Atty. Glenn Rose, Feb 14, 2007
(from Philippine News)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing to nearly double the filing fees for people applying for U.S. citizenship and drastically increase the filing fees for people trying to get a green card.
The Immigration Service (a division of the DHS) announced last week that it wants to raise the filing fees for citizenship from $330 to $595 (almost double) and add an $80 fingerprint fee on top of that. The filing fee for applications for green cards will increase dramatically from $325 to $905 plus the $80 fingerprint fee.
The Immigration Service claims that the new fees would reduce processing times by 20% and provide money for increased background checks. The Service expects to raise more than $2 billion over the next two years due to the fee increases. In addition to the claim of better service, the money is to be spent on improving immigration offices, technology, and hiring and training of workers. Other filing fees for work permits, replacement of green cards, and family petitions are also expected to rise substantially. The amount of fee increases for some of the other petitions have not yet been announced.
The largest jumps in filing fees are for entrepreneurs who want to immigrate to the United States to invest in business and create jobs. The fees for their applications will jump from $475 to a staggering $2,850. Fees for people applying to become legal residents under the 1986 law granting amnesty will significantly rise from $180 to $1,370.
The last major increase in fees was put into effect in the spring of 2004. Fees were also increased by $10 for most petitions on October 26, 2005 to cover the increased costs due to inflation. The Service is required to do a cost analysis every two years to determine if immigration costs are covered by the fee structure. The Service claims that the present fee structure does not cover the costs of administrating immigration.
Presently, the average of cumulated fees for all applications is about $264. The average will now rise to $438. Most immigration advocates compare the plan to increase the cost of applications as tantamount to highway robbery. Immigrants have no choice but to pay these fees. Advocates complain that this giant jump will put immigration benefits “out of reach” for those in low paying jobs.
Last week, Senator Ted Kennedy highly criticized the fee increases saying they would “price the American Dream out of reach for some qualified immigrants.” On the other hand, anti-immigrant lawmakers claim that taxpayers should not bear the burden of paying for the costs of immigration. Representative Lamar Smith from Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said that “it was right for the people who benefit to pay the cost of that benefit, not [the] taxpayer.”
Some members of Congress want to review the Immigration Service’s cost analysis. However, unless Congress passes an oversight law, the Service’s fee increases are not subject to Congressional approval. Any immigration legislation passed by Congress during 2007 is likely to include a guest worker program. The new fee increases do not include the cost of administrating a guest worker program.
Constant fee increases will be a fact of life in the next several years. The present fee schedule will probably be increased drastically sometime in June of 2007. Persons who want to apply for citizenship or a green card should apply now before the fees go up. They should always work with a qualified immigration attorney when filing any (but the simplest) applications. An immigration lawyer can file applications much more efficiently because of their experience.
Attorney Glenn Rose is experienced in successfully filing all types of immigration applications. He was born in the Philippines, and immigrated to the U.S. at the age of six. He is a naturalized citizen. His law office is located in downtown San Francisco at 580 California St. (415) 283-3281. He is a member of the American Bar Association (ABA) and American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).
1 of 1
Friday, February 23, 2007
New tactic: ICE officers posing as police
New tactic: ICE officers posing as police
Atty. Glenn Rose, Feb 21, 2007
(From Philippine News)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are now posing as local police in order to gain entry into the homes of immigrants. This new tactic is causing great concern among civil liberty advocates because it breaks down the relationship between immigrants and real local police officers.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims that the title immigration officers may use the title of police because they are federal law enforcement officers and their function is to police illegal immigrants. However, the DHS strategy is a ploy to get immigrants to open their doors to ICE officers trying to make a bust on immigrants who they believe are illegal.
It needs to be noted that ICE arrests are really called detainment because of the violation of immigration laws. Violation of immigration laws is not a criminal act that falls under the scope of traditional police activities. Illegal immigration is an administrative violation of the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress and regularly revised. Although the consequences of arrest by immigration officers are similar to a regular police arrest, being detained by immigration officers is not considered an arrest based on a criminal act.
