AS-244-2006
10 October 2006

After Bishop Alberto Ramento of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI), or Philippine Independent Church, was killed on October 3, police investigators were quick to declare his death as a case of robbery and homicide. Two days later the Philippine National Police (PNP) pronounced Bishop Ramento's case 'solved' following the arrest of four alleged suspects in Tarlac City - all of whom had criminal records. While the PNP insists Bishop Ramento's brutal murder was not politically motivated, his family believes otherwise. To counter public opinion to this effect inside the country and abroad, the police resorted to labelling these accusations as simply 'propaganda.'

Whether or not Bishop Ramento’s murder was politically motivated, his brutal death is an example of a failed protection system and an unwillingness of the police authorities to acknowledge this fact. The PNP, in particular the Tarlac City police, cannot exonerate themselves of their obvious failure to afford protection to Bishop Ramento who had been the subject of continual threats on his life. Instead of effectively addressing this long-overdue problem, reflecting a lack of concern by the authorities, the police have tried to downplay the strong public reaction and have rather merely tried to excuse themselves of being at fault.

Granting the police's claim that the arrested suspects are ordinary criminals and there had been previous forced entries into Bishop Ramento's convent - an attempt again by the police to downplay the political motivation of the case - it still remains that the police failed to furnish security to Bishop Ramento. If someone of Bishop Ramento's stature was not afforded adequate protection given that he had repeatedly received death threats, how much more vulnerable are the country's poor ordinary citizens? When the police authorities cannot ensure protection to citizens facing grave risks, whether or not they are politically motivated, a protection mechanism is obviously non-existent. Moreover, the police's attempt to exonerate themselves from any responsibility for Bishop Ramento's death by insisting his murder was not politically motivated does not excuse them of accountability for not preventing his death.

The late Bishop Ramento was not the only person critical of the government, vocal in condemning extrajudicial killings and human rights violations, who had also received serious threats on their life that was killed. This pattern of continuously threatening activists and subsequently killing them has already cost the lives of a number of human rights defenders and others. This is also the case, for example, of Bishop Ramento's fellow IFI priest, Fr. William Tadena, and lawyer Abelardo Ladera who were both killed in Tarlac in March 2005. These are among the many cases of social activists killed who were not able to secure protection.

Three days after Bishop Ramento's death Fr. Antonio Ablon of the IFI in Cagayan de Oro City on Mindanao once again began receiving threatening messages that read: "Fr. Ablon, even the supreme bishop was killed; we will make you an example here." Fr. Ablon though is not the only IFI priest to receive serious threats on their life in the wake of Bishop Ramento's death. Other IFI priests have received similar messages, including Fr. Terry Revollido of Pangasinan, Fr. Romeo Tagud, Fr. Marco Sulayao of Panay in the Visayas region and Fr. Sonny Teleron of Western Mindanao. Once again, the responsibility to immediately ensure the safety of these religious people rests on the government. The authorities must now take a proactive role to deal with this serious problem instead of excusing themselves of any responsibility for the lives and safety of the citizens of the Philippines.

Should anything happen to these people, the burden lies on the government, in particular the PNP and the Department of Justice (DoJ), for their failure to adequately afford them security and protection. We call on the government to seriously deal with this concern. The relevant government agencies must exhaust all means to stop the relentless extrajudicial killings taking place in the Philippines. One response that the government should take without delay is to implement the December 2003 concluding observations of the U.N. Human Rights Committee under para. 8(a): "the State party should adopt legislative and other measures to prevent such violations."

There is also a need to review the implementation of Republic Act 6981, or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. Given the pattern of witnesses or social activists facing threats to their lives without being provided with any protection, the DoJ, as the implementing agency, must explain why this law is failing to safeguard the lives of people. The DoJ's inadequate action to implement this law is totally unacceptable. Not only is it denying protection to social activists facing threats to their lives, but the failure to protect witnesses threatens the effective prosecution of cases in court.

We call on the Philippine government to demonstrate its serious commitment to human rights as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council by putting an end to these extrajudicial killings. It must prove its utmost commitment to ensure the protection and security of social activists and citizens who are in grave danger. A country which claims abroad to the international community that it is upholding human rights must prove it is so at home. We also call upon the intentional community to sustain efforts to closely monitor the
protection of human rights in the Philippines and to create a movement to realise this objective.

Reference:
Asian Human Rights Commission

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.