Parafina

117. Yasser F. Sarona, Boy Scouts of the Philippines - National Capital Region

At UNDP, No Answer to Staff Complaints from Philippines, As Dervis Schmoozes Ban

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:48:00 +0800

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, July 31 -- It was 193 days ago that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a comprehensive audit of the North Korea operations of the UN Development Program and certain other UN agencies, to be completed in 90 days.

It was 42 days ago that Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro wrote to the UN Board of Auditors, telling them that the Secretariat wants them to go to North Korea to actually audit UNDP's programs conducted there.

On Monday, Ban Ki-moon met with Kemal Dervis, the Administrator of UNDP. Inner City Press asked for a read-out of the meeting, and on Tuesday one arrived from the Deputy Spokesperson:

"the Secretary-General and UNDP Administrator Kemal Dervis met to discuss issues of mutual concern, including the appointment of UN Resident Coordinators. On UNDP operations in the DPRK, they both agreed that additional measures should be taken in an accountable manner, in consultation with member states and the UNDP Executive Board, to look into new allegations regarding UNDP."

Since it was already decided back in January that at least the UN Board of Auditors, if not outside party, would audit UNDP, and a second phase of the audit was already called for 42 days ago, the read-out appears to move backward. Tuesday Inner City Press sought clarification at the noon briefing:

Inner City Press: yesterday the Secretary-General met with Kemal Dervis, of UNDP and you gave me this readout that says they agreed on additional measures for looking into DPRK that should be taken with Member States and executive boards. I couldn't tell from this, what is the status of this second phase of audit that Deputy Secretary-General Migiro wrote a letter about a month ago? What are the next steps on that or does this replace that?

Deputy Spokesperson: This is the latest on this subject.

Question: So has the second part been done or not been done?

Deputy Spokesperson: This is the latest that we have based on the conversation the Secretary-General had with the UNDP Administrator, which, for the others in this room, did not focus just on UNDP and DPRK, but on a number of other issues of concern.

Inner City Press: You also said they conferred on the appointment of resident coordinators. Who makes the decision choosing who will be the resident coordinator in a country? Is that only UNDP’s decision? Did he confer with the Secretary-General?

Deputy Spokesperson: Yes, with the Secretary-General. That’s why they had the meeting together.

Well, among the resident coordinators which Ban Ki-moon and Kemal Dervis should have discussed, or should still discuss and act on, is Nileema Noble, regarding whom 13 named Filipino staff complained to Dervis.

Kemal Dervis talks global warming on July 31 (while UND Filipino staff burn)

On Monday Inner City Press asked UNDP's spokesman to respond to the Nileema Noble issues, but his response last on Monday was "this is to acknowledge receipt of your questions. We will try to answer them as we are able." Despite Inner City Press having provided a detailed article about the complaints against Ms. Noble and a request for at least some comment, no comment or response was received on Tuesday.
Manila-based Inquirer.net has reported:

In a letter to Kemal Dervis, administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in New York, staffers Mary Gemme Montebon, Jennifer Navarro, Amelia D. Supetran, Emmanuel E. Buendia, Morito G. Francisco, Imee F. Manal, Clarissa Arida, Roberto V. Carandang, Anna L. Senga, Jay-Ann Arandia, and Elcid C. Pangilinan, and former staff workers Frances M. Solinap and Francis Gertrud R. Mercado, also asked that Nileema be punished for "verbal and physical harassment," "abuse of authority," and "violation of the rights" of the staffers, particularly to effective remedy and due process.

Despite his agency's failure to answer on the complaint filed with him, Dervis could be seen Tuesday chairing a climate change meeting. (Click here for a related Inner City Press story.) Among the staff's complaints is retaliation and the fear of retaliation. On that, the UN's Ethics Office has still not ruled on a UNDP complainant's filing of June 5, despite the 45 day deadline having expired on July 20. The Ethics Office's Robert Benson extended his time to rule. On July 27, Inner City Press sent Mr. Benson an email asking, among other things, if he

"could explain why the 45 day time period for ruling on the request for whistleblower protection filed with your Office on June 5 (or thereabouts -- the filer has give consent for you to speak) -- why was the time extended? And, separately, is OIOS' activity at UNDP related to seeing if the filer complied with the requirements of whistleblower status?"

As of yet, there was been no answer at all. Nor to Inner City Press' questions to UNDP on Monday, nor (yet) to the follow-up to Tuesday's noon briefing:

"question about the second phase of DPRK audit / Board of Auditors visit to DPRK (which were reportedly re-requested by DSG Migiro in a June 19 letter) -- the question is, since the Secretariat's request was made 42 days about, what's up? Will the Board of Auditors be visiting the DPRK? Have they made a request? And, what is up with the Ethics Office waiving the 45 day timeline in ruling on the whistleblower? These are Secretariat questions -- DSG's June 19 request, Secretariat's Ethics Office's 45 day deadline expired on July 20 -- time for an update?"

If the recent past is any guide, these should be answered on Wednesday. Watch this space.

UNDP Staff Rises in Indignation

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:48:00 +0800

Mr. Kemal Dervis

Administrator

United Nations Development Programme

UN Plaza, New York

cc: Mr. Ad Melkert, UNDP Associate Administrator

Mr. Hafiz Pasha, UNDP RBAP Director

Office of Human Resources

Office of the Ombudsperson

UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS Staff Council

23 July 2007

Dear Mr. Dervis,

Subject: Mrs. Nileema Noble

It took this long for us to bring certain untenable things to your attention because we gave Mrs. Nileema Noble what she asked for a year ago when she assumed the post of the Resident Representative of UNDP: the benefit of the doubt. Although we already saw the forebodings of trouble, we shrugged off some of her troubling behaviour as mere eccentricities which we can live with and even overcome in time. But the longer we worked with her, the faster we came to the conclusion that her autocratic and oppressive behaviour will not change; that the longer she stays here, the faster the erosion of UNDP’s and even the UN’s credibility in the Philippines .

Furthermore, many of us can no longer function optimally because of the almost daily harassment and abusive treatment we receive from her. Such abusive behavior, which has resulted to a hostile working environment and demoralization of staff, should not be tolerated in any form by the United Nations and United Nations Development Programme, as stated in the Charter of the United Nations, the Staff Rules and the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. As you know, Staff Rule 101.2 (d) indicates that “any form of discrimination or harassment, as well as physical or verbal abuse at the workplace or in connection with work, is prohibited. Harassment in any shape or form is an affront to human dignity and international civil servants must avoid it. They should not engage in any form of harassment and must be above any suspicion of it. Further, Article 15 of Standards of Conduct

for the International Civil Service states that, “Managers and supervisors are in positions of leadership and it is their responsibility to ensure a harmonious workplace based on mutual respect. They must act impartially, without intimidation and favouritism.”

Mrs. Noble has been, and continue to be culpable of verbal and physical harassment and abuse of authority and has violated the rights of staff members, especially the right to effective remedy and due process. Specifically, she has exhibited improper and abusive behavior, unthinkable from a high-standing UN official, as manifested in the following incidents:

Verbal and Physical Harassment. According to the UNDP Guidelines on Harassment and Abuse of Authority, harassment is understood to be any improper and unwelcome conduct that has or might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another. Harassment may be present in the form of words, gestures, or actions which tend to annoy, alarm, abuse, demean, intimidate, belittle, or cause personal humiliation or embarrassment to another or that causes an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Harassment normally implies a series of incidents.

Ø Most recently, she insulted and embarrassed staff in front of high ranking government officials, publicly berating them with rude language for supposedly not undertaking a task which she committed to the government without even consulting and formally informing the staff concerned.

Ø Poked a staff member’s chest and forcefully slapped another’s back to emphasize a point because she is angry or frustrated.

Ø Rebuffed a staff who was so happy because Mrs. Noble already signed a contract (after several weeks of the document being with the latter). When the said staff slightly touched Mrs. Noble on the shoulder and quipped that it was finally over, Mrs. Noble physically shoved her hand away and responded in a loud voice, “What are you suggesting- that I’m pending documents in this office… “.

Ø Meetings where she often raises her voice and nit-picks on managers and staff members, embarrassing and denigrating them unnecessarily. Several incidents of one-on-one meetings with staff where she raised her voice caused further intimidation and fear among them.

Ø High-handed behavior with staff members, treating them with not a bit of respect. In one incident, a staff witnessed Mrs. Noble’s ordering another staff to fetch a pen under her table, which she can very well do on her own.

Ø Several incidents with staff where she would nakedly point out their supposed rudeness in front of colleagues for not immediately greeting her good morning or good afternoon while she does not even observe it herself. In fact, she would rudely interrupt meetings of staff with the Deputy Resident Representative and not even apologize for the rude intrusion. There was one incident where she was not satisfied with the workshop flow and accused the UN staff in-charge of the activity of sabotaging the Office, in front of everyone.

Ø Mrs. Noble questioned one staff for not immediately informing of her plans to go n a special leave without pay (SLWOP), and accused her of not being ransparent. When the staff attempted to explain that it was premature to advise he office of her plans at that time, she was told by Mrs. Noble that if this happened in another organization, she would have been kicked out immediately and would seriously damage her career. As a result of this incident with the staff, Mrs. Noble called her supervisor and berated her regarding the kind of relationship with her staff, saying that as the supervisor, she should know in advance all of their individual plans, including personal.

Ø Several incidents where staff were too afraid to speak or question her decisions even if such will clearly compromise the organization for fear of retaliation. Whenever staff muster enough courage to speak their minds on certain issues which clearly contravene her own, she would intimidate these staff until they give up. By her actuations, Mrs.Noble always presumes herself to be correct and no one should, therefore, question her actions. In one of the staff meeting, Mrs. Noble announced staff movements and claimed that she has informed the particular staff of his re-assignment to another unit, where he allegedly agreed on. The concerned staff responded that it was the first time that he has heard of the re-assignment.

Ø Often exhibiting unnecessary frustration, rage and intimidation if an outcome is not to her liking, accusing staff of perceived hidden motivation, imaginary errors and incomplete staff work. She often accuses staff of hiding things from her and not providing her enough information, no matter how many briefings, briefing papers and other information materials are provided her. She does not listen to staff explanation and makes oft-repeated accusations which are baseless and untrue.

Ø One incident where she almost tore a letter apart when she erased her signature in front of a staff, implying that the staff was trying to trick her into signing that document.

Ø She also has the habit of throwing papers back to the persons submitting them, if she is not satisfied with such papers.

Abuse of Authority. According to the UNDP Guidelines on Harassment and Abuse of Authority, abuse of authority implies the improper use of a position of influence, power, or authority by a staff member or non-staff personnel against another staff member or non-staff personnel or a group thereof. This is particularly serious when a staff member or non-staff personnel uses his or her influence, power or authority to negatively influence the career or employment conditions (including, but not limited to, appointment, assignment, contract renewal, performance evaluation or promotion) of another staff member or non-staff personnel. It can include a one-time incident or a series of incidents. Abuse of authority may also consist of conduct that creates a hostile or offensive work environment, which includes, but is limited to, the use of intimidation,

threats, blackmails or coercion.

Ø Recent arbitrary (and forcible) termination of two staff without due process. Further, the manner in which she handed out the decision and her ensuing instructions for its implementation, such as the terminated staff’s leaving the UN premises immediately, packing their belongings and turn-over of keys and IDs within the hour) showed how little her respect is for common decency and dignity of a human person, treating them like common criminals. Staff members who witnessed these incidents were left in shock and fear. If these could happen to high-ranking national staff in the UNDP/UN, then it can very well happen to them, or even much worse. These incidents of arbitrary termination happened in a span of only two weeks.

Ø Adding insult to injury, one of them was told not to contest the decision of his termination. If he did, then Mrs. Noble said that she will have to state a reason for the termination that will tarnish his record which, in effect, would deprive him of possible UN employment opportunities in the future..

Ø Several verbal threats to staff that their contracts will not be renewed if targets are not achieved or performance is not acceptable to her. She even made a threat to withhold a staff member’s salary if performance is not up to her standards.

Ø In staff meetings, she often emphasized and justified her micro-management approach to her lack of trust in the unit mangers’ capacity and ability to perform their assigned tasks. This led to several incidents where she arbitrarily decided on operational and programmatic issues, disregarding programme recommendations such as: which consultant contract gets signed, who gets to go on leave, etc.

Ø Her arbitrary decisions on programme management modalities and strategies led to delay in the implementation of projects, delivery of resources and much confusion on how programmes are to be managed and implemented by partners. One classic example is her arbitrary removal of Project Management Offices and the change of an Implementing Partner, without due process, rational basis and against the objections of her managers and staff.

Ø Numerous delayed appointments, abrupt termination of contracts and refusal to sign contracts and documents, which affected much of the staff’s workload (which are already burdensome) and performance and delivery of programs and projects. At present, the RCA process (personnel evaluation) of some staff are being delayed for months when contract expiration is fast approaching. In a previous instance, this resulted in arbitrary termination of staff while his RCA rebuttal process was still in progress.

Ø Unreasonable delay or non-approval of official travel and staff leaves (well within the delegated authority of managers) which caused non-participation in important meetings and conferences locally/abroad, loss of opportunities for learning and staff development, and unfulfilled monitoring obligations of UNDP to its donors. There was an incident where one staff resigned due to the delayed approval of her one-month leave, which she filed two months earlier. She has worked for UNDP for eight years and never took any long-term leave except for that one instance and was let go just like that.

Ø Mrs. Noble’s impossible, whimsical requests and demands to be included in certain high-level meetings and conferences have led to incidents where staff had to push themselves to the limit to satisfy her. There was an incident where a staff had to stay late at night for two days just to enable her to get into an event she, for some reason, craved to be in. When everything has been arranged, she decided last minute not to go anymore, without any explanation or apologies.

Ø Abolition of a very important Unit: the Programme Monitoring Unit and its staff (whom she unreasonably judged to be incompetent and ineffective) which led to the distribution of that Unit’s workload to already overloaded staff in the office. More than 17 staff left during her term due to non-renewal of contracts, forced resignation and staff demoralization. Only a handful of staff are left and continue to leave due to the hostile working environment. Increased incidence of stress-related illnesses is prevalent among staff nowadays.

Ø Former staff and SSAs who left or resigned have been banned from visiting the CO or being hired again. In one incident, under instructions from Mrs. Noble, DRR Naka informed the former supervisor of one staff that resigned not to visit or show herself in the CO since this would upset Mrs. Noble. Further, one SSA’s contract has been terminated within 10 days without reason or explanation.

Ø A very grave infraction committed by Mrs. Noble was her incursion into staff privacy in communications. She had one of the staff member’s office cellphone seized, its contents downloaded, on mere unfounded accusation of a PMO staff that the staff member was spreading malicious messages about her. Mrs. Noble made no amends nor even offered an apology even when the exercise did not yield information incriminating the staff whose cellphone was seized.

We are also aware of Mrs. Noble’s retort that these allegations are mere complaints from “incompetent and non-performing staff”, as she would call those who would go against her whims and caprices. This is totally untrue as shown in our previous performance appraisals for the last 5 years. Most of us have worked here for several years and this is the only time that we experienced such oppressiveness, callousness and total disregard of our rights and dignity especially coming from a high-ranking UN official.

These are but some of the incidents, showing without a doubt, the abusive character of Mrs. Noble. We have been forced to seek your help because, unfortunately, we cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel and are afraid that this oppressive situation will continue.

