EU partners with Philippines in improving witness protection Special

Makati – On Thursday, October 28, European Union – Philippines Justice Support Program (EPJUST) gathered government and non-government organizations at the Filipinas Heritage Library to discuss the situation of witness protection programs in the Philippines.

The aim of this one-day forum was to “provide a venue for key agencies involved with witness protection to share their experiences on (witness protection) and also their feedback on its current state of play in the Philippines,” according to their statement. EPJUST experts also briefly discussed the witness protection program of the European Union and the alternatives they use in protecting witnesses.

The program was formally opened by Senior Justice Expert and EPJUST Team Leader Detlev Mehlis. In his introduction, he stressed the importance of having good witnesses and gaining their confidence to come forward. Mehlis went on to point out that according to Department of Justice (DOJ) Sec De Lima, the conviction rate in Extra-Judicial Killings (EJKs) has so far been 1%, a clear indication that if we want to see changes, the Philippines needs to recreate the judiciary system. Mehlis then launched the symposium by quoting Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s words from 2007 when Puno designated special courts that would focus on cases involving political activists and members of media; “The time has come to say less and do more.”

In order to put the discussion in the right context, Tomi Jansson, Witness Protection Expert and Detective Chief Inspector from Finland gave a brief background and the current state of witness protection programs in the EU. He also shared some high level observations on what basic measures are lacking in the witness protection program in the Philippines. Jansson commented that basic tactical requirements when witnesses are called to the courtroom are lacking such as a separate room for the witness and providing live media links so that the witness does not have to confront the accused. He closed his speech by underlining the importance of the criminal justice system in ensuring the success of any witness protection program. “If the criminal justice system is not running properly, the witness protection program will not run properly either,” he said.

The program proceeded with another witness protection expert, Senior Crown Prosecutor Jackie Kerr from the UK. Kerr described some alternatives to the witness protection program and shared that in the UK, putting a witness in the witness protection program was the ultimate last resort. Kerr then explained how two systems have been recently implemented in the UK, anonymity in investigations and witness anonymity. Anonymity in investigations is a recent legislation introduced in 2010. According to Kerr’s presentation, its purpose is to “protect an informant from harm and to provide reassurance to a reluctant informant that his or her identity will be protected by a court order.” Witness anonymity is also a fairly recent legislation introduced in 2008. It allows witnesses to keep their anonymity when giving evidence in court. When asked if this was a possibility in the Philippines given our culture, Atty Jacqueline de Guia of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) said that it would all depend on legislators. Senior State Prosecutor Leo Dacera of the DOJ seconded this opinion.

The symposium continued with a presentation by Atty Dacera. Dacera’s presentation focused on DOJ’s Witness Protection and Benefits Program (WPBP) and how it works in partnership with other government organizations such as DSWD, DOH, DECS, and DFA. Dacera explained that the WPBP currently handles 600 witnesses nationwide and that witnesses involved in cases of extra-judicial killings are handled by the CHR. He jokingly remarked that a witness protection agent is an “armed and glorified nanny.” Dacera closed his presentation by zeroing in on top challenges that WPBP deals with on a regular basis, namely, unpredictable policies, lack of cooperation from other pillars of the criminal justice system, and undue publicity.

To complement Dacera’s presentation, Atty De Guia also shared CHR’s version of its witness protection program. De Guia explained that then CHR Sec De Lima decided to form their own witness protection program in response to the rising cases of extra-judicial killings, cases that should not be handled by the DOJ because state agents were involved. The objectives of CHR’s witness protection program are similar to those of the DOJ’s. This prompted Mehlis to ask if the two departments had plans of coordinating and sharing best practices. Both Dacera and De Guia commented that because De Lima is now the DOJ Secretary, they are confident that both witness protection programs will be aligned. The CHR currently has 5 witnesses in custody.

To provide the perspective of civil society groups, Sis Cresencia Lucera of the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP) discussed how her group and its special arm, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), have been providing witness protection services for the last 36 years. Lucera also provided some recommendations to the DOJ on how to improve its WPBP in order to make it more responsive to the needs of witnesses. One major recommendation was to also pay attention to the psycho-social and spiritual needs of witnesses. AMRSP’s Sanctuary Program opens its convents to anyone whose life is at risk. The program currently takes care of 11 families.

To cap the discussions, Atty Al A. Parreño presented his findings on extra-judicial killings covering 2001 to August 2010. His study tried to answer some objective questions including where and when extra-judicial killings happened and the distribution of victims and suspects. The results of his study showed that among identified suspects, 67.22% were government agents while 27.78% were rebels. He pointed out that this invalidates the “purge theory” that has been commonly referenced. “The purge” allegedly happened in the late 80’s to the early 90’s wherein rebel insurgent groups enforced an internal clean up and executed members from its own ranks. Although there were documented “purge” cases in the past, Parreño echoed UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston in saying that the theory that this purge is still being implemented today was “strikingly unconvincing.” Parreño’s findings also claimed that the frequency of extra-judicial killings during President Aquino’s term has not improved from its state when former president Gloria Arroyo was still in power. Parreño also stated that at 1% conviction rate, we have not solved the problem of extra-judicial killings. The report points to the investigation and prosecution stage as the root cause. Parreño concluded his report by saying that this issue is not about the “left” versus the “right” but about “the rule of law.”

The symposium ended with an open forum facilitated by human rights key expert Beng Sta. Clara followed by Mehlis’ closing remarks. Mehlis closed the day by stating that EPJUST will soon release its 28-point recommendation on how to improve witness protection programs in the Philippines.

According to its statement, EPJUST “aims to assist Philippine society in bringing an end to extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances of activists, journalists, trade unionists and farmers’ representatives, and identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice.”

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299513#ixzz13ozpuxfE