Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on April 3rd, 2012

[Angelina Bisuña-Ipong]

It would really be good if the courts would function well, but in the Philippines right now the courts do not function well. It takes so long. It is snail-paced to get justice from the courts.

Whether they are independent is a good question, because in many cases you don't get justice. Everything takes a long time. At the same time, only those who have the means, those who have the money, the power, receive satisfaction. But it's not justice. Actually, you can buy justice in the Philippines. That is what happened in many of the cases we have. We try to introduce these things in the courts, but nothing really happens. How many years would it take? That is why I said that justice delayed is justice denied.

We are very sorry. There is a lot to be done in the Philippine courts right now. They have to be challenged, made to do their work. They have to answer the needs of the people, especially the poor people, who will not get justice because they do not have the means. We must address the courts for them.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm wondering about the use of United Nations mechanisms and whether these could be helpful—for example, having the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances come to the Philippines. I gather there's been a request for that. The government has not yet responded.

Would a UN mechanism help in the protection...even an inquiry by the United Nations Human Rights Council with respect to the commission of these violations and the culture of impunity?

[Angelina Bisuña-Ipong]

The United Nations actually can help very much, as with what the rapporteur on extrajudicial killing, Philip Alston, did. But there are many cases now where the observers are not even allowed to go to the Philippines to see what's really happening. We have moved for that also in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Did you want to add to that, Ms. Clamor? I noticed you were about to say something.

[Merry Mia-Clamor]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We go to Madam Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of you for your time and your presentations.

I have two questions. I'll be as fast as possible; my time is short.

The UN's declaration on enforced disappearances defines extensive situations of individuals being arrested or detained, even abducted against their will, and deprived of their liberty and various rights by several branches of the government. So this, as well as the extensive extrajudicial killings, seems to be an ongoing and grave concern for the president as well as the international community.

In your opinion, why are these extrajudicial tortures and disappearances such a prevalent issue within the nation? To the best of your knowledge, which groups do you believe are the most responsible for these crimes? Do you think these crimes are being perpetuated more by the security forces of the country, or private entities, or non-state groups? Furthermore, which types of groups and individuals are being targeted the most in these enforced disappearances and murders?

[Angelina Bisuña-Ipong]

Actually, all of those human rights violations, the extrajudicial killings, that we have presented here are perpetrated by state actors. There are many things we have made in terms of documentations wherein the state actors are the ones who are responsible.

The problem is that there's so much crime committed but no criminals are found. There is this climate of impunity. No one becomes responsible for these acts, and no one is prosecuted. No one is made to answer for the crimes that have been committed, even those who have already been targeted.

For example, we have a general who is considered a butcher; everywhere he went there was a bloodbath. The courts have said that he should be arrested, but where is he? He went to fly away from the country but then he was stopped at Immigration. Later, when he was supposed to go to court, he could not be found. Up until now he has been on the loose.

We feel there must be political will to be able to get these people to answer for the crimes they have committed, but it is absent. This is not what we want to happen. The climate of impunity can never stop if the government does not have the political will to get justice for victims.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I understand that the Canadian mining company TVI, as you were saying in your presentation, has been active in Mindanao, Philippines, and that there have been various reports from human rights groups and activists criticizing their activities. There have also been extensive concerns from witnesses regarding their projects, mainly negative political, environmental, and social impacts, as well as their effects on indigenous land rights, and the use of military trained security forces. It has been stated that this has actually contributed to an increased militarization of the region and aided the violations of human rights.

In your opinion, do you believe the Canadian mining companies are responsible for these negative contributions to the human rights problems in the Philippines through their various operations and activities?

[Bishop Reuel Norman Marigza]

They may not be directly responsible for giving orders. They hire the paramilitary trained by our armed forces, our security forces. They are now even called the Investment Defense Force in the Philippines. They are the ones who are usually linked with human rights violations, especially against indigenous people.

[Shaun Fryday]

I would link them more directly. I would say yes, they are responsible. They do not live in a vacuum. If they hire the guns and the guns are used, who's responsible? You can't use Sherman's defence of burning Atlanta in terms of historical precedents or something. You are clearly implicated in this.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Madame Péclet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

First of all, I would like to know whether the International Committee of the Red Cross has full access to the official and unofficial places of detention used by the government.

Can you comment on that? Do you know whether the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to the places under the control of armed groups, whether governmental or non-governmental?

[Bishop Reuel Norman Marigza]

The Philippine Red Cross has not been very active in issues like this, but I know for a fact that, as in the case of the Morong 43, not even our commission on human rights could enter the military town. The chief commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights for the Philippines was not allowed to enter the detention facilities. Imagine that. It was too much.

[Dr. Merry Mia-Clamor]

In addition to that, for those military camps and other detention facilities the International Red Cross can't really visit, but the problem in the country is that there are safe houses, unofficial houses, being used by the security forces to keep the detainees, and the ICRC or even the government institutions do not really know about them.

[Angelina Bisuña-Ipong]

In my case, I was brought from camp to camp, but they were not regular detention centres. We were tortured there. We were incommunicado there. They would not let any of my visitors come in. Why don't they bring us to the regular detention centre right away? But that is where they do all these tortures and where all these human rights violations are happening.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

There was also a mention of laws passed by the State, including one against torture. Do you know if that has managed to prevent any occurrences? Does the government claim to be bound by that law?

[Dr. Merry Mia-Clamor]

We enacted a law against torture in 2009, but we were arrested and tortured in 2010. Even with the law, the implementation is very poor. Those who should be upholding this law and implementing it are the ones who do this.

[Bishop Reuel Norman Marigza]

It may interest the committee, your honours, that Canada has said that security forces must be trained in human rights and on responsibilities to put back human rights. But in the findings of Amnesty International...there's a quote from the handbook that says:

It is imperative that soldiers are conversant with the HR [human rights] standards in order to survive the ordeals of investigation in cases when he becomes involved in a HR violation.

It's not to tell them not to commit human rights violations but to make them conversant, so that when they are investigated they know what to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We'll go now to Mr. Marston. After that we'll go very briefly to Mr. Sweet, and that will end the questions.

Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Very quickly, it's not a question; it's a comment.

This committee is at kind of a watershed moment. We have an opportunity to visit this community, to visit the Philippines. Just visiting with the people, the churches, and those on that vilification list will shine a light on the situation and put the government of the day on notice that it's being watched.

We know impunity is something that's going to take generations to push back, but part of what we could do as a committee.... And it's important for us to give some consideration to it. Oftentimes we're asked to investigate and do things, but this is I think in a simple form. The Philippines are an ally with the west and have been since the Second World War. There are places where subtle pressures could be brought to bear, and we should be considering this as a committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

Mr. Sweet, please.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one last question in order to really make sure we have enough on the record. The bishop was just mentioning that he feels that some training that has happened—or at least some directives that have happened to security forces—were really to insulate them from any kind of prosecution they might face if they themselves were to be involved in human rights infractions.

But I wanted to ask this, or maybe it's almost rhetoric at this point. You're saying that after the universal periodic review, where there was a recommendation for the security forces to be trained in regard to human rights, the appropriate behaviour to ensure individual citizens' human rights, they instead simply chose this directive to insulate themselves rather than actually training the people? In essence, this made no difference other than maybe making them wiser in their pursuit of these infractions. Is that what you're saying?