In order to prevent further verbal and physical harassment and abuse of authority, resulting in violations of UN rules and our rights as international civil servants, and in order to prevent further prejudice to the work of UNDP and the UN in relation to its partners, we ask that Mrs. Nileema Noble be immediately relieved as Resident Representative of UNDP and UN Resident Coordinator in the Philippines . We also ask that disciplinary action be immediately commenced against Mrs. Noble for violation of UN regulations and our human rights as UN staff.

We would like to serve notice that we reserve our right to seek recourse through other avenues for legitimate grievances.

We hope that this plea will not be in vain.

Sincerely,

Concerned UNDP Staff and other UN Staff

Mary Gemme Montebon

Jennifer Navarro

Amelia D. Supetran

Emmanuel E. Buendia

Francisco G. Morito

Imee F. Manal

Clarissa Arida

Roberto V. Carandang

Anna L. Senga

Frances M. Solinap (former UNDP Staff)

Francis Gertrud R. Mercado (former UNDP Staff)

Jay-Ann Arandia

Elcid C. Pangilinan

A letter for the Supreme Court Justice

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:41:00 +0800

Justice Reynato S. Puno

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., Esq.

Attorney’s Roll No. 32334

Lawyer, Legislative Consultant, Legal Scholar

18 Mariposa St., Cubao, Quezon City

Tel. 7252153, Fax 4138821

98 Albatross St., RJ Vil., Canaman, Cam. Sur (currently here)

Tel. (054) 4744659, Cel. (0920) 29036xx

Email: gavroche@info.com.ph

Naga City

07-07-07

Hon. Reynato S. Puno

Chief Justice

Supreme Court

Dear Mr. Chief Justice,

Re: National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings

and Enforced Disappearances – Searching for Solutions

Greetings of Peace and Justice!

I am writing you on the above-indicated subject in various capacities but, first of all, as a member of the bar and thus officer of the court. As a human rights lawyer, I join others in commending you on this initiative as well as your earlier administrative order designating RTC branches nationwide to handle such cases. Allow me to proceed to some points for consideration in relation to your planned Summit, for some of which points I mention my relevant capacity.

(1) I wish to share with you the enclosed “Joint SSN-PATH Reaction to Prof. Philip Alston’s Philippine Mission Press Statement of 21 February 2007” to which I was a co-signatory as Regional Focal Point for Asia of the South-South Network (SSN) for Non-State Armed Group Engagement. The main point of this reaction is that it may help to place the current extrajudicial executions (EJE) issue in perspective by noting that it swirls around the facts (and propaganda) involving at least three types of EJE with different sets of victims of human rights violations:

a) state/military-inspired or anti-Left EJE, esp. killings of legal Left activists and media persons from 2000 to 2006 -- which is what the Task Force Usig, the Melo Commission, the Alston Mission, some other international missions, and local human rights groups like Karapatan have focused on

b) ongoing NPA liquidations or summary executions of civilians outside combat e.g. civilian informers or spies, criminal “bad elements” like rapists and cattle rustlers, policemen who do not have combat duties but are killed for their weapons, “despotic” landlords and “abusive” local officials/politicians -- regarding which the AFP claims to have listed 1,227 liquidations, also for 2000-2006

c) CPP-NPA internal purges of many of its own members suspected of being military “deep penetration agents” in the 1980s -- which has been PATH's advocacy issue as victims, survivors and relatives

Any inquiry into the current EJE issue in the Philippines should be informed by this local context of an internal armed conflict which involves two sides. Political violence in the Philippines is both state and non-state.
There must therefore be no mixing up of or confusion about the three types of EJE as outlined above, so that correspondingly appropriate measures for justice can be laid out whereby the victims of all types, not just one type, of EJE are given their due. In a state-oriented legal and human rights system, there mechanisms and processes for responsibility and accountability are much more developed for states and state actors than they are for non-state actors like rebel groups. This asymmetry has to be reckoned with in the search for solutions and justice.

(2) In a context of armed conflict, as we mentioned, international humanitarian law (IHL) is of particular relevance as a term of reference, not just constitutional and human rights. For while human rights have been traditionally invoked against the state and state actors (though there is a recent trend to invoke it also against non-state actors), IHL can be invoked against both state and non-state actors, more precisely government and rebel forces which are parties to an armed conflict. Thus, human rights instruments on EJE largely deal with the state and state actors, while IHL provisions on EJE cover both/all parties to an armed conflict.

Regarding IHL, it bears noting that in the case of Kuroda vs. Jalandoni [83 Phil. 171 (1949)], it was ruled that “the rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principles of international law… Such rules and principles, therefore, form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them.” (italics supplied) In fact, the same decision referred to “generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution.” (italics supplied)

With regard in particular to enforced disappearances, we should therefore factor in whatever relevant guidance not only from the new human rights instrument which is the International (UN) Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances but also from the IHL regime on the missing or unaccounted for as a result of armed conflict or internal violence. Aside from the relevant codal provisions of key IHL treaties like the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols I & II (30^th anniversary this year!), there is much developed guide material on this particular area of IHL based on many years of experience in handling the matter by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The most developed material is known as the ICRC Report: The Missing and Their Families. The Court and/or the Summit can avail of this from the ICRC-Manila Delegation Office.

(3) While we are speaking of international legal references, it might also be relevant to any effort of the Court to enhance the rules of court or promulgate new ones, to refer to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court, which is considered the highest development of international criminal procedure. Of course, this procedural instrument is tied to or is in the context of a substantive international treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, not yet ratified by the Philippines [see Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., et al. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 158088, 6 July 2005]. But this should not necessarily deter your Court from adopting or adapting good rules from an international model, such as in the procedural protection of victims and witnesses.

(4) In connection with the coming Summit, you were reported as speaking of the possibility of altering the scope of command responsibility. As you know, there was extensive discussion of this concept, including its historical legal antecedents, in the Melo Commission Report (at pp. 63-71). Though the latest precise definition of command responsibility is that found in the Rome Statute’s Article 28, the general concept (not necessarily the Rome Statute definition) of command responsibility can already be considered as part of binding customary international law. Still, it is in the realm of substantive law (principles of criminal responsibility) rather than procedural rules.

For the information of the Court and of the Summit, there have been bills filed in Congress which define command responsibility in the accordance with the latest international criminal legal definition per the Rome Statute. It is found in what the proponent Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) calls the “IHL Bill,” or more precisely “An Act Defining and Penalizing Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law and Other Serious International Crimes, Operationalizing Universal Jurisdiction, Designating Special Courts, and for Related Purposes.” The leading example of this in the defunct 13^th Congress was the enclosed Senate Bill No. 2511 (see Sec. 10) introduced by Senator Richard J. Gordon who happens to also be the PNRC Chair. I in turn happen to be the PNRC legislative consultant for this IHL Bill. This will be re-filed in both legislative chambers of the coming 14^th Congress.

(5) It has also been reported that the coming Summit might tackle the problem of false charges/fabricated cases which are politically motivated by the government against Leftist personalities and activists. I wish to bring up another matter of false charges/fabricated cases especially for murder – those filed, prosecuted, tried and decided against innocent fall guys despite rebel group (e.g. NPA) claims of responsibility for the extrajudicial killings in question. There have already been a number of cases of this sort over the years. I can speak with personal knowledge of one such case which has reached the Court wherein I was a defense counsel. I am referring to the Abadilla murder case of 11 years which reached the Supreme Court in 2000 on automatic review as G.R. No. 141660-64 (People vs. Fortuna, et al. but transferred to the Court of Appeals in 2005) and on certiorari petition as G.R. No. 142065 (with a Decision on 7 September 2001, see Lumanog vs. Salazar, 364 SCRA 719).

In that Abadilla murder case, both the RTC first and then the Supreme Court twice later rejected motions/petitions of the “Abadilla 5” death convicts to present new/additional evidence showing Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB of the NPA then) responsibility for the extrajudicial killing of a former military officer turned civilian politician and businessman Rolando Abadilla, including his taken Omega wrist watch which an ABB personality had turned over to “Running Priest” Fr. Robert Reyes to back up the ABB’s claim in several written and verbal media statements that it was responsible for the killing, so as to exculpate the innocent death convicts. There must be a way to receive, test/cross-check and appreciate various forms of evidence that underground rebel sources who cannot come out might proffer in relation to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances which they have had a hand in or have intimate knowledge of, if only to spare the innocent from false charges/fabricated cases.

This is relevant to our early point in paragraph (1) above about the problem of existing mechanisms and processes, including judicial ones, when it comes to non-state actors like rebel groups which cannot just surface from their underground status – lest they themselves become victims of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. There is an element of vicious cycle here – killing and counter-killing - that must be broken.

Again, you and the Court must be commended for doing your/its part in breaking that cycle. The coming Summit, together with the earlier catalyzing Alston Mission, have emerged as key parts of a counter-cycle of searching for and finding solutions. Thank you for your efforts, and for your attention to this letter.

Sincerely yours,

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR.

Our Times:How to pick up a pen from the floor

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:23:00 +0800

(October 16, 2006) President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with Presidential Adviser for Job Creation Sec. Arthur Yap and UN Resident Coordinator Nileema Noble, during the Flag Raising ceremony and the United Nations Campaign "Stand-up" to signal the Philippines' participation in the Nationwide Stand Against Poverty and the Millenium Development goals at the Kalayaan Grounds, Malacañang.

HOW does one pick up a pen that he or she accidentally drops to the floor? If it’s a woman, more often the man nearest to the pen picks it up and hands it over to its owner with a smile. If it’s a man, he just bends a bit or stoops (depending on his height) to pick it up. No big deal, right?

Apparently, not in the United Nations Resident Coordinator’s Office, if letters and complaints from aggrieved staff are to be believed. It seems the head of this office, a woman named Nileema Noble dropped her pen. A male staff who happened to be in the room when this happened was about to pick the pen from the floor. The lady boss motioned him to stop and proceeded to call out her secretary’s name. The secretary, who was seated in her desk outside the boss’ office, went in. She meekly picked up the pen from the floor and handed it to her boss. And this, my friends, is one particular example of how a UN official based in the Philippines prefers to pick up her pen.

I write this piece with malice towards none, but with a firm belief that all people – regardless of nationality – must treat people with respect. This is the foundation of decent work. Aware that the official being complained about has her rights, too, I promise her an equal right to rebut the information volunteered by her staff, through this column.

But first, here are the points raised by a group of Filipino staff members who recently sought the help of the Blas Ople Policy Center so that they could ventilate their grievances:

1. The head of the UNRC, without minimum courtesies as expected in any other organization, unceremoniously terminated two UN Staff, one, an assistant resident representative for operations, and the other, a UN coordination specialist. They were given only a few hours to leave the UN premises after they were sacked. Adding insult to injury, they were told that if they keep silent and don’t contest her decision to pre-terminate their contracts, they can have other opportunities to work within the UN system. However, if they talk, she will make sure they never get to work for the UN again.

2. The unpopularity of the UNRC head is reflected in the UNDP’s Global Staff Survey where she came out last among the UNDP resident representatives in terms of approval rating. She scored 43%, a much lower score than the global average of 60%. Majority of UN resident representatives in Manila received 90%+ in approval ratings.

3. UNRC personnel continue to be traumatized in her presence. For example, she would throw documents on the floor when she was angry and then order her secretary to pick them up for her. She would also go into a flying rage whenever someone argues or tries to correct her. On another occasion, she literally shook another staff that dared proffer an explanation during one of Mrs. Noble’s foul moods.

4. This dynamic has spilled over to implementation of various government-UN projects with the disbandment of project management staff offices to help bridge these projects. Several government implementing agencies were surprised to learn about the UNRC’s unilateral decision to change implementing partners without due process, disband project management offices even at the risk of affecting results and imposing new program realities despite earlier agreements reached with stakeholders.

These are just some of the complaints raised by a group of staffmembers who came to see me a few days before my column deadline. One of them, former coordination specialist, Robert Francis Garcia, said he has written the Department of Foreign Affairs, the UN Ombudsman and the rest of the UN Country Team members and the UNDP Headquarters in New York. He also gave me a copy of his letter.

In it, he wrote: "The Coordination Specialist position was designed to assist the UN Resident Coordinator (UNRC or simply RC, officially the highest-ranking UN position in a country) in harmonizing work among various UN agencies. The post as vacated successively by two other people (the first one, temporarily). I won’t hazard a reason for their premature departure, though it is particularly telling that people under Nileema’s watch are leaving in droves. More than 20 people have left the UNDP since she came, and counting. I also cannot speak in their behalf, but I can speak from my own experience."

"Tolerance and understanding are basic human values. They are essential for international civil servants, who must respect all persons equally, without any distinction whatsoever. This respect fosters a climate and a working environment sensitive to the needs of all. To achieve this in a multicultural setting calls for a positive affirmation going well beyond passive acceptance." [Article 6 of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, The United Nations Ombudsman’s Office.]"

"There was never an instance when she did not raise her voice. The surreal "meeting" (when he learned he was being sacked) on May 4 was not unusual – it was a daily occurrence with Nileema."

I am convinced that the staff members who came to see me are telling the truth. I hope that the United Nations look into their complaints. The Department of Foreign Affairs could also help by calling the attention of the UNRC on how our nationals should be treated. We talk about protection for Overseas Filipino Workers. Here at home, we must be just as passionate in protecting the rights of our own workers.

Sometimes a simple gesture speaks volumes about the humanity of a person. So tell me, how do you pick up your pen from the floor?

(Visit my blog at www.susanople.com. Send comments to toots.ople@yahoo.com)

from here

Something Ignoble within the UN

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:14:00 +0800

I write this piece with the standing belief that internal democracy and freedom of expression are still practiced and honored within the United Nations system. That belief may have been shaken some with my recent work experience at the office of the UN Resident Coordinator in the Philippines , but I nevertheless remain confident that a small but deeply flawed component does not represent the whole. I also trust that a progressive institution such as the UN has the capacity and tools to self-repair.

"Managers and supervisors are in positions of leadership and it is their responsibility to ensure a harmonious workplace based on mutual respect; they should be open to all views and opinions and make sure that the merits of staff are properly recognized. They need to provide support to them; this is particularly important when they are subject to criticism arising from the carrying out of their duties. Managers are also responsible for guiding and motivating their staff and promoting their development." (Underscoring supplied). [Article 15 of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service , The United Nation's Ombudsman's Office.]
I have been with the UNRC Office for four months, having been invited to apply (and chosen) for the temporary post of Coordination Specialist for nine (9) months from December 2006 to September 2007. Since then I've been clocking in 12-15 work hours everyday, given the extraneous load of the RC office.

On 4 May 2007 at 1:00 p.m. , I was called to a meeting by my boss, Ms. Nileema Noble (UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative). Two other UNDP officers were also called in: Mr. Kyo Naka, UNDP Deputy Representative and Ms. Ethel Capuno, UNDP Procurement Officer.

After having seated, Nileema got straight to the point and said that they were already terminating my contact that same day. (I was to be paid half a month after the termination date in lieu of the 15-day notice as provided in the contract).

"Can I ask for the reason why?" I queried, matter-of-factly.

"You know that we are not required to give you a reason," replied Nileema. "Your Special Service Agreement (SSA) contract allows either party to unilaterally terminate it at any point within the duration." She then stated that she was not satisfied with my performance, and that there is a mismatch between the skills I possess and those that are demanded by my work.