The fact that federal agents are now posing as police to make busts, makes it much more difficult for immigrants to understand the legal system in the United States, and undermines their fragile trust in the local police. Immigration officers misidentify themselves to gain entry into private homes, usually, in the early morning hours because it is proven that people are more likely to open their doors to the local police.
Recently, there have been success stories about immigrant cooperation with the local police. The ICE bust procedures threaten to undermine the police-immigrant relationships in many cities and towns. ICE public relations spokesperson, Lori Haley, recently defended the use of the word “police” by stating that immigrants who don’t understand English generally understand the word “police.” She also stated that the term is fair since ICE agents are technically federal police. However, this is not the term used for any federal law enforcement officer. Traditionally, the term “police” has always applied to local law enforcement officers.
People who are detained by ICE officers are taken away in handcuffs and detained at local city and county jails awaiting administrative deportation by the DHS, or, in about 40% of cases, by an Immigration Court. ICE officers will typically check out all other persons in the house or vicinity when looking for an individual immigrant. This is called collateral activity, because the bystanders will also be detained (arrested) if they cannot prove they are in the U.S. legally. This new tactic has created a lot of fear in the immigrant community.
ICE agents usually try to apprehend illegal immigrants in their homes between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. in the morning. Immigrants need to know that they do not have to open the door unless the officer has either an arrest or search warrant. If the door is opened, even by a crack, the ICE officers are allowed to enter the home and arrest the person who they are looking for and any other person in the house who is illegal. Immigrants should be very wary of opening a door to strangers. ICE officers do not wear uniforms and are dressed in civilian clothes. If the person knocking at the door insists on coming in, persons in the home may refuse to open the door. They should ask them to slip the arrest warrant or search warrant under the door. Usually, ICE officers do not carry warrants with them. Any document that may be slipped under the door must have the word “Warrant” on it and be signed by a judge. Normally, the ICE officers will yell and threaten, and then go away. But, they will come back another day. Any immigrant in this predicament should call an experienced immigration attorney.
Attorney Glenn Rose was born in the Philippines and immigrated to the United States as a small child. He is a naturalized citizen. Attorney Rose is experienced as a lawyer in Immigration Courts and representing clients with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch. His office is located in downtown San Francisco at 580 California St., (415) 283-3281. He is a member of the American Bar Association and American Immigration Lawyers Association.
1 of 1
Atty. Glenn Rose, Feb 21, 2007
(From Philippine News)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are now posing as local police in order to gain entry into the homes of immigrants. This new tactic is causing great concern among civil liberty advocates because it breaks down the relationship between immigrants and real local police officers.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims that the title immigration officers may use the title of police because they are federal law enforcement officers and their function is to police illegal immigrants. However, the DHS strategy is a ploy to get immigrants to open their doors to ICE officers trying to make a bust on immigrants who they believe are illegal.
It needs to be noted that ICE arrests are really called detainment because of the violation of immigration laws. Violation of immigration laws is not a criminal act that falls under the scope of traditional police activities. Illegal immigration is an administrative violation of the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress and regularly revised. Although the consequences of arrest by immigration officers are similar to a regular police arrest, being detained by immigration officers is not considered an arrest based on a criminal act.
The fact that federal agents are now posing as police to make busts, makes it much more difficult for immigrants to understand the legal system in the United States, and undermines their fragile trust in the local police. Immigration officers misidentify themselves to gain entry into private homes, usually, in the early morning hours because it is proven that people are more likely to open their doors to the local police.
Recently, there have been success stories about immigrant cooperation with the local police. The ICE bust procedures threaten to undermine the police-immigrant relationships in many cities and towns. ICE public relations spokesperson, Lori Haley, recently defended the use of the word “police” by stating that immigrants who don’t understand English generally understand the word “police.” She also stated that the term is fair since ICE agents are technically federal police. However, this is not the term used for any federal law enforcement officer. Traditionally, the term “police” has always applied to local law enforcement officers.
People who are detained by ICE officers are taken away in handcuffs and detained at local city and county jails awaiting administrative deportation by the DHS, or, in about 40% of cases, by an Immigration Court. ICE officers will typically check out all other persons in the house or vicinity when looking for an individual immigrant. This is called collateral activity, because the bystanders will also be detained (arrested) if they cannot prove they are in the U.S. legally. This new tactic has created a lot of fear in the immigrant community.