"I would like to contest that," I answered. "I am not questioning your move to unilaterally terminate my contract, as that is your prerogative, but I do not agree with the arbitrary appraisal of my performance. I am not perfect, and I'm sure I have had lapses in my work like anyone else, but I have so far delivered the tasks expected of me." I went on to enumerate the accomplished assignments thus far: the clockwork regularity of the UN Country Team (UNCT) meetings, the series of Delivering as One briefings, the UNCT Retreat, the mission of Prof. Philip Alston (UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions), and so forth. In all this I was able to harness the collective strength of the UNRC office team, ensuring that tasks were properly delegated while taking on direct, hands-on work myself. I have indeed received positive feedback from UNCT members and other UN colleagues.

"The UNCT members have negative comments against you," Nileema retorted, "but I don't want to divulge them here. Also, you may of course contest this decision but that is up to you, and there are consequences. As it is now, you can leave with a record of good standing in the UN, because we are not declaring any reason for the contract's termination. But if you contest, then we will do that.

"Furthermore, another reason is that there are confidential RC Office documents that somehow reached other people." I gave her a bewildered look, thus she continued: "I'm not saying you yourself leaked them. But it is the RC office's responsibility to safeguard these documents."

I asked what exactly these documents were, for I was clueless, but again she refused to say. I was thus left unable to clarify whatever it was or even defend myself against accusations.

I was then asked to sign the letter of termination, stating that the Coordination Specialist function I was performing was no longer required. I said I do not want to sign any document, asking for some time to consider these things.

"No!" she blurted. "You cannot confer with anyone!"

I found that incomprehensible. Since when did the "freedom to consult" been banned in a higher institution such as the UN? But I simply said I don't intend to "confer" with other people about this. I just needed a few hours to mull things over.

"You don't have that option."
"So what will you do if I refuse to sign this document? Bodily carry me out of the UN premises?" I was beginning to boil then.

It was then Ethel's turn to intervene, trying to be diplomatic. "No, we don't do that naman at the UN. All we ask is that you simply 'acknowledge receipt' of this notice." Nileema stated further that, whether I sign it or not, the termination will be effective anyway.

So I silently sat there for a number of minutes, weighing things, looking each of them in the eye, finding it strange that within the UN such disregard for due process and humane conduct continue unhampered. I considered defying it, but realized in the same instance that I wouldn't want to stay a minute longer in such an oppressive work environment. In all of my years as a professional, it was only at the UNRC Office where I felt I was living a nightmare existence. I've been dragging my feet to work every single day.

Thus I wrote "notice received" in the one-page document, signed it, and quickly packed my stuff. I wasn't able do a proper handover because my email was immediately cut that very afternoon.

Taking the Fall

Soon as I left, I contemplated the reasons for the early termination of my contract. "Mismatch of my skills with those demanded of the job" she said. Perhaps there is some of that element. I was once described by Nileema as an "academic" type, but what was required of us was to attend to the voluminous, assembly line-like routine of the RC office and perform simultaneous tasks. Hardly anyone, however, can keep up with this. The "work-life balance" bandied about was an illusion. As one UN official told me: "I'm in your mailing list, and I can't imagine how you can perform all those demanding assignments. I saw the ones before you leave one after the other. The system, clearly, is designed to fail." While I am confident that my extraneous efforts delivered the goods, amid the difficulties and aggravations that multiplied the burden, I grant that the boss has the prerogative to declare otherwise.

The other reason was the so-called "leaked document," of which I remain uninformed, thus the best I can do is speculate. It maybe something related to human rights, or MDGs, or whatever themes we worked on. Hundreds of documents fly around and from the UN everyday, though I can assert that I have not sent any document to anyone with malice and without authorization or protocol. Still, Nileema can claim any single one of them has "fallen into the wrong hands" and I would be in no position to question that.
What I object to is the arbitrariness and utter disregard for proper procedure, and more importantly the abhorrent behavior one would not expect from a civilized human being, much less from a UN diplomat.

A Dreadful Work Environment

The Coordination Specialist position was designed to assist the UN Resident Coordinator (UNRC or simply RC, officially the highest-ranking UN position in a country) in harmonizing work among various UN agencies. The post was vacated successively by two other people (the first one, temporarily). I won't hazard a reason for their premature departure, though it is particularly telling that people under Nileema's watch are leaving in droves. More than 20 people have left the UNDP since she came, and counting. I also cannot speak in their behalf, but I can speak from my own experience.

"Tolerance and understanding are basic human values. They are essential for international civil servants, who must respect all persons equally, without any distinction whatsoever. This respect fosters a climate and a working environment sensitive to the needs of all. To achieve this in a multicultural setting calls for a positive affirmation going well beyond passive acceptance." (Underscoring supplied) [ Article 6 of the Standards of Conduct for the I nternational Civil S ervice, The United Nation's Ombudsman's Office.]

The present RC is some kind of an enigma. I have never seen such kind of leadership conduct before. It is the kind of behavior one can associate with a jail warden (from whom it is not acceptable as well). There is no normal conversation with her, at least so far as I have observed in her interaction with all the staff. (Equal or higher-ranking officials are a different matter – she deals with them casually or with reverence).
There was never an instance when she did not raise her voice. The surreal "meeting" we had on May 4 that I just narrated was not unusual – it was a daily occurrence with Nileema.

A senior UN official, from whom we sought advice a few months earlier, suggested that the problem might have something to do with "cultural differences." I considered that notion, and caught myself thinking that, if at all, the cultural dimension here takes the form of an anachronistic social construct called the "caste system," which bases the treatment of human beings based on their position in the pecking order. . What apparently matters to Nileema is a person's place in the human artifice called "hierarchy."

As such, Nileema somehow antagonizes most everyone she meets, as most of us are "subordinates" anyway. Her behavior towards people seemingly comes with a personal sense of entitlement; that her high UN position gives her the Brahman license to treat people in such abysmal manner.

In all four months with the office I forced myself to hang on. I resolved to try and "survive" it and find ways to somehow solve the unbearable situation we were all in. I saw an opportunity to constructively address it at our UNRC Office retreat, where presumably we can air out grievances. I told Nileema in the most reasonable manner that there could be a better way of relating with the UN staff. "Whenever you are around, the stress level among the staff shoots up." She responded that she always had that effect on people wherever she was – whether in her previous posts or even in her family.

"But that is how I am, and it has to do with my passion for work. I'm just passionate."

Fine. It's just unfortunate that she seems to have mistook treating people as virtual slaves 'to get the job done' as 'passion.'

It also gives her the authority to dictate what is wrong and what is right, regardless of what others say or think. You cannot argue your point. Nileema is known to crash in on a workshop underway, whether it's a government or civil society function, undermine the proceedings and declare that "everything is wrong." She then proceeds to declare what is right. What is right is not based on merit but on brandished authority.

An example indicative of this abrasive unilateralism was when she was asking me about a human rights-related meeting that was not proceeding according to how she wanted.

"Are you sabotaging the RC office?" she exclaimed.

Sabotaging?! I was so incredulous and offended I almost replied: "With the way you are running this office, I don't even need to." But I checked myself, realizing that would've entailed stooping to the level of coarseness I was objecting to. I simply expressed my incredulity. "Of course not. Why would I do such a thing?"

One of Nileema's oft-repeated justifications for her behavior is that she is just hammering people to work better. "Not good enough!" is a common outburst. The question is: does it work? The exodus of her staff is hardly an indication that things are going in the right direction. Frayed nerves of those who remain can never produce quality work. Nileema does not believe in positively motivating people; she promotes a culture of submissiveness and subjugation. In the process, she continues to lose the cooperation and respect not only of her staff but partners as well from donors, government offices, and civil society.

A sympathetic colleague tried to assuage my distress by saying that Nileema is an exception, rather than the rule, in the UN. She is just a fluke and therefore I should not be disillusioned with the entire system. But this aberration has the potential to wreak havoc on the whole. Allowing this to continue, apart from driving people out and restricting the creative freedom of workers, holds the greater danger of perpetuating a vicious cycle. It creates a system that cultivates a handful of clones that unquestioningly do their boss' bidding and replicate her behavior toward their respective colleagues and subordinates, while leaving a throng of embattled, embittered soldier ants. It breeds "transfer of oppression;" or the so-called "kick the dog" syndrome. I saw it happening already, and the repercussions are frightening.

What is ironic in all this is that other UN agencies and parallel international organizations have already evolved far more egalitarian systems of work. The present UNRC, assigned with the momentous role of leading the UN system's sweeping reform agenda under the "Delivering as One" banner, remains stuck in a patently feudal mindset and form of rule. This may perhaps explain the major reluctance of officials and staff during the Delivering as One briefings, which provides for "one leader" among others. This would've been easier to swallow if that "one leader" respects "all persons equally, without any distinction whatsoever…and fosters a climate and a working environment sensitive to the needs of all." Regrettably, the current UN leader in the Philippines considers the organization as her own private fiefdom.

I realize that the foregoing could very likely jeopardize any possible UN career for me in the future. For all it's worth, right now I am still presumably "in good standing" and can continue searching other options within the system, so long as "I keep my peace." I'm better off being mum about it, however I can never feel fine with myself knowing that such abomination continues to exist and I simply let it pass.

It is incumbent for those who are still within the UN, especially those who relate with Nileema directly, to do something about the regressive state of affairs she is perpetuating. The country's development is at stake, and so is the UN's potential to affect its course. The country and the UN cannot condone yet another tyrant, for that would breed more of her kind. As Lord Achton once famously declared: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
In many of our meetings, Nileema often declared that she "does not know anything about human rights." Does one really need to overstate the obvious?

I rest my case.

Robert Francis Garcia
Former Coordination Specialist
UN Resident Coordinator's Office
Philippines

6 EU experts to probe mass graves in Leyte

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:31:00 +0800

By Michael Lim Ubac, TJ Burgonio
Inquirer
Last updated 01:49am (Mla time) 06/22/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- The six experts sent by the European Union to investigate the unabated political killings in the country will ascertain whether the mass graves unearthed in Leyte and other provinces by the military held the remains of communist purge victims, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said Thursday.

According to Ermita, the team that he dubbed “the first RP-EU needs-assessment mission” could help explain the proliferation of mass graves in the country because its members were experts in the fields of criminal investigation and prosecution.
He said President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had personally invited the team to come over as part of the EU assistance to the Philippines to solve the political killings.
The experts arrived in Manila on Monday on a 10-day mission.
Ermita said ascertaining the authenticity of the mass graves was crucial to government efforts to unmask the masterminds of the “unexplained killings.”

The government has charged Rep. Satur Ocampo of the militant party-list group Bayan Muna and 51 others in connection with the decades-old purge of suspected military spies in the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), whose purported remains were found by the military in mass graves in the town of Inopacan in Leyte province.

But the Eastern Visayas chapter of the National Democratic Front, the political arm of the CPP, said the graves were “a hoax which the 8th [Infantry Division] had a hand in making up.”
Ocampo was arrested and detained on multiple murder charges in March; the Supreme Court allowed him to post bail in April. The main petition seeking to quash the case filed in the lower court is still pending.

Welcome, but...
The human rights group Karapatan Thursday suggested that the EU team also meet with the families of the victims of political killings.
Karapatan secretary general Marie Hilao-Enriquez told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that the assistance of the EU experts was “much welcome.”
“But for it to be meaningful, they should look at the plight of the victims. They should hear them out,” she said.

Enriquez said that while the European Union was providing all sorts of technical assistance to the Philippine government, it should also look into the latter’s purported policy on the killing and “enforced disappearance” of leftist activists.
“The government does not lack technical expertise in investigation. For all we know, this is being messed up,” she said, adding:
“Instead of helping the government alone, the EU should also help the victims. We’ve not gotten a single cent from the government.”

Karapatan records show that as of May 31, there have been 863 “extrajudicial” killings since 2001, when Ms Arroyo came to power.
The list of those killed does not include Mario Auxillo, head of the Bohol chapter of Bayan Muna, who was slain in Tagbilaran City on June 17.

Of the victims, around half were farmers, Karapatan said. The regions where at least 100 had been killed were Bicol, Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog.
Both the military and Malacañang have denied involvement, saying Oplan Laya I and II -- the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ counterinsurgency plans -- had not institutionalized a policy on the killing of leftist activists.

Stints in Kosovo, etc.
Malacañang hosted cocktails on Monday for the experts from the United Kingdom, Finland and Sweden. The reception included a briefing by Cecilia “Coco” Quisumbing of the Presidential Human Rights Committee.
Ermita said he had a chance to talk with three of them during the reception. “And I can see that they are experts, especially in forensics and crime scene investigation. They have experience in such places as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Thailand and even Kosovo,” he said.
Ermita said the invitations to the experts were coursed through their respective embassies.
“We would like them to see for themselves how and what kind of assistance they can give to our investigating agencies, to our prosecuting agencies and even to the courts because of their experience,” he said.

One issue is the military’s discovery of the mass graves, Ermita said.
“In our conversation, they said they might be able to help in determining, first, the kind of skeletal remains that have been discovered. [They will] try to see whether there is truth to the allegation that indeed these are subjects of foul play by any group -- whether the military, the police, or the NPA (New People’s Army, the armed wing of the CPP) itself,” he said.
‘Wherewithals’
Ermita said that apart from the technical assistance, the President welcomed such missions because they could lead to increased funding in prosecution and investigation.
“We hope to get some pledges from them. There are wherewithals that we lack. For example, it can’t be denied that funding is always a problem with us because we are a third-class economy, a Third World country,” Ermita said.

“We may not have enough for the prosecution of human rights violators. And, of course, they will help us strengthen our techniques of investigation,” he said.
Malacañang has repeatedly said that the government needed training and equipment for DNA testing, an integral part of criminal investigation.
On Wednesday, the EU experts met with officials of the Department of Justice to discuss the Witness Protection Program (WPP).

“They have been informed by the ambassadors here that one of the problems in our prosecution of suspects in the unexplained killings is the hesitation of witnesses to come out,” said Ermita.
“And, therefore, there is a need to enhance the WPP.”
On Thursday, they were scheduled to meet with members of the judiciary, “with the end in view of strengthening the prosecution of cases,” he said.

How to stop killings
Said Romeo Capulong, legal counsel of the families of victims from Bayan Muna and other progressive groups: “Any form of assistance that will improve the legal system is most welcome. But that will not address the immediate problem.”
Capulong said the assistance should include “how to stop the unabated executions and abductions.”

“What should be done now is to extend all forms of assistance to organizations in the Philippines and abroad who are documenting these human rights violations and gathering evidence. Because under the Arroyo administration, it’s a mere illusion that the perpetrators will be brought to justice,” Capulong said.
He said the EU team should establish a mechanism that would protect witnesses to the human rights violations from “reprisals.”

Human Security Act
The European Union has called on the Philippine government to introduce concrete measures to prevent human rights abuse, especially with the implementation next month of the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007, or the anti-terror law.
In a resolution adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg on April 26, the European Union said the enactment of the HSA was “liable to further increase the incidence of human rights violations by the security forces because it will allow arrests without warrant and arbitrary detention for up to three days.”

The EU resolution highlighted both the findings of the Malacañang-created Melo Commission and the results of the investigation by UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston, which cited the possible involvement of the military in the political killings.

Gov't. Apathetic Toward Human Rights Abuses:Alston

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:24:00 +0800

The President and Former First Lady Imelda Marcos

I. INTRODUCTION

1. I visited the Philippines at the invitation of the Government from 12 to 21 February 2007. I met with key government officials, including the President, the Executive Secretary, the National Security Adviser, the Secretaries for Defense and Justice, members of Congress, the Chief Justice, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Chair of the Human Rights Commission, and the Ombudsman. Approximately half of my mission was devoted to meetings with representatives of civil society, in Manila, Baguio and Davao. Pending the submission of my final report to the Human Rights Council, this interim report provides a brief overview of my activities and identifies some of the issues which are of the most concern to me. Comments provided by the Government on a draft of this report are acknowledged with appreciation.