ICE agents usually try to apprehend illegal immigrants in their homes between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. in the morning. Immigrants need to know that they do not have to open the door unless the officer has either an arrest or search warrant. If the door is opened, even by a crack, the ICE officers are allowed to enter the home and arrest the person who they are looking for and any other person in the house who is illegal. Immigrants should be very wary of opening a door to strangers. ICE officers do not wear uniforms and are dressed in civilian clothes. If the person knocking at the door insists on coming in, persons in the home may refuse to open the door. They should ask them to slip the arrest warrant or search warrant under the door. Usually, ICE officers do not carry warrants with them. Any document that may be slipped under the door must have the word “Warrant” on it and be signed by a judge. Normally, the ICE officers will yell and threaten, and then go away. But, they will come back another day. Any immigrant in this predicament should call an experienced immigration attorney.
Attorney Glenn Rose was born in the Philippines and immigrated to the United States as a small child. He is a naturalized citizen. Attorney Rose is experienced as a lawyer in Immigration Courts and representing clients with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch. His office is located in downtown San Francisco at 580 California St., (415) 283-3281. He is a member of the American Bar Association and American Immigration Lawyers Association.
1 of 1
‘Immigrants Bring Crime’ Is a Myth
‘Immigrants Bring Crime’ Is a Myth
New America Media, Commentary, Walter Ewing, Posted: Feb 22, 2007
Editor’s Note: Government and academic studies prove decisively that the common belief that immigrants, especially undocumented ones, bring criminality is based on a big lie. Walter Ewing is a Research Associate at the Immigration Policy Center. IMMIGRATION MATTERS regularly features the views of the nation's leading immigrant rights advocates.
******
Among the many troubling aspects of the public debate over immigration is the power of myths over facts. One of the most enduring myths about immigration, despite literally decades of evidence to the contrary, is the belief that immigrants are more likely to commit crime than the native-born.
This myth is so widespread and unquestioned that it has been the catalyst for scores of local governments to consider anti-immigrant ordinances over the past year. These calls to crack down on undocumented immigrants, the employers who hire them and the landlords who rent to them, are framed in part as “anti-crime” ordinances.
The city council of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for instance, passed an ordinance last September claiming that “illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates” and that the council therefore must protect legal residents of the city from “crimes committed by illegal aliens.”
Because most of the undocumented immigrants in Hazleton and other communities throughout the United States are young men from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and elsewhere in Latin America, who have little money or formal education, it is assumed that they are more likely to commit crimes than the native-born.
Government and academic studies, however, have demonstrated repeatedly for over a century that immigrants actually are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born. Even though immigration has increased dramatically over the past decade and a half, the crime rate in the United States has declined.
Since 1994, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has more than doubled to 12 million. Immigrants, both legal and undocumented, now comprise just under 13 percent of the population. Yet, according to the FBI, between 1994 and 2005 the violent crime rate (murder, robbery, rape, assault) fell 34.2 percent and the property crime rate (burglary, theft) dropped 26.4 percent.
Cities with large and growing immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Miami and Chicago also experienced this downward trend in crime. If immigration—either legal or undocumented—were associated with crime, then crime rates should be rising.
An upcoming report from the Immigration Policy Center further dispels the notion that immigration and crime are connected. Using data from the 2000 Census, the report shows that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to be behind bars. Among men age 18 to 39 (who comprise the vast majority of inmates in federal and state prisons and local jails), immigrants were five times less likely to be incarcerated than the native-born in 2000.
About 3.5 percent of native-born men were in prison, compared with 0.7 percent of foreign-born men. Immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala were much less likely to be in prison than native-born, non-Hispanic whites. Roughly 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and 0.5 percent of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison, compared with 1.7 percent of native-born, non-Hispanic white men.
These findings are not new. Three government commissions investigated the relationship between immigration and crime during the last era of large-scale immigration to the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when millions of immigrants arrived from Italy, Ireland, Russia, Poland, and other nations in Europe. All three commissions came to the same conclusion: immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natives.
As the [Dillingham] Immigration Commission of 1911 concluded: “No satisfactory evidence has yet been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in crime disproportionate to the increase in adult population. Such comparable statistics of crime and population as it has been possible to obtain indicate that immigrants are less prone to commit crime than are native Americans.”
Despite a century’s worth of evidence that immigration does not breed crime, the stereotype of immigrants as criminals continues to flourish in the media and among policymakers. Popular movies and television shows often feature gun-wielding, drug-dealing criminals from south of the border. News reports of violent crimes committed by gangs such as the Salvadoran Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) often overshadow the fact that an extraordinarily small number of immigrants are in gangs and that gangs are found in every ethnic group among both natives and the foreign-born.
Adding insult to injury, many politicians regularly declare their resolve to stem the criminal tide allegedly unleashed by undocumented immigrants. Even President Bush, who favors immigration reform that creates more legal channels for immigration to the United States, declared in a May 15, 2006 address to the nation that illegal immigration “brings crime to our communities.”
There is no denying that crime is a serious problem in the United States. But it is not a problem created or even aggravated by immigration. Quite the opposite, in fact. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes of all types than the native-born. This suggests that crime is linked not to one’s place of birth, but to the many other forces which foster crime in this country, especially in relatively poor communities: high rates of divorce and family disintegration, high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, etc.
The solution to crime does not lie in immigration policy. And the solution to undocumented immigration does not lie in misguided “get tough” policies that scapegoat immigrants as criminals.
See More Immigration Matters
New America Media, Commentary, Walter Ewing, Posted: Feb 22, 2007
Editor’s Note: Government and academic studies prove decisively that the common belief that immigrants, especially undocumented ones, bring criminality is based on a big lie. Walter Ewing is a Research Associate at the Immigration Policy Center. IMMIGRATION MATTERS regularly features the views of the nation's leading immigrant rights advocates.
******
Among the many troubling aspects of the public debate over immigration is the power of myths over facts. One of the most enduring myths about immigration, despite literally decades of evidence to the contrary, is the belief that immigrants are more likely to commit crime than the native-born.
This myth is so widespread and unquestioned that it has been the catalyst for scores of local governments to consider anti-immigrant ordinances over the past year. These calls to crack down on undocumented immigrants, the employers who hire them and the landlords who rent to them, are framed in part as “anti-crime” ordinances.
The city council of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, for instance, passed an ordinance last September claiming that “illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates” and that the council therefore must protect legal residents of the city from “crimes committed by illegal aliens.”
Because most of the undocumented immigrants in Hazleton and other communities throughout the United States are young men from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and elsewhere in Latin America, who have little money or formal education, it is assumed that they are more likely to commit crimes than the native-born.
Government and academic studies, however, have demonstrated repeatedly for over a century that immigrants actually are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born. Even though immigration has increased dramatically over the past decade and a half, the crime rate in the United States has declined.
Since 1994, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has more than doubled to 12 million. Immigrants, both legal and undocumented, now comprise just under 13 percent of the population. Yet, according to the FBI, between 1994 and 2005 the violent crime rate (murder, robbery, rape, assault) fell 34.2 percent and the property crime rate (burglary, theft) dropped 26.4 percent.
Cities with large and growing immigrant populations such as Los Angeles, New York, Miami and Chicago also experienced this downward trend in crime. If immigration—either legal or undocumented—were associated with crime, then crime rates should be rising.
An upcoming report from the Immigration Policy Center further dispels the notion that immigration and crime are connected. Using data from the 2000 Census, the report shows that immigrants are less likely than the native-born to be behind bars. Among men age 18 to 39 (who comprise the vast majority of inmates in federal and state prisons and local jails), immigrants were five times less likely to be incarcerated than the native-born in 2000.
About 3.5 percent of native-born men were in prison, compared with 0.7 percent of foreign-born men. Immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala were much less likely to be in prison than native-born, non-Hispanic whites. Roughly 0.7 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and 0.5 percent of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison, compared with 1.7 percent of native-born, non-Hispanic white men.