2. The Government cooperated in the organization and conduct of my mission in an exemplary fashion. As I indicated in my departing press conference, the fact of the invitation itself reflected a clear recognition of the gravity of the problem, a willingness to permit outside scrutiny, and a very welcome preparedness to engage on the issues. Civil society was equally engaged and I received very detailed and systematic information which contributed enormously to the success of the mission.

II. PRINCIPAL CONCERNS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

3. In a nutshell, my visit was prompted by reports of a large number of extrajudicial killings, especially of leftist activists and journalists, over the past six years or so. While the estimates vary from 100 to 800 or more, I concluded that it is not productive to play the numbers game and seek to confirm any definitive number. No one disputes that large numbers have been killed. Especially problematic is the fact that the impact has been to intimidate vast numbers of civil society actors, to send a message of vulnerability to all but the most well connected, and to severely undermine political discourse.

4. In considering how to respond to the problem, it is not helpful to dwell unduly at this stage on the reluctance of the military, the police and some key ministers to come to terms with the reality and seriousness of the problem. Suffice it to note that the Government itself was sufficiently motivated to appoint both a high-level independent commission to investigate the problem (the Melo Commission) and a national-level police task force (with military cooperation) to investigate alleged killings promptly and bring prosecutions (Task Force Usig). In recent months, the Government has ordered a range of initiatives, including:

* The Department of National Defense (DND) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) have been requested to draft an updated document on Command Responsibility;

* The Department of Justice (DOJ), DND, and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) have been asked to constitute a Joint Fact-Finding body in relation to the alleged involvement of military personnel in the killings, and to charge and prosecute those responsible;

* The DOJ has been asked to broaden and enhance the Witness Protection Program (WPP);

* The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has announced the creation of 99 Special Courts to try those accused of killings of a political or ideological nature;

* The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has formally requested assistance from the European Union and others to provide funds in response to the killings;†

* An additional 25 million pesos (US$ 510,000) has been provided to the CHR to enable it to better address the problem; and

* The Presidential Human Rights Committee (as distinct from the CHR) has been rejuvenated.

5. The fact that there has been such a strong institutional response at the national level is initially encouraging. This in turn has been mirrored by the deep concerns expressed by a diverse range of actors within the international community. Taken together, these responses attest to the high saliency of the issue and the urgent need to identify measures which might help to end the spate of killings. The remainder of this interim report is devoted to that challenge.

III. THE ROAD AHEAD

6. The consequences of a failure to end extrajudicial killings in the Philippines will be dire. Efforts to resolve the various insurgencies will be set back significantly. Incentives to opposition groups to head for the hills rather than seek to engage in democratic politics will be enhanced, and international support for the Government will be undermined. A multifaceted and convincing governmental response is thus urgent.

7. In essence, the problem must be tackled at two different, but complementary, levels. At one level there is indeed a need for more staff, more resources, and more specialist expertise, a better witness-protection programme, and the strengthening of key institutions. The recent Government actions noted above have gone a considerable way in that direction. But such steps are premised almost entirely on the assumption that the key interventions required concern resources and expertise. The hope seems to be that if there can be better investigators, more forensic capacity, more focused judicial action, and more sustained action by the joint military/police task force, the problems will be resolved. But the strong risk is that these measures will treat only some of the symptoms of the crisis, and will fail to address meaningfully two of the most important underlying causes of a great many of the killings.

8. Those causes constitute the second level at which an effective national response is required. The first cause has been variously described as “vilification,” “labeling,” or guilt by association. It involves the characterization of most groups on the left of the political spectrum as “front organizations” for armed groups whose aim is to destroy democracy. The result is that a wide range of groups — including human rights advocates, labour union organizers, journalists, teachers unions, women’s groups, indigenous organizations, religious groups, student groups, agrarian reform advocates, and others — are classified as “fronts” and then as “enemies of the State” that are accordingly considered to be legitimate targets. The second cause is the extent to which aspects of the Government’s counter-insurgency strategy encourage or facilitate the extrajudicial killings of activists and other ‘enemies’ in certain circumstances. The final report will elaborate at length on this issue.

A. Orders of battle

9. While these two causes tend to operate separately from one another in many settings, they also come together in various ways. The most dramatic illustration is the “order of battle” approach adopted systematically by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and in practice often by the Philippines National Police (PNP). In military terms an order of battle is defined as “an organizational tool used by military intelligence to list and analyze enemy military units’.” The AFP adopts an order of battle in relation to the various regions and sub-regions in which they operate. A copy of a leaked document of this type, from 2006, was provided to me and I am aware of no reason to doubt its authenticity. The document, co-signed by senior military and police officials, calls upon “all members of the intelligence community in the [relevant] region…to adopt and be guided by this update to enhance a more comprehensive and concerted effort against the CPP/NPA/NDF (Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army/National Democratic Front).” The document, some 110 pages in length, lists hundreds of groups and individuals who have been classified, on the basis of intelligence, as members of organizations which the military deems “illegitimate”. Newspapers carry almost daily reports of senior military officials urging that such groups be neutralized and calling upon the populace to recognize that to support their candidates in the upcoming elections would be to support the enemy. This practice was openly and adamantly defended by nearly every member of the military with whom I spoke. When a significant number of individuals killed in incidents implicating the armed forces or police are also listed on an order of battle, it raises serious questions about the appropriateness of this practice. It may be, as I was told, a “political war,” but when such political war is conducted by soldiers rather than civilians, politics too quickly comes to involve guns as well as words. An interim recommendation emerges from this analysis and is outlined below.

B. Restoring accountability at all levels

10. One of the key impediments to the effectiveness of many of the measures announced by the Government in recent weeks is the fact that many of the accountability mechanisms which are invoked as checks on governmental abuses have been rendered ineffectual in dealing with such issues. On paper, they remain strong. In practice, they are of all too little use, and often this is the result of official design. These issues will be examined in detail in my final report but for present purposes it is sufficient to focus upon some key examples of institutional passivity in the face of large numbers of killings.

11. There is a passivity, bordering on an abdication of responsibility, which affects the way in which key institutions and actors approach their responsibilities in relation to such human rights concerns. For example, in discussions with me, the chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights insisted that there was no role for Congress because no new legislation was required, given that murder was already a punishable offense. He openly denied that Congress should play any proactive oversight role regarding the executive’s execution of the law. He added that military promotions of those widely suspected of human rights violations were no concern of his Committee and had not been held up by the Congressional Commission on Appointments because no witnesses had come forward to object. He had not and did not intend to hold hearings into the widespread problem of extrajudicial killings because it was a matter for the executive, rather than the Congress.

12. The Secretary of Justice, and his colleagues, were perplexed at the proposition that prosecutors, whose role is absolutely central in the Philippines justice system, had some broader responsibility to take steps to uphold respect for human rights. Instead, their role was seen as a passive one. If a file presented to them was insufficient, their role was simply to return it and hope that the police would do better next time. It was not for them to observe or respond to clearly shoddy dossiers designed to ensure that the police could be said to have done their job while at the same time no prosecution would follow. The Government position is that prosecutors must show “total impartiality” and thus they cannot be directed to adapt their methods of work to ensure that everything possible is done to promote respect for human rights. That position seems to me to be highly problematic.

13. The Ombudsman’s office, despite the existence of a separate unit designed to investigate precisely the type of killings that have been alleged, has done almost nothing in recent years in this regard. The Government itself acknowledges that, of 44 complaints submitted from 2002 to 2006 alleging extrajudicial executions attributed to State agents, the Ombudsman’s office concluded that it was unable to act on even a single case. While such a result in relation to five or even ten cases might be justifiable, when it reaches the level of 44 cases the conclusion must be that the office is failing in its responsibilities. Many explanations were offered for its inactivity, but none were convincing. Moreover, in at least some situations the office operates as a de facto subsidiary of the Department of Justice.

14. Finally, the executive branch has stymied the legislature’s efforts to oversee the execution of laws. Military officers are seldom permitted to appear before Congress other than at budget hearings. A high-ranking government official recounted with genuine puzzlement the efforts of the Committee on Human Rights of the House of Representatives to obtain the testimony of senior military officers. This was considered self-evidently preposterous and was successfully avoided. Official policy, now in the form of a ‘memorandum circular’ provides that any official requested to “appear before either House of Congress” shall “forward the request…to the President through the Executive Secretary” who “shall consider whether the subject matter of the inquiry is in aid of legislation and/or falls within the scope of executive privilege.” This restrictive approach tends to make congressional oversight meaningless in practice.

IV. INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS

15. I recommend that:

(a) The Government should immediately direct all military officers to cease making public statements linking political or other civil society groups to those engaged in armed insurgencies. If such characterizations are ever to be made it must be by civilian authorities, on the basis of transparent criteria, and in conformity with the human rights provisions of the Constitution and relevant treaties;

(b) The Government should commit to restoring the effectiveness of constitutionally mandated accountability arrangements, especially in relation to the role of Congressional oversight;

(c) In conjunction with the executive branch of Government, the Supreme Court should use its constitutional powers over the practice of law to impress upon prosecutors that they have a duty to the public to uphold and protect human rights by acting to ensure the effective investigation of cases and protection of witnesses;

(d) The Ombudsman’s office should begin to take seriously its independent constitutional role in responding to extrajudicial killings plausibly attributed to public officials;

(e) The Government should provide the Special Rapporteur with a copy of an “order of battle” relating to one of the zones in the country in which significant conflict is currently occurring.

from--> Click Me!

Alston: Govt reaction to visit ‘deeply schizophrenic’

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:44:00 +0800

Unoptimistic military will see problem’s gravity
By Veronica Uy
INQUIRER.net
Last updated 09:46pm (Mla time) 03/28/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- (2ND UPDATE) United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Philip Alston described the Arroyo administration’s reaction to his 10-day visit to the country in February to investigate extrajudicial killings “deeply schizophrenic.”

The comments, contained in a transcript of Alston’s oral report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on his investigation, a copy of which was provided by the office of Senator Ana Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal, was more biting than the description of the special rapporteur’s speech given by undersecretary Cecilia “Coco” Quisumbing of the Presidential Human Rights Committee.

Madrigal was also in Geneva to witness Alston’s submission of his preliminary report on his investigation of the extrajudicial killings. The report is also accessible on the UN website.

Earlier Wednesday, Quisumbing, quoting from accounts relayed to her by Philippine envoys who listened to Alston’s speech, said the report included impromptu comments that made his report “harsher” on the military than a draft received by the government.

In his speech, Alston noted that while President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was “taking positive initiatives” in response to recommendations he made, military and other key officials “have buried their collective heads in the sand and announced that business will continue as usual.”

At the same time, although Alston said killings by the New People’s Army are reprehensible and to be condemned,” he stressed that “there is absolutely no evidence that the recent surge in killings of leftist activists is due to a communist purge.”

“On the contrary, strong and consistent evidence leads to the conclusion that a significant number of these killings are due to the actions of the military,” he said.

He also noted that the NPA, Communist Party of the Philippines and National Democratic Front own responsibility for their own killings, and that the purges that rocked the ranks of the rebel movement happened two decades ago.

The UN expert, who made several recommendations to the Philippine government in his report, said these “will make little difference unless there is a fundamental change of heart on the part of the military or the emergence of civilian resolve to compel the military to change its ways.”

“Then, and only then, will it be possible to make real progress in ending the killings,” he stressed.

Quoting from his own statement before leaving the Philippines, Alston said the military continued to “remain in a state of almost total denial” over the killings.

Thus, a month after his visit, he said, “I have little reason for optimism.”

He cited a “colorful” statement of Defense Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane, who said last week that, “Alston won’t pay attention. He is blind, mute, and deaf. We can’t do anything about that,” reacting to the UN expert’s dismissal of military claims about a communist purge.

“Part of me appreciates the substitution of frank insults for the usual diplomatic platitudes, but anyone reading between the lines will receive a far more disturbing message: Those government officials who must act decisively if the killings are to end still refuse to accept that there is even a problem,” he told the UNHRC.

Alston said the military never substantiated its list the 1,227 names, dates, and places of individuals alleged to have been killed by communist rebels “despite numerous requests.”

He also accused the military of “disinformation” and dismissed as a “fabrication” Operation Bushfire, a purported rebel document the military claimed to have captured in May last year and which is supposed to detail a plan by the communists to kill their own members and pin the blame on the military.

“In the absence of strong supporting evidence, which I requested, this document bears all the hallmarks of a fabrication and cannot be taken as evidence of anything other than disinformation,” he said.

Alston insisted that his initial impression about the military being principally responsible for the killings remains true.

“I would repeat today that based on my fact-finding there is no reasonable doubt that the military is responsible for a significant number of killings. Subsequent evidence points to the continuing nature of that practice,” he said.

In his written report, Alston noted “a passivity, bordering on an abdication of responsibility,” in the way the government and its officials “approach their responsibilities in relation to such human rights concerns” as the extrajudicial killings as he warned that failure to end the bloodshed would lead to “dire” consequences.

Quoting a member of the Philippine Mission to the UNHRC in Geneva, Quisumbing said Ambassador Enrique Manalo, as is allowed by Council rules, countered Alston’s report and told the body of the country’s efforts to end the killings.

Reacting to Alston’s description of the government response as “schizophrenic,” Quisumbing said she “strongly disagreed.”

Contrary to Alston’s description of the military, she said the AFP has already set up a human rights office and is already investigating 80 cases of military men possibly involved in the killings. “How can that be business as usual?” she asked.

This was in contrast to her reaction earlier in the day based on the accounts of the envoys in Geneva, during which she did not exactly contradict Alston’s findings and said “the government has to take a united stand because this is a multi-faceted problem that requires a multi-faceted solution. This is not a race. It is not helpful to have a comparison [of actions] among branches of government.”

However, while saying the government is “disappointed,” Quisumbing said she was not surprised by Alston’s statement.

“First of all, the government is disappointed that Mr. Alston changed his statement without prior notice to us since the usual process is for a chance for the government to review his draft and we were under the impression that we had open dialogue with Mr. Alston,” she said.

“Secondly, this should not surprise us though because Mr. Alston said the same thing in his departure statement,” she added.

Quisumbing said that despite Alston’s “harsher” speech before the Council, she hopes the “interactive exchange of information” will continue.

She also said the government cannot comply with Alston’s request for a copy of a military “order of battle relating to one of the zones in the country in which significant conflict is currently occurring.”

She did say part of the Philippine response to the Alston report was a request for him to give the government a copy of a “leaked” order of battle he obtained while in the country and described as a 110-page document containing the names of hundreds of groups and individuals who have been classified by the military as “illegitimate” so the authenticity of the document may be ascertained.

During his visit to the country, Alston interviewed relatives of the murder victims, witnesses, and various government officials.

One of those he interviewed, Siche Gandinao, a Bayan Muna official from Misamis in Mindanao, was killed in front of her daughter on March 10. Gandinao testified about her father-in-law’s death in February.

The unabated political killings in the country, which human rights groups say have claimed more than 830 lives since 2001, have attracted international concern. Aside from the UN, the United States Congress and the European Union have offered to help solve the problem.

On Tuesday, Quisumbing said Alston’s preliminary report to the UNHRC is unlikely to endanger the Philippines’ standing in the Council, much less result in a sanction, or lead to cutbacks in aid.

While Alston’s report does not carry an executive weight, many recognize the moral effect it has. Alston is expected to submit a final report on the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines in June.

SSN-PATH REACTION

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:58:00 +0800

South-South Network (SSN)for Non-State Armed Group Engagement

Peace Advocates For Truth, Healing & Justice

JOINT SSN-PATH REACTION TO PROF. PHILIP ALSTON'S
PHILIPPINE MISSION PRESS STATEMENT OF 21 FEBRUARY 2007

Greetings of Peace, Truth, Justice and Healing! We acknowledge the belatedness of this reaction but wish to convey it just the same because of what we think, believe and feel are important points and angles to consider in the preparation of Notes and especially the Final Report of UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Professor Philip Alston on his mission to the Philippines last 11-21 February 2007 to inquire into the "political killings" or extrajudicial executions (EJE) here in recent years. In this regard, we wish to hereunder directly address Prof. Alston on his final mission day Press Statement of 21 February 2007.

While your 10-day mission capped by your Press Statement has been the much needed "tipping point" indeed for deeper reflection and more effective action on the politically-motivated EJE in the Philippines in recent years, we feel that your Press Statement, or the various interpretations and propaganda (yes, that word again) around it, have not given due attention or treatment to the EJEs also perpetrated by non-state armed groups like the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)-New People's Army (NPA).

It may help to place things in perspective if we add to the typology in your Press Statement. The current EJE issue in the Philippines swirls around the facts and propaganda involving at least three types of EJE with different sets of victims of human rights violations:

1. state/military-inspired or anti-Left EJE, esp. killings of legal Left activists like disproportionately those of Bayan Muna party-list group

2. non-state (rebel) EJE, mainly NPA liquidations or summary executions of civilians outside combat e.g. civilian informers or spies, criminal "bad elements" like rapists and cattle rustlers, policemen who do not have combat duties but are killed for their weapons, "despotic" landlords and "abusive" local officials

3. the CPP-NPA internal purges of many of its own members suspected of being military "deep penetration agents" in the 1980s (which has been PATH's advocacy issue as victims, survivors and relatives)

The first type of current EJE, i.e. state/military-inspired or anti-Left EJE, has called for and gotten the most attention, including occasioning your mission. As you said, there may be an inevitable propaganda element but it does not, did not, destroy the credibility of the information and allegations. Instead of acknowledging some military involvement in this, as you have called for, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has gone into denial mode and in the process has pointed to the second type of current EJE, i.e. NPA liquidations of civilians outside combat. To bolster this theory, the AFP further points to the third type of EJE which happened about 20 or so years ago, the CPP-NPA internal purges.

But the fact that the AFP has given the second and third type of EJE a propaganda dimension, to deflect its responsibility for the first type of EJE, does not, in itself, to pursue your logic, destroy the credibility of the information and allegations. We are talking here about three types of EJE, and each type must be given its just due. The AFP is mistakenly saying that the first type of EJE is actually the second or third type. No, these three types each have their basically distinct sets of victims, although the second and third types are both non-state or rebel-perpetrated EJE.

In the same way that you did not consider the surfacing by the AFP of two listed victims as sufficient to discredit the vast number of remaining allegations of state/military-inspired or anti-Left EJE of legal Left activists, perhaps you should not also take as authoritative Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel's clearly off-the-cuff/spur-of-the-moment (without apparent solid evidentiary basis) estimate that not more than the 10% of the total killings can be attributed to the NPA. That may be true for the first type of EJE but certainly not for the second type. The 1,227 figure cited by the AFP pertains to the second type of EJE and is different from the 800+ figure cited by Karapatan which pertains to the first type.

Of course, the AFP information and allegations on 1,227 NPA killings should also be subjected to tests of credibility. But in fairness, they should not be almost outrightly dismissed just because "The evidence offered by the military in support of this [purge] theory is especially unconvincing." Even if your mission's whole 10 days in the Philippines had focused on the 1,227 killings cited by the AFP, that amount of days was simply not enough to properly evaluate whatever evidence pertaining to that amount of reported killings, on top of the 800+ killings cited by Karapatan. Again, there must be no mixing up of or confusion about the three types of EJE as outlined above.

NPA liquidations of civilians outside combat have been an ongoing reality of its protracted people's war, just as killings of legal Left activists have become a reality of recent prominence in the wake of the state's current counter-insurgency strategy. Any inquiry into the current EJE issue in the Philippines should be informed by this local context of an internal armed conflict which involves two sides, state and non-state, but which does not of course justify violations of human rights and the laws of war.

The reality of NPA liquidations of civilians outside combat has in fact been inquired into, documented and reported on internationally at least twice in the past. One is in a section (as a contextual backdrop) in the 1988 book by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (New York) entitled Vigilantes in the Philippines: A Threat to Democratic Rule. Another is in significant parts of the 1990 book by the Asia Watch Committee of Human Rights Watch (New York) entitled The Philippines: Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides. We believe that such both-sided treatment (esp. in the latter book) which corresponds to reality and provides fairness to all will also make acknowledgement by those concerned, e.g. the AFP leadership, more forthcoming.

The AFP's propaganda reliance on figures and trends relating to the CPP-NPA purges in the 1980s should not also in itself destroy the credibility of PATH's lonely advocacy on this which pre-dated the current EJE issue in the Philippines. The embroilment of the CPP-NPA purges issue in the current EJE issue should be seen as an opportunity to more properly and effectively address that still hanging purges issue, an EJE issue just like the first and second types. In fact, more than the first two types, the CPP-NPA internal purges of the 19080s involved not just one major kind of human rights violation which is EJE but also several others - torture, enforced disappearances, and even lack of due process and fair trial in the "revolutionary justice" rendered by "people's courts." The factual and evidentiary details of these are found or indicated, among others, in the confidential Preliminary Report submitted in hard copy to your mission c/o the UN Resident Commissioner's Office Philippines last 20 February.

Your evaluation of an alleged CPP/NPA document captured in May 2006 describing Operation Bushfire as a fabrication appears justified. It is an important lead about a possible covert EJE operation and operatives within the AFP because the document was listed among the 14 subversive documents (most seem authentic) captured in an apparently normal and official "After Special Operation Report" of the 76th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army. How did this fabricated document get there (among other authentic CPP/NPA documents and into an official Army report)?

The main burden in issues of this sort will always be with the state, whether it was the Marcos dictatorship or the more democratic regimes which followed up to the present. The international human rights regime is also historically occasioned and suited to respond to state tyranny. But lest the slaves or rebels of today be the oppressors or tyrants of tomorrow, recent experience and realities have shown that international human rights regime must address too, and address more effectively than it has, the non-state dimension of human rights violations.

Your Press Statement speaks of the need and challenge to restore the various accountability mechanisms that have been put in place over the years but many of which have been drained of their force in recent years. Still, all such accountability mechanisms, whether domestic or international, are largely state-oriented mechanisms. There are hardly any accountability mechanisms that deal more suitably and effectively with the non-state armed group violators of human rights. We hope that your Final Report will help develop the also needed work on this front. Thank you.

Quezon City, Philippines, 26 March 2007.

(SIGNED)
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR., Esq.
A.B. History (UP), LL.B. (UNC), LL.M. (Melb)
Regional Focal Point for Asia
South-South Network (SSN)
for Non-State Armed Group Engagement

(SIGNED)
ROGEL M. NAVARRO
Chairperson
Peace Advocates for Truth, Healing and Justice (PATH)

PNP seeks Interpol’s ‘red notice’

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:40:00 +0800

NSC chief Norberto Gonzales

Monday, March 12, 2007

NSC chief Norberto Gonzales calls on
Satur Ocampo to give up and face charges

THE Philippine National Police (PNP) on Sunday is seeking the help of the international police community for the immediate arrest of exiled Filipino communist leader, Prof. Jose Maria Sison.

Sison, who has been living in self-exile in the Netherlands, has been charged anew by local authorities with robbery and murder of Senior Insp. Alberto Montecalvo, police chief of Pio V. Corpuz, Masbate, last Friday.

The PNP chief, Director General Oscar Calderon, said in a statement that the National Police would ask the International Police Organization (International) to issue a red notice for Sison.

“An Interpol red notice is the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today based on a lawful arrest order against a person who is wanted for prosecution,” Calderon said in the statement.

A red notice is a listing of wanted persons the Interpol circulates to its member-countries in which persons on the list are place on lookout list by foreign police agencies.

“Persons listed on the red notice are wanted by national jurisdictions and the Interpol’s role is to assist the national police forces in identifying or locating these persons with a view to arresting and/or having them deported,” said Calderon.

He added that they are also seeking the same alert notice for Sison’s co-respondents in the murder-robbery case who might have fled abroad and were also covered by a warrant of arrest.

Charged along with Sison before the Masbate Prosecutor’s Office are Rogelio Sison, alias “Ka Randy”; Dindo Masanta, alias “Ka Buddy”; and several other NPA members.

Sison, along with party-list Rep. Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna and National Democratic Front chief negotiator Luis Jalandoni, was also subject of warrant of arrest issued by a Leyte Regional Trial Court Branch 18.

The court issued the warrant of arrest for multiple charges in connection with the murder of suspected government spies in the communist underground movement in Leyte.

Government recovered 67 “skeletal remains” of communist purging in August 2006 in a shallow mass grave in Barangay Kaulisihan, a remote village in Inopacan town.

Former New People’s Army (NPA) rebels led government troops to the grave site and said that the mass murders were carried out based on orders from the communist central committee, which was then headed by Sison and Ocampo.

For his part, National Security Council Adviser Norberto Gonzales on Sunday called on Rep. Satur Ocampo to come out and face the charges and “let the court decide.” He explained that the government’s intensified legal campaign against local communist leaders is not just aimed at eliminating personalities identified with the CPP-NPA. “We want them to denounce armed rebellion and be honest in doing so,” he said.

While he expressed dismay that Ocampo is going to jail for the case of mass murder and not the rebellion case he filed in 2006, he said the multiple murder charges was filed by the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG), which he established as national security chief.

Meanwhile, the council of leaders of Peace Advocates Truth, Justice and Healing (PATH) issued a statement on Saturday critical of what they called “politicizing the purges.” The statement came following reports that a warrant of arrest was issued against Rep. Satur Ocampo for his participation in the CPP-NPA purges.

“While the victims of the purges have long sought a just resolution to the issue and accountability from the perpetrators, the timing and manner of the government’s brand of ‘justice’ are inappropriate,” said the statement. “Its politically biased intent itself may compromise the legitimacy of the purge victims’ cause. We fear that the hate and paranoia that drive the government and its agencies to go against the leadership of CPP-NPA and Bayan Muna is of the same variety as the hate and paranoia that we have suffered from in the past and continue to rally against to this day.” --Anthony Vargas and Sam Mediavilla

from --> click me!

Government seeks UN probe of NPA mass killings

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:30:00 +0800

The President and rep. Satur Ocampo back in their happier days together

By Paolo Romero
The Philippine Star 03/19/2007

The government will ask the United Nations to investigate mass killings allegedly staged by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) following reports of mass graves discovered in different parts of the country, MalacaÒang officials said yesterday.

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales issued the statements in separate interviews after the Arroyo administration came under fire from the United States Senate, which began last week an inquiry into the killings of hundreds of leftist political activists and journalists since 2001.

"The process is ongoing for these cases of mass murder and bloody purges of the CPP-NPA to be filed with the appropriate international bodies," Gonzales told The STAR. "These are crimes against humanity we are talking about."

The Palace officials also chided party-list Rep. Satur Ocampo for being "callous" and "insensitive" to the families of the victims of the murders, which he allegedly masterminded, for claiming that his arrest would be favorable to the electoral campaign for seats in Congress of the left-leaning party-list group Bayan Muna.

They also vowed to oppose efforts by some leftist congressmen to have Ocampo placed under their custody.

Authorities earlier said bloody purges in the communist rebel movement that began since the late 1980s claimed the lives of tens of thousands suspected to be military deep penetration agents under various campaigns such as "Kampanyang Ahos" and "Oplan Zombie."

Gonzales said more suspected mass graves are being uncovered in different parts of the country, including some in rebel-infested Samar island and in Leyte where one, containing 67 skeletal remains, had been dug up and used as evidence to charge and arrest Ocampo.

"Some of the graves uncovered had relatively fresh remains on top of much older ones, indicating that the killings were done in waves using same burial sites," Gonzales said.

Once fully accounted for, the mass graves would be used as evidence against CPP-NPA leaders for action by the United Nations, he said.

He maintained Ocampo’s arrest had nothing to do with elections as the case against him was built after almost a year of investigations and evidence-gathering.

He said some of the forensic studies, including DNA-testing of the remains, which is matched to living relatives, have been done with the help of foreign experts. The government earlier sought the help of the international community for forensic expertise to investigate the spate of killings.

"I hope he stops politicizing the case and using it to benefit his bid to be elected. He even had the gall to say that the gravesite was faked when we have the evidence. This is very insulting and exploitative, especially on the part of the victims, who have pinpointed him as the one who ordered the killings," Gonzales said.

Ermita revealed out of the 67 skeletal remains uncovered in Leyte, 15 have been positively identified and matched to living relatives that included former NPA rebels who were able to escape the bloody purge.

"A crime is a crime is a crime, so the long arm of the law finally caught up with him and he’s trying to take advantage of it," Ermita said as he chided Ocampo for the "callous" statement regarding the impact of the arrest on his campaign.

"I’m not sure if his arrest would really translate to votes but what the people know is that he is charged with a crime and he is the one behind bars," he added.

He also reminded leftist party-list groups to renounce and stop supporting the communist insurgency if they want to stop snowballing moves to revive Republic Act 1700 or the Anti-Subversion Law that legalized the communist movement.

Ermita, who pushed for the repeal of RA 1700 in the mid-1990s as a lawmaker, pointed out that legalizing communism does not mean that communist-led rebellion is also legal.

Earlier, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, head of the US Senate Sub-Committee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said the Arroyo administration must be held responsible for failing to stop the spate of unexplained killings and hinted that the much-needed US aid to the Philippines be tied to the human rights situation in the country.

from ---> click me!

Satur Ocampo finds ally in TEAM Unity’s Senator Arroyo

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:33:00 +0800

Joker Arroyo with CPP founder Jose Maria Sison
in his subversion trial in the days of Martial Law

By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez
INQUIRER.net
Last updated 09:03pm (Mla time) 03/09/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- Beleaguered Bayan Muna (People First) Representative Satur Ocampo has found an ally in Senator Joker Arroyo, who criticized the government for reviving old cases against the militant lawmaker and Anakpawis Representative Crispin Beltran.

In a statement, Arroyo said there was something "grievously wrong" about the standing warrant of arrest against Ocampo and the continued detention of Beltran at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City for crimes allegedly committed during the martial law years or before the first EDSA uprising in 1986.

"The Armed Services must re-think its position," said Senator Arroyo, a candidate of the administration’s TEAM Unity ticket.

"It has a responsibility to protect the State and the people from current elements that would want to subvert its authority; at the same time, it has also a duty to adhere to established government policy that what is past is past, otherwise, there will be no stability in government policy," he said.

A warrant of arrest has been issued against Ocampo for his alleged involvement in the purging of his comrades during the martial law years.

Ocampo was formerly spokesman of the National Democratic Front, the political front of the communists.

The Communist Party of the Philippines had ordered the purging of rebels suspected of being deep penetration agents of the Marcos government.

Senator Arroyo said past presidents Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos had made policy positions designed to "put to rest the past adventurisms of the Left and Right."

"The Armed services must restrain itself from digging into the past, which was intended to be buried by past administrations," he said.

Arroyo was a human rights lawyer under the Marcos regime. He served as executive secretary during the Aquino administration.

When Aquino came to power, Arroyo said Proclamation No. 2, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which had been blamed for numerous human rights violations, had been lifted.

"That operated to free all political prisoners who were incarcerated in various military stockades. That amounted to a policy statement that those who were arrested and detained for going against the martial law authorities were free for so long as this time they did not go against the present [Aquino] government," he said.

When Ramos came to power, Arroyo said the former president certified a law repealing the Anti-Subversion Act, which not only benefited the Left but the rightist elements who rebelled against the Aquino administration, including then Colonel Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan.

"That even enabled the detained Gringo Honasan to run and win a seat in the Senate," he said.

from --> click me!

for further reading click here and here

PRESS STATEMENT of Professor Philip Alston

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:41:00 +0800

Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.Manila,
21 February 2007

I have spent the past ten days in the Philippines at the invitation of the Government in order to inquire into the phenomenon of extrajudicial executions. I am very grateful to the Government for the unqualified cooperation extended to me. During my stay here I have met with virtually all of the relevant senior officials of Government.

They include the President, the Executive Secretary, the National Security Adviser, the Secretaries for Defence, Justice, DILG and the Peace Process. I have also met with a significant number of members of Congress on different sides of the political spectrum, the Chief Justice, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Chair of the Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman, the members of both sides of the Joint Monitoring Committee, and representatives of the MNLF and MILF.

Of particular relevance to my specific concerns, I also met with Task Force Usig, and with the Melo Commission, and I have received the complete dossier compiled by TF Usig, as well as the report of the Melo Commission, and the responses to its findings by the AFP and by retired Maj-Gen Palparan. I have also visited Baguio and Davao and met with the regional Human Rights Commission offices, local PNP and AFP commanders, and the Mayor of Davao, among others. Equally importantly, roughly half of my time here was devoted to meetings with representatives of civil society, in Manila, Baguio, and Davao. Through their extremely valuable contributions in the form of documentation and detailed testimony I have learned a great deal.

Let me begin by acknowledging several important elements. The first is that the Government's invitation to visit reflects a clear recognition of the gravity of the problem, a willingness to permit outside scrutiny, and a very welcome preparedness to engage on this issue. The assurances that I received from the President, in particular, were very encouraging.

Second, I note that my visit takes place within the context of a counter-insurgency operation which takes place on a range of fronts, and I do not in any way underestimate the resulting challenges facing the Government and the AFP. Third, I wish to clarify that my formal role is to report to the UN Human Rights Council and to the Government on the situation I have found. I consider that the very fact of my visit has already begun the process of acting as a catalyst to deeper reflection on these issues both within the national and international settings. Finally, I must emphasise that the present statement is only designed to give a general indication of some, but by no means all, of the issues to be addressed, and the recommendations put forward, in my final report. I expect that will be available sometime within the next three months.Sources of information.

The first major challenge for my mission was to obtain detailed and well supported information. I have been surprised by both the amount and the quality of information provided to me. Most key Government agencies are organized and systematic in much of their data collection and classification. Similarly, Philippines civil society organizations are generally sophisticated and professional. I sought, and obtained, meetings across the entire political spectrum. I leave the Philippines with a wealth of information to be processed in the preparation of my final report.

But the question has still been posed as to whether the information provided to me by either all, or at least certain, local NGO groups can be considered reliable. The word propaganda' was used by many of my interlocutors. What I took them to mean was that the overriding goal of the relevant groups in raising EJE questions was to gain political advantage in the context of a broader battle for public opinion and power, and that the HR dimensions were secondary at best. Some went further to suggest that many of the cases were fabricated, or at least trumped up, to look more serious than they are.

I consider it essential to respond to these concerns immediately. First, there is inevitably a propaganda element in such allegations. The aim is to win public sympathy and to discredit other actors. But the existence of a propaganda dimension does not, in itself, destroy the credibility of the information and allegations. I would insist, instead, on the need to apply several tests relating to credibility. First, is it only NGOs from one part of the political spectrum who are making these allegations?

The answer is clearly 'no'. Human rights groups in the Philippines range across the entire spectrum in terms of their political sympathies, but I met no groups who challenged the basic fact that large numbers of extrajudicial executions are taking place, even if they disagreed on precise figures. Second, how compelling is the actual information presented? I found there was considerable variation ranging from submissions which were entirely credible and contextually aware all the way down to some which struck me as superficial and dubious. But the great majority are closer to the top of that spectrum than to the bottom.

Third, has the information proved credible under 'cross-examination' ? My colleagues and I heard a large number of cases in depth and we probed the stories presented to us in order to ascertain their accuracy and the broader context.

As a result, I believe that I have gathered a huge amount of data and certainly much more than has been made available to any one of the major national inquiries.

Extent of my focus

My focus goes well beyond that adopted by either TF Usig or the Melo Commission, both of which are concerned essentially with political and media killings. Those specific killings are, in many ways, a symptom of a much more extensive problem and we should not permit our focus to be limited artificially. The TF Usig/Melo scope of inquiry is inappropriate for me for several reasons:

(a) The approach is essentially reactive. It is not based on an original assessment of what is going on in the country at large, but rather on what a limited range of CSOs report. As a result, the focus then is often shifted (unhelpfully) to the orientation of the CSO, the quality of the documentation in particular cases, etc.;
(b) Many killings are not reported, or not pursued, and for good reason; and
(c) A significant proportion of acknowledged cases of 'disappearances' involve individuals who have been killed but who are not reflected in the figures.

How many have been killed?

The numbers game is especially unproductive, although a source of endless fascination. Is it 25, 100, or 800? I don't have a figure. But I am certain that the number is high enough to be distressing. Even more importantly, numbers are not what count. The impact of even a limited number of killings of the type alleged is corrosive in many ways. It intimidates vast numbers of civil society actors, it sends a message of vulnerability to all but the most well connected, and it severely undermines the political discourse which is central to a resolution of the problems confronting this country. Permit me to make a brief comment on the term 'unexplained killings', which is used by officials and which I consider to be inapt and misleading. It may be appropriate in the context of a judicial process but human rights inquiries are more broad-ranging and one does not have to wait for a court to secure a conviction before one can conclude that human rights violations are occurring. The term 'extrajudicial killings' which has a long pedigree is far more accurate and should be used. Typology It may help to specify the types of killing which are of particular concern in the Philippines:

· Killings by military and police, and by the NPA or other groups, in course of counter-insurgency. To the extent that such killings take place in conformity with the rules of international humanitarian law they fall outside my mandate.
· Killings not in the course of any armed engagement but in pursuit of a specific counterinsurgency operation in the field.

· Killings, whether attributed to the military, the police, or private actors, of activists associated with leftist groups and usually deemed or assumed to be covertly assisting CPP-NPA-NDF. Private actors include hired thugs in the pay of politicians, landowners, corporate interests, and others.· Vigilante, or death squad, killings· Killings of journalists and other media persons.· 'Ordinary' murders facilitated by the sense of impunity that exists. Response by the Government The response of Government to the crisis of extrajudicial executions varies dramatically. There has been a welcome acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem at the very top. At the executive level the messages have been very mixed and often unsatisfactory. And at the operational level, the allegations have too often been met with a response of incredulity, mixed with offence. Explanations proffered When I have sought explanations of the killings I have received a range of answers.

(i) The allegations are essentially propaganda. I have addressed this dimension already.

(ii) The allegations are fabricated. Much importance was attached to two persons who had been listed as killed, but who were presented to me alive. Two errors, in circumstances which might partly explain the mistakes, do very little to discredit the vast number of remaining allegations.

(iii) The theory that the 'correct, accurate, and truthful' reason for the recent rise in killings lies in purges committed by the CPP/NPA. This theory was relentlessly pushed by the AFP and many of my Government interlocutors. But we must distinguish the number of 1,227 cited by the military from the limited number of cases in which the CPP/NPA have acknowledged, indeed boasted, of killings. While such cases have certainly occurred, even those most concerned about them, such as members of Akbayan, have suggested to me that they could not amount to even 10% of the total killings. The evidence offered by the military in support of this theory is especially unconvincing. Human rights organizations have documented very few such cases. The AFP relies instead on figures and trends relating to the purges of the late 1980s, and on an alleged CPP/NPA document captured in May 2006 describing Operation Bushfire. In the absence of much stronger supporting evidence this particular document bears all the hallmarks of a fabrication and cannot be taken as evidence of anything other than disinformation.

(iv) Some killings may have been attributable to the AFP, but they were committed by rogue elements. There is little doubt that some such killings have been committed. The AFP needs to give us precise details and to indicate what investigations and prosecutions have been undertaken in response. But, in any event, the rogue elephant theory does not explain or even address the central questions with which we are concerned. Some major challenges for the future

(a) Acknowledgement by the AFP

The AFP remains in a state of almost total denial (as its official response to the Melo Report amply demonstrates) of its need to respond effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings which have been convincingly attributed to them. The President needs to persuade the military that its reputation and effectiveness will be considerably enhanced, rather than undermined, by acknowledging the facts and taking genuine steps to investigate. When the Chief of the AFP contents himself with telephoning Maj-Gen Palparan three times in order to satisfy himself that the persistent and extensive allegations against the General were entirely unfounded, rather than launching a thorough internal investigation, it is clear that there is still a very long way to go.

(b) Moving beyond the Melo Commission

It is not for me to evaluate the Melo Report. That is for the people of the Philippines to do. The President showed good faith in responding to allegations by setting up an independent commission. But the political and other capital that should have followed is being slowly but surely drained away by the refusal to publish the report. The justifications given are unconvincing. The report was never intended to be preliminary or interim. The need to get 'leftists' to testify is no reason to withhold a report which in some ways at least vindicates their claims. And extending a Commission whose composition has never succeeded in winning full cooperation seems unlikely to cure the problems still perceived by those groups. Immediate release of the report is an essential first step.

(c) The need to restore accountability

The focus on TF Usig and Melo is insufficient. The enduring and much larger challenge is to restore the various accountability mechanisms that the Philippines Constitution and Congress have put in place over the years, too many of which have been systematically drained of their force in recent years. I will go into detail in my final report, but suffice it to note for present purposes that Executive Order 464, and its replacement, Memorandum Circular 108, undermine significantly the capacity of Congress to hold the executive to account in any meaningful way.

(d) Witness protection

The vital flaw which undermines the utility of much of the judicial system is the problem of virtual impunity that prevails. This, in turn, is built upon the rampant problem of witness vulnerability. The present message is that if you want to preserve your life expectancy, don't act as a witness in a criminal prosecution for killing. Witnesses are systematically intimidated and harassed. In a relatively poor society, in which there is heavy dependence on community and very limited real geographical mobility, witnesses are uniquely vulnerable when the forces accused of killings are all too often those, or are linked to those, who are charged with ensuring their security. The WPP is impressive – on paper. In practice, however, itis deeply flawed and would seem only to be truly effective in a very limited number of cases. The result, as one expert suggested to me, is that 8 out of 10 strong cases, or 80% fail to move from the initial investigation to the actual prosecution stage.

(e) Acceptance of the need to provide legitimate political space for leftist groups

At the national level, there has been a definitive abandonment of President Ramos' strategy of reconciliation. This might be termed the Sinn Fein strategy. It involves the creation of an opening the party-list system for leftist groups to enter the democratic political system, while at the same time acknowledging that some of those groups remain very sympathetic to the armed struggle being waged by illegal groups (the IRA in the Irish case, or the NPA in the Philippines case). The goal is to provide an incentive for such groups to enter mainstream politics and to see that path as their best option. Neither the party-list system nor the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Act has been reversed by Congress. But, the executive branch, openly and enthusiastically aided by the military, has worked resolutely to circumvent the spirit of these legislative decisions by trying to impede the work of the party-list groups and to put in question their right to operate freely. The idea is not to destroy the NPA but to eliminate organizations that support many of its goals and do not actively disown its means. While non-violent in conception, there are cases in which it has, certainly at the local level, spilled over into decisions to extrajudicially execute those who cannot be reached by legal process.

(f) Re-evaluate problematic aspects of counter-insurgency strategy

The increase in extrajudicial executions in recent years is attributable, at least in part, to a shift in counterinsurgency strategy that occurred in some areas, reflecting the considerable regional variation in the strategies employed, especially with respect to the civilian population. In some areas, an appeal to hearts-and-minds is combined with an attempt to vilify left-leaning organizations and to intimidate leaders of such organizations. In some instances, such intimidation escalates into extrajudicial execution. This is a grave and serious problem and one which I intend to examine in detail in my final report.

Conclusion
The Philippines remains an example to all of us in terms of the peaceful
ending of martial law by the People's Revolution, and the adoption of a Constitution reflecting a powerful commitment to ensure respect for human rights. The various measures ordered by the President in response to Melo constitute important first steps, but there is a huge amount that remains to be done

Arroyo orders Melo report released

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:55:00 +0800

But media won’t have access to document

By Michael Lim Ubac
Inquirer
Last updated 02:15am (Mla time) 02/17/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- The European Union and the United Nations’ special rapporteur may expect to receive on Monday copies of the Melo Commission’s report on the extrajudicial killings, National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales said yesterday.

The disclosure came on the same day that police and the human rights group Karapatan announced the killing of leftist student leader Farley Alcantara II in Camarines Norte on Thursday. Alcantara was shot dead by a lone gunman who managed to get away.

Gonzales said in an interview that President Macapagal-Arroyo gave him the go-signal on Tuesday to transmit copies of the “thick document” requested by the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, and UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston.

“We’re all after the truth, so we will have to release it to appropriate bodies,” he said.

But the media will not have access to the report containing the Melo Commission’s findings on the unabated killings of journalists and leftist activists since Ms Arroyo took power in 2001.

The report was submitted to Ms Arroyo late last month by the commission chair, retired Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo. Its contents have yet to be made public.

Asked what took him so long to implement the President’s directive, Gonzales said he had to make “some transmittals” to the offices of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye.

“But I was asked by the President to make the decision as early as Tuesday,” he said.

No major discrepancies

Gonzales told the Inquirer that the report had no “major discrepancies” from the earlier statement made by Melo linking the military, particularly retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, to some of the killings.

He reiterated the Palace’s position that the report was “incomplete.”

“It’s a preliminary report only. That’s why we said that we will release it when [it] is already complete,” he said, adding that the Melo Commission was “expected to continue” with its investigation.

He said the commission had no “timeframe” to finish the probe and “come up with its conclusions.”

Gonzales wondered why critics of the President had accused Malacañang of hiding the report: “I don’t know why this issue came out.”

Asked why Malacañang described the report as “inconclusive,” he said: “It only covered 10 percent of what should have been covered.”

Only one source

Ermita said on Thursday that the latest killings in Samar, Bicol and Misamis Oriental should be incorporated into the commission’s final report.

He took militant groups to task for snubbing the invitation of the commission to testify at its hearings, and for supposedly bloating its list of victims.

Asked about the reason for the withholding of the report, Ermita said Malacañang did not want the public to think that the report was based on only one source—Palparan and other generals who served as resource persons.

It was Bunye who told reporters on Thursday that the Palace was temporarily withholding the report.

“The government intends to work closely with the UN to get at the root of the matter although we have held the first Melo report from distribution because it’s still incomplete and, at this point, inconclusive,” he said.

Bunye welcomed the statement of the families of slain activists that they would fully cooperate with Alston and his team.

“This will complete the picture that the Melo Commission could not understandably achieve in view of the refusal of the families to testify before the probe body,” he said.

He added that with the inputs of the UN and “other well-meaning agencies, hopefully we can come up with a more comprehensive appreciation of the issue and undertake all means to resolve it permanently and close the book on it.”

Gonzales said yesterday that he expected the issue of the extrajudicial killings to be resolved soon.

He said the independent inquiries by the EU and the UN team would “tell us how to proceed.”

“Their recommendations are most welcome by the government,” he said.

Oplan Bantay Laya

Bayan Muna, the militant party-list group that lost at least 127 of its leaders and members to extrajudicial killings, lauded the planned creation of special courts devoted entirely to such cases.

But Bayan Muna Representatives Satur Ocampo and Teodoro Casiño told the Inquirer that the initiative of Chief Justice Reynato Puno was bound to fail without Ms Arroyo’s unequivocal support.

They specifically want Ms Arroyo to “rescind” the so-called Oplan Bantay Laya, a military campaign purportedly targeting the Communist Party of the Philippines, its armed wing the New People’s Army, and groups tagged as its fronts.

“What is more crucial at this point is for the President to issue an order to all state security forces not to engage in such killings, to relieve military commanders where the killings happen ... and overhaul the government’s counterinsurgency program,” Casiño said.

To make the special courts work, Ms Arroyo “must first end the policy of abetting, encouraging and sanctioning political killings as contained in Oplan Bantay Laya,” according to Ocampo.

“This policy and counterinsurgency operation-plan have rendered useless all previous investigative bodies, and continue to make justice elusive for victims’ families, and may sabotage the special courts formed by the Chief Justice,” he said in a statement.

Of no use

After meeting on Thursday with the UN team led by Alston, Puno announced that he was forming special courts to concentrate on extrajudicial killings.

Karapatan has listed 832 alleged summary executions since 2001. Of the number, 127 of the victims belonged to Bayan Muna, according to its media coordinator Tonyo Cruz.

“Unfortunately, the executive branch does not share the commitment of Chief Justice Puno to end, investigate and prosecute such cases,” Ocampo said.

He said the special courts would practically be of no use, and predicted that prosecutors and investigators—who are under the executive branch—would “doom all cases against the military and police under the present circumstances.”

Palparan cases dropped

According to Ocampo, all cases against Palparan had been dropped by the Department of Justice.

“The prevailing policy of Ms Arroyo, as implemented by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and Norberto Gonzales, will make it impossible for victims to successfully file cases before the special courts,” he said.

From --> Click Me!

Group slams gov’t withholding Melo report from media

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:50:00 +0800

‘An insult to people’s right to know’ -- NUJP

INQUIRER.net Last updated 12:21pm (Mla time) 02/17/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- A journalists’ union slammed President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s decision to withhold a human rights fact-finding body’s report from media, calling it an “insult to the people’s right to know” and proof of “this administration's policy of governance by exigency and spin.”

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), in a statement signed by its chairman Jose Torres Jr. and secretary general Rowena Carranza-Paraan, said it “cannot accept” Arroyo’s decision to release the report of the Melo Commission to the European Union and visiting United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Philip Alston but not to media.

The NUJP reminded the government that its “first duty is to its citizens. Withholding the Melo report from the media deprives the Filipino people of their basic right to information -- in this case, information that directly relates to the security of lives in this nation.”

“Filipinos paid for the Melo Commission's work with their taxes. The least this government owes them is disclosure,” it said.

The commission, chaired by retired Supreme Court justice Jose Melo, was created last August to investigate the extrajudicial killings human rights groups say have to date claimed more than 830 lives since 2001 after the administration came under increasing local and international pressure on its human rights record.

Its report was submitted to Arroyo last month after which she invited international experts to conduct their own investigations into the killings.

Arroyo’s decision was actually made Tuesday but disclosed only Friday by National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales to whom it was directed, according to a report by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, parent company of INQUIRER.net.

As late as Thursday, Malacañang insisted it was not releasing the report, which it described as “incomplete,” despite a request from Eneko Landaburu, director general for external relations of the European Commission (EC), which like the UN has also been invited to look into the killings, had earlier asked for a copy of the Melo Commission report.

Melo disputed the Palace’s description of the report as incomplete, although he acknowledged that it was “not final” because of the continued killings, which have prompted Arroyo to ask the commission to continue its work.

The NUJP noted that the decision to finally release the Melo report was made after its initial insistence that it be withheld, even from international bodies it had invited, “was met by outrage.”

It also scored the administration for a “favorite tactic -- blaming the victims, in these case militant groups that have lost 800 members in murders the government refused to acknowledge for a long time,” as one of the reasons for describing the report as incomplete and, thus, not fit for release.

“The government has no reason to keep the report secret,” the NUJP said. “It has stated repeatedly that most of the murder victims' kin and colleagues boycotted the Melo hearings. It must trust Filipinos to balance this fact with the findings of the commission.”

It also noted that not all human rights and activist organizations snubbed the Melo Commission’s appeal for cooperation. These groups, it said, “complain of feeling betrayed by the government's refusal to release the Melo report.”

The Melo Commission’s mandate included investigating the murders of journalists, which the NUJP places at 48 since Arroyo came to power in 2001, the highest death toll under any president, including the 14-year dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

from ---> Click Me!

Where Is The Melo Report?

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:27:00 +0800

Gen Jovito Palparan in senate probe

Posted by: Isa Lorenzo on 6 February 2007 at 7:27 pm

IT’S with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who has yet to release it to the public.

For the time being, people have had to rely on statements issued by members of the Melo Commission.

One of the major findings of the 89-page report is that military commanders are mainly responsible for extra-judicial killings. Majority of the victims were leftist activists.

Retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan is among the officers mentioned in the report, according to former Supreme Court justice Jose Melo, who heads the fact-finding commission.

The military perpetrators were soldiers who participated in political killings without supervision from their commanding officers, Melo added.

Other perpetrators of extra-judicial killings include politicians and the security guards of some landlords.

Citing the principle of command responsibility, the report held Armed Forces of the Philippines chief of staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon and other officers responsible for the spate of political killings. However, the report did not hold President Arroyo likewise responsible, even though she is the commander-in-chief of the AFP.

According to a report from Newsbreak, the Melo report also recommends the creation of an independent civilian unit within the AFP that will focus on investigating human rights complaints against members of the military, strengthening the government’s witness protection program, and enhancing the quality of evidence submitted by the police.

Various sectors have scored the government and military’s efforts to address the spate of extra-judicial killings. Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, said in a statement that the CBCP found the government and military’s response ” most unsatisfactory.” Lagdameo added that people should demand for a “greater and more effective performance of their duties as guardians and protectors of our peace.”

Leftist groups and leaders have assailed the Melo report. “The report merely scratches the surface and tells us what we already know, said Bayan Muna representative Teodoro Casiño. Casiño added that the military’s counter-insurgency policies such as Oplan Bantay Laya “are crucial in allowing the likes of Palparan to wreak terror on a national scale.”

Palparan, meanwhile, insisted that none of the killings were committed by soldiers under his command.

Arroyo has said that she would seek help from the European Union in order to assist the Melo commission in continuing its work. The EU is among the numerous members of the international community who have repeatedly expressed their alarm at the continued spate of political killings.

Yet the government’s invitation to other countries to participate in the Melo commission’s investigation is questionable, when the credibility of the commission remains in doubt, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel said in a statement.

Pimentel added that Malacañang officials have admitted that the Melo report is incomplete and one-sided because it focuses only on the testimonies of military and police generals, and does not present the side of the witnesses and relatives of victims of political killings.

The Melo commission was formed last August in response to the outcry against extra-judicial killings. It completed its report in four months, just before President Arroyo was due to visit Switzerland for the World Economic Forum.

The leftist umbrella alliance Bagong Alyansang Makabayan believes that the report’s release was purposely timed with Arroyo’s trip, in order to soften international condemnation toward the killings.

Yet until the Melo report is released in its entirety, both the international community and the Filipino people can dig no deeper than the statements made by members of the Melo commission and by those who have apparently read it.

Or will it go the way of another controversial fact-finding report — the Mayuga report, which probed into charges of fraud during the May 2004 elections, and which has also yet to be released in its entirety? The Mayuga report cleared the four generals mentioned in the “Hello, Garci” tapes and remained silent on other top military officials that had also been linked to allegations of cheating.

Critics argue that it is pointless to create fact-finding bodies if their findings and recommendations are never released to the public. Pimentel says that it is ludicrous for President Arroyo to order the Melo commission to continue its investigation when she has not bothered to release the Melo report.

They agree that in order for the merits of the Melo report to be adequately analyzed and adjudged, its contents must be fully disclosed.

from --> Click Me!

EU to ask Arroyo: Why can’t we get Melo report?

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:20:00 +0800

By Cynthia Balana, Fe Zamora, Gil C. Cabacungan Jr.
Inquirer
Last updated 02:53am (Mla time) 02/16/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- The European Union will seek more information on the Melo Commission’s report on the killing of journalists and leftist activists despite Malacañang’s refusal to provide the EU a copy.

Eneko Landaburu, the European Commission’s director general for external relations, met with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on Thursday to clarify the refusal. But it could not be immediately determined if the matter was indeed taken up at the meeting.

The European Commission is the executive body of the 27-nation European Union.

“I’m going to see your President this afternoon and we’ll discuss exactly the issue, and we’ll see [what the EU decision will be],” Landaburu told reporters during the launch of the P750-million Mindanao Health Sector Policy Program at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

“At this stage, we’re waiting for more official information on the report. I hope that by the next day, it will be possible to have the information that we need to be able to assess what’s on the report and maybe prepare an answer,” he said.

The President had sought the participation of the EU in the inquiry into the unabated killings, but the EU said it needed a copy of the report to determine how it could help.

Ambassador Alistair MacDonald, head of the EC delegation in Manila, said it would be best to hear it from Ms Arroyo herself.

“We don’t rely on third-party information,” MacDonald said, referring to Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita’s remarks on Wednesday.

Ermita said on Wednesday that the 89-page report was “by no means complete” because Ms Arroyo had directed the commission chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo to continue with its work.

Thus, Ermita said, Malacañang would not be able to provide copies to the EU as well as to Philip Alston, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, who is in the Philippines on a 10-day visit.

The report has yet to be made public, but Melo said retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan and other military commanders should be held accountable for the killings on the principle of command responsibility.

Watching Arroyo

MacDonald, one of the members of the diplomatic corps who attended a two-hour meeting with the Melo Commission on Thursday, also said the EU was watching how Ms Arroyo would implement its recommendations.

“We are certainly very interested to know how the government intends to pursue these follow-up activities,” he said.

Steven Rheault-Kihara, counselor of the Canadian Embassy, said “the general consensus” of the diplomats who attended the meeting was that the commission was “very sincere and honest in its findings.”

Melo, along with National Bureau of Investigation Director Nestor Mantaring, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño and University of the Philippines Regent Nelia Gonzales, briefed the diplomatic corps on the results of its inquiry into the killings.

The retired justice also renewed the invitation to the rights watchdog Karapatan and other militant groups to attend the commission’s hearings and disclose what they knew.

“I am personally inviting Karapatan to come forward. We are ready to hear them,” Melo said.

But a member of the commission, Butuan Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos, took Karapatan to task for distrusting the commission’s efforts.

“Sayang talaga (It’s such a pity). It (the report) could have been more objective. That’s why I am really blaming them,” the bishop said in a phone interview.
Disservice to victims

The militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) said Malacañang’s refusal to furnish Alston and the EU copies of the Melo report was “a disservice to all victims of human rights abuses.”

“In failing to release the report, the Arroyo government only shows callousness toward the victims and gross insincerity in stopping the cycle of state-sponsored violence,” Bayan secretary general Renato Reyes Jr. said in a statement.

Reyes pointed out that a month after the Melo Commission announced that it had submitted its report to the Palace, “the Filipino people and the concerned international community [are still] in the dark.”

He said a possible reason for the secrecy was that there was actually no complete report, and that the announcement of the submission of a report was intended to boost Ms Arroyo’s “sagging approval ratings in the EU.”

Another possible reason, he said, was the Arroyo administration’s purported inability to hold some military generals accountable for the killings, especially during the election season.

“For whatever its weaknesses may be, the Melo report has tagged generals like ... Palparan responsible for the killings. However, ... it is the election season and the administration does not want to antagonize the military at this crucial period,” he said, adding:

“Historically, the military is important for the electoral interests of any administration.”

Reyes also speculated that the report was being held hostage by the “hawks” in the administration. He pointed out that the “finding” blaming some generals for the killings could affect Malacañang’s counterinsurgency program.

Enrile
Alston and his team and the EU members met Thursday with Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, the current chair of the Senate committee on justice and human rights, in the hope of getting Congress’ cooperation in their probe.

But by his account to reporters, Enrile gave his visitors a talking-to.

“They were asking questions about extrajudicial killings and I said that’s a police matter, and that if there is any need to enact corrective legislation, we will do it. But we have conducted hearings on these things and the laws are sufficient to deal with the problem,” said the architect of martial law in the Philippines.

Enrile recalled a similar encounter with a foreign human rights activist during the martial law era, who “came to see me and lectured me about human rights.”

“I told her, Look, have you handled an insurgency problem in your country? No, she said. So I said, ‘Don’t lecture me then on how to handle the insurgency problem,’” Enrile said.

He said he told the Alston/EU group the same thing: “I told them there is more to this problem than just suspecting other people.”

According to the senator, some of his guests reddened (“namumula”) and fell silent (“hindi umiimik”).

Enrile said he also told a German official in the group that like Germany’s strategy in going after terrorists, “we do the same thing -- we do intelligence work.”

Interference

“We’ve handled insurgency problems in the country but I have never allowed foreigners to interfere with my work. After all, if this country will sink, they will be safe in their country and we Filipinos will be the one who will suffer,” he said.

Enrile said if there was a problem in the unresolved killings, “it should be the function of the department head to look into the problem.”

“When I was defense secretary (under Ferdinand Marcos), when I hear of any misbehavior of any military officer or enlisted personnel, I act immediately. I don’t have to wait for any other agency to look into the matter,” he said.

Enrile also said it was he who had brought up the issue against Palparan, whom activists have tagged a “berdugo” (butcher): “I was the one who mentioned Palparan [at a] public hearing during the confirmation [of his promotion to major general], where members of the House who were complaining about him did not present complete evidence to warrant the disapproval of his confirmation.”

The senator said he saw no need to rush public disclosure of the Melo report.

But he added that he did not view the foreigners’ inquiry into the extrajudicial killings as undue interference: “They just want to find out if we are adhering to international conventions [on human rights] that we signed.”

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said Alston had expressed concern over the government’s treatment of supposed legal fronts of the Communist Party of the Philippines.

Enemies

Alston pointed out that the government “considers these legal fronts as enemies,” Gonzalez told reporters after meeting with the UN special rapporteur at the Department of Justice.

He said Alston had maintained that leftist party-list groups were using their funds legally: “He was sticking to his position that if the [CPP] is legal, all the funds are legal.”

Gonzalez said he told Alston that the legal fronts had been fighting the government.
Documents on CPP fronts

He also said the government had documents and a videotape showing Jose Ma. Sison, chief political consultant of the National Democratic Front (NDF), and his wife identifying the militant groups Migrante, Bayan and Gabriela as fronts of the CPP.

Gonzalez said Alston’s report to the UN, if unfavorable, would reflect badly on the Philippines.

But the UN cannot impose sanctions on the country, he said.

He likewise said that his meeting with Alston was “not antagonistic,” and that he thought he had disarmed the latter.

“I thought he was already brainwashed. You know, he first met, not with the government, but with Karapatan,” Gonzalez said.

from ---> Click Me!

Palace refuses to give copy of Melo report

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:02:00 +0800

Marcos/GMA same pair, same blood

Ermita: Findings still not complete
By Michael Lim Ubac
Inquirer
Last updated 01:52am (Mla time) 02/15/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- Malacañang has refused to furnish the European Union and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ special rapporteur a copy of the findings of the Melo Commission, insisting that the report on extrajudicial killings was still incomplete.

The report, which has yet to be made public, linked some of the killings of leftist activists to the military, particularly retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo formed the Melo Commission, which is chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo, in August 2006.

Both the EU and UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston have asked the Palace for a copy of the report.

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita on Wednesday said at his regular weekly briefing that the commission’s report was just “a preliminary report” and “by no means complete.”

He reminded reporters that Ms Arroyo had earlier directed the Melo Commission “to continue with its work.”

Short of saying that the report was one-sided, Ermita pointed out that vital “resource persons” other than military and police officials had not accepted the commission’s invitation to attend its hearings.

The families of those killed, as well as members of militant groups, had expressed doubt on the commission’s independence and ignored its invitation.

Alston and his team have been kept busy meeting with officials and members of the Armed Forces, the defense department, the Philippine National Police’s Task Force Usig, and the Melo Commission.

He had a meeting with Ermita at the Palace on Monday, where the latter pledged the cooperation of the Arroyo administration, including “all the information that [Alston and his team] need, short of allowing them interference in our court system.”

Overview of insurgency

Ermita said Palace officials had given Alston, who is here on a 10-day visit, a briefing.

“We talked about his purpose for coming to the Philippines,” Ermita said.

He said he had to give Alston “an overview of the insurgency,” to “look at the issue of extrajudicial killings in the context of the overall insurgency problems in the Philippines” -- a reference to the 38-year communist insurgency and the Moro secessionist movement in the south.

Ermita said this gave Alston a good background “on why these things are happening.”

He said he also told Alston and company that the AFP was using the term “unexplained killings” to refer to the murders.

Arroyo’s CHR

Ermita said Alston’s inquiry into the killings was being supported by Ms Arroyo “for purposes of transparency, to show them that the government under the President is doing everything to address this.”

The EU, which has repeatedly expressed alarm at the unabated killings, will also conduct its own probe. But it had said it needed a copy of the Melo report to do this.

Asked if Alston’s inquiry would open the proverbial can of worms, Ermita said: “I always say that the truth will always come out.”

He also said Alston had been shown “pictures of mass graves” of civilians and communist cadres believed to have been executed by the communist New People’s Army.

“It’s up to [Alston] how he will look at it ... and make his own assessment,” Ermita said.

Ermita also announced that Ms Arroyo had named Cecilia Quisumbing, daughter of Supreme Court Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, executive director of the President’s Committee on Human Rights, which Ermita heads.

The young Quisumbing has worked for the broadcast network CNBC and served as the Philippine consultant to the UN mission involved in human rights.

Ermita told reporters Ms Arroyo was convinced that Quisumbing, “being like you a journalist, and a foreign journalist at that,” would be “very helpful” as the committee’s executive director.

Tearful accounts

On Wednesday, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings met with survivors and relatives of the victims, according to Ruth Cervantes, spokesperson of the rights group Karapatan.

The Associated Press quoted Cervantes, who attended the meeting, as saying that Alston had met with about 20 relatives of slain leftist activists.

The venue of the meeting was not disclosed to protect the complainants, AP said.

Cervantes said activists gave Alston’s team a briefing on alleged human rights abuses under the Arroyo administration. Then the victims started to recount the attacks, some breaking into tears, Cervantes said.

Among them was Josie Javier, who was shot with her husband in their rural home north of Manila last October by suspected soldiers, who resented his membership in a left-wing urban poor group. Javier’s husband died in the attack.

“As I think of my husband this Valentine’s Day, I hope that Mr. Alston really listened to our story and will do everything in his power to give us justice,” Javier said in a statement.

The victims had sought the meeting with Alston in an effort to urge the UN and other foreign groups to pressure Ms Arroyo to take drastic steps to halt the killings, Cervantes said.

She added: “The victims have gone to the courts, Congress and the CHR (Commission on Human Rights), but the killings have not stopped.”

Karapatan has listed 832 summary killings, including 356 leftist activists, since Ms Arroyo took office in 2001. But the administration has disputed the figures and blamed many deaths on purges within the communist movement.

NDF too

Even officials of the National Democratic Front, the political arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, wants to meet with Alston in their base in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

The invitation was contained in a letter hand-delivered to Alston in Quezon City Wednesday by the staff of the NDF-Joint Secretariat.

In the letter, NDF negotiation panel chair Luis Jalandoni said Alston and his team could meet with other NDF negotiators and monitors in Utrecht “to discuss matters of mutual concern regarding the human rights situation” in the Philippines.

Jalandoni also gave Alston a study of 23 cases of extrajudicial killings that have yet to be resolved.

“The submission of human rights groups are supported mainly by fact sheets which contain enough material information for conducting an impartial investigation by concerned parties; the submission by the AFP and PNP representatives are woefully lacking in supporting documents and information,” Jalandoni said in a statement issued from Utrecht.

Jalandoni also lamented that the 23 killings had been blamed on the CPP/NPA/NDF by the police and military, causing “grave injustice to the victims.”

The 23 cases in the study given Alston included 17 victims who were members of groups “viciously vilified” by the government, Jalandoni said.

He said these included the party-list groups Bayan Muna and Anakpawis, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas and affiliated peasant organizations, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Karapatan, United Church of Christ of the Philippines, and Promotion of Church People’s Response (PCPR).

Military document

The AFP is not lacking in papers.

On Tuesday, defense and military officials gave “reference materials” to Alston during a briefing at Camp Aguinaldo.

The military said that the CPP-NPA was behind the liquidation of 1,335 persons from 2000 to 2006 and that most of these incidents happened in communist-infested areas of Bicol, Central Luzon, Southern Mindanao, Eastern Visayas, Southern Tagalog and Caraga.

According to the military document, many of those killed, or 650, were civilians or ordinary citizens; 499 were military and police personnel; and the rest were former rebels and rebel returnees and government officials.

Of the 111 local government officials, 64 were purported barangay chairs of “communist-affected or threatened barangays.”

The document said 336 other persons were killed for failing to give in to the communists’ extortion demands; for suspicion they were government informants; and for malversation of funds of the movement, among others.

It also said the CPP had conducted purging operations from 1986 until the 1990s.

“The areas where the purging occurred are the same areas that are currently experiencing a high level of unexplained killings,” it said.

‘Look, listen, judge’

But the Church-based PCPR called on Alston not to be “fooled” by Palace, police and military officials.

“Look, listen and judge beyond the Malacañang-AFP-PNP cover-up on state accountability over the 833 cases of political killings under Arroyo,” the PCPR said in a statement.

The group said it had received reports that the killing of Aglipayan Bishop Alberto Ramento on Oct. 3, 2006, was supposedly cited as a robbery case during one of Alston’s meetings with government officials.

It maintained that Ramento was killed, not by thieves, but by “state agents ordered to eliminate groups and personalities advocating regime change.”

“As we have [written] Mr. Alston earlier, the fact that Bishop Ramento and 23 other church people were not spared is a glaring manifestation of an extreme level of state repression,” the PCPR said.

Challenge to Senate bets

Anakpawis Rep. Rafael Mariano challenged both administration and opposition senatorial candidates to publicly condemn the killings.

“We are already on the second day of the 90-day campaign period and we have yet to hear the stand of senatorial candidates on [this matter],” Mariano said.

He said the network of the leftist party-list groups in the grass roots would work in favor of senatorial candidates who would speak out against the killings.”

from---> Click Me!

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:42:00 +0800

Our sincerest condolences to the

Mother of our fellow

PATH Brother Atty. Omi Dolleton

Who passed away last week.

Let us all pray for her soul...

LIVING & DYING

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:40:00 +0800

You are warmly invited to the launching of :

LIVING & DYING "In memory of 11 Ateneo De Manila Martial Law Activists"
by Cristina Jayme Montiel
4:30 to 6:00 pm
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Social Development Complex Conference Hall
Ateneo De Manila University
Loyola Heights, Quezon City

RSVP Vangie @ 4265984/4266001 loc. 4613

Catholic Church involved in forced evictions

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:52:00 +0800

15 January 2007

15 January 2007 00:01 GMT

(Angola) Amnesty International today released a report revealing the scale and extent of forced evictions in Angola, and expressing particular concern at forced evictions carried out by Angolan authorities, apparently at the request of the Catholic Church in Angola.

The organization said that nearly all of the forced evictions were accompanied by excessive use of force, which sometimes involved police beatings of children and women -- including one pregnant woman -- and indiscriminate shooting at residents attempting to protect their homes.

According to the report, Lives in ruins: forced evictions continue, thousands of families have been forcibly evicted since 2001 -- nearly always without notification to the families affected. Tens of thousands have been left without shelter, with hundreds of families still living their lives in ruins.

Since September 2004, the homes of residents in the Kilamba Kiaxi municipality have been demolished repeatedly to make room for public and private housing projects. In 2006, the Angolan government publicly acknowledged the right to compensation of those forcibly evicted, and proclaimed that it was reviewing its housing strategy with a view to responding to the housing needs of its urban population. Thus far, none of the affected residents of Kilamba Kiaxi has received compensation or alternative adequate accommodation.

"Despite these claims by the government, the housing situation in Luanda has not improved -- in fact, hundreds of families are still homeless after having been forced from their homes," said Tawanda Hondora, Deputy Director of Amnesty International's Africa Programme. "Disturbingly, many forced evictions in the last two years have been carried out apparently at the request of the Catholic Church."

In 1998, the Angolan government formally returned to the Catholic Church land the Church owned prior to independence, in response to a request by the late Pope John Paul II when he visited Angola in 1992. However, families have been living on this land -- in the Wenji Maka neighbourhood of Luanda -- for several years, or even decades in some cases.

When granting the land title to the Catholic Church, Angolan authorities reportedly did not take into consideration those people already living on the land, and national police have repeatedly tried to expel over 2,000 families in the area where the Catholic Church intends to build a sanctuary.

In response to Amnesty International's request for information regarding the Catholic Church's involvement in these forced evictions, the Archbishop of Luanda stated the Church, when reclaiming title over land, had asked the government to provide land in other areas for the affected individuals. The Archbishop also alleged that in many instances individuals put up constructions on land when they found out that the Church had intentions to use the land. The Archbishop further justified the actions of the Church by saying "summum ius summa iniuria" (extreme law, extreme justice) -- or, as the Archbishop interpreted it, "justica absoluta pode desembocar em injustica" (absolute justice can result in injustice).

"The Catholic Church should not ask the Angolan authorities to evict people occupying land to which the Church has been granted title," said Tawanda Hondora.

"However, the primary responsibility for forced evictions rests with the Angolan government, which must not only stop all such illegal action, but also provide assistance to victims of previous forced evictions who remain without shelter and issue clear orders to law enforcement personnel that they must not take part in any further forced evictions and prosecute those responsible for human rights violations."

Background
The Angolan government is reportedly planning the biggest urban project ever attempted in Africa, and is implementing other construction projects with the support of the Chinese government. The resulting increased pressure for urban land is resulting in forced evictions of the poorest families of Luanda from various neighbourhoods in the capital city, driving such families into ever deeper poverty.

from ---> click me!

Bus Driver Raped by Police Faces New Risk of Torture

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:46:00 +0800

Egyptian Authorities Responsible for Safety of Torture Victim Sentenced to Prison

(Cairo, January 13, 2007) — A criminal court in Giza this week sentenced `Imad al-Kabir, a 21-year-old microbus driver tortured and raped by police last year, to three months in prison for resisting authorities and assaulting an officer, Human Rights Watch said today. Al-Kabir now risks being sent back to the same police station where he was tortured by police officers who later circulated a video of his rape.

Al-Kabir told Human Rights Watch that two plainclothes officers detained him on January 18, 2006, after he intervened in an altercation between the officers and his cousin. He said that the officers took him to Bulaq al-Dakrur police station, where they beat him, tied him by his wrists and ankles, and raped him with a stick while one of the officers made a video of the torture with his mobile phone. The video shows al-Kabir screaming and begging for mercy while being raped.

A police report dated January 18, 2006, indicated that al-Kabir was arrested for “resisting authorities” and assaulting a civil servant performing his duties. On January 9, roughly a month after after al-Kabir complained to prosecutors about the abuse he suffered in custody, Judge Samir Abu al-Mati sentenced al-Kabir to three months is prison.

“Egyptian authorities are responsible for `Imad al-Kabir’s safety in custody,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East Director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities must not send al-Kabir back to face further harm or intimidation, and they should take immediate steps to prosecute the people who tortured him.”

According to al-Kabir, police told him they circulated the video among other microbus drivers from his neighborhood to “break his spirit.” Egyptian bloggers posted the video in early November, sparking intense press interest and public outcry.

In early December, al-Kabir publicly identified two of the officers who tortured him as Capt. Islam Nabih and Corp. Rida Fathi of the Bulaq al-Dakrur police station and filed a complaint with the public prosecutor. The prosecutor summoned al-Kabir on December 12 for questioning regarding his complaint and on December 24 ordered the two held for questioning. In a separate hearing on January 9, Judge al-Mati, the same judge who sentenced al-Kabir to prison, also denied bail to the two police officers, whose trial is scheduled to begin in March.

“The state has an obligation to protect al-Kabir as a witness in a torture case,” Whitson said. “Sending a torture victim back to the same place where he said he was tortured on charges brought by his alleged torturers raises enormous concerns about his safety.”

The Convention Against Torture, which Egypt ratified in 1986, requires that anyone alleging torture and any witnesses to the torture should be “protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.” The same Convention states that Egypt is obliged to prohibit any form of torture or ill treatment and to protect victims by carrying out thorough, impartial and prompt investigations into allegations of torture and filing criminal charges where appropriate.

Article 42 of Egypt’s constitution provides that any person in detention “shall be treated in a manner concomitant with the preservation of his dignity” and that “no physical or moral (ma`nawi) harm is to be inflicted upon him.” But article 126 of Egypt’s Penal Code gives a narrow definition of torture as physical abuse alone occurring only when the victim is “an accused,” and only when it is being used in order to coerce a confession. This definition improperly excludes cases of mental or psychological abuse, and cases where the torture is committed against someone other than “an accused” or for purposes other than securing a confession.

Human Rights Watch and Egyptian lawmakers have repeatedly called on the government to change the Penal Code to incorporate Egypt’s obligations under international human rights law and also to amend laws that allow the government to hold detainees incommunicado for months at a time. Incommunicado detention makes it easy to mistreat suspects with impunity and have allowed torture to become commonplace in Egyptian detention facilities, Human Rights Watch said.

“The fact that the people who tortured `Imad al-Kabir videotaped their crime suggests that they thought they could get away with it,” Whitson said. “The government must end the shadowy culture of impunity that the video exposed.”

from--->click me!

the real chain of command

noreply@blogger.com (PATH) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:21:00 +0800

from --> click me!