These findings are not new. Three government commissions investigated the relationship between immigration and crime during the last era of large-scale immigration to the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when millions of immigrants arrived from Italy, Ireland, Russia, Poland, and other nations in Europe. All three commissions came to the same conclusion: immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natives.
As the [Dillingham] Immigration Commission of 1911 concluded: “No satisfactory evidence has yet been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in crime disproportionate to the increase in adult population. Such comparable statistics of crime and population as it has been possible to obtain indicate that immigrants are less prone to commit crime than are native Americans.”
Despite a century’s worth of evidence that immigration does not breed crime, the stereotype of immigrants as criminals continues to flourish in the media and among policymakers. Popular movies and television shows often feature gun-wielding, drug-dealing criminals from south of the border. News reports of violent crimes committed by gangs such as the Salvadoran Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) often overshadow the fact that an extraordinarily small number of immigrants are in gangs and that gangs are found in every ethnic group among both natives and the foreign-born.
Adding insult to injury, many politicians regularly declare their resolve to stem the criminal tide allegedly unleashed by undocumented immigrants. Even President Bush, who favors immigration reform that creates more legal channels for immigration to the United States, declared in a May 15, 2006 address to the nation that illegal immigration “brings crime to our communities.”
There is no denying that crime is a serious problem in the United States. But it is not a problem created or even aggravated by immigration. Quite the opposite, in fact. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes of all types than the native-born. This suggests that crime is linked not to one’s place of birth, but to the many other forces which foster crime in this country, especially in relatively poor communities: high rates of divorce and family disintegration, high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, etc.
The solution to crime does not lie in immigration policy. And the solution to undocumented immigration does not lie in misguided “get tough” policies that scapegoat immigrants as criminals.
See More Immigration Matters
Resisting Anti-Immigrant Racism at NYU
please forward widely..
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Hundreds of Students Rally
Against Racist, Xenophobic Stunt of College Republicans
New York / February 20, 2007 // -
On Thursday, February 22nd hundreds of NYU students will rally against a publicity stunt organized by the NYU College Republicans where a mock illegal immigrant will be hunted in Washington Square Park. NYU College Republicans have titled the stunt "Find the Illegal Immigrant." At the event, one of the Republicans wearing the name tag "illegal immigrant" will be hidden amongst the crowd in Washington Square Park and members wearing "INS" name tags will hunt for the "illegal" in the park. The university club will give the first person who catches the "illegal immigrant" a $50 to $100 prize.
Over 400 NYU students from various student-run organizations and academic disciplines across the political spectrum have rallied together to protest the event as it happens from 11:00AM to 2:00PM at Washington Place and Washington Square East. Students are protesting the College Republicans crass manner in handling a rather sensitive topic in American politics. One in particular, Karen Lopez, has gone on record as stating that the event is "ignorant and offensive event" and reflects poorly upon the university. The students are not affiliated with any single entity or political cause, and were rallied together through the website Facebook.com by what some students have labeled a "troubling", "racist" and "dehumanizing" publicity stunt.
During the protest, the pro-immigrant students will hold signs and pass out flyers explaining their position on immigration issues.
The NYU College Republicans is the NYU's student run organization for members of the Republican Party [GOP]. Like all student groups, any of its actions do not reflect the policy, beliefs, or wishes of New York University.
Media Contact: Dalia Yedidia
(415) 216-8844
dy382@nyu.edu
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Hundreds of Students Rally
Against Racist, Xenophobic Stunt of College Republicans
New York / February 20, 2007 // -
On Thursday, February 22nd hundreds of NYU students will rally against a publicity stunt organized by the NYU College Republicans where a mock illegal immigrant will be hunted in Washington Square Park. NYU College Republicans have titled the stunt "Find the Illegal Immigrant." At the event, one of the Republicans wearing the name tag "illegal immigrant" will be hidden amongst the crowd in Washington Square Park and members wearing "INS" name tags will hunt for the "illegal" in the park. The university club will give the first person who catches the "illegal immigrant" a $50 to $100 prize.
Over 400 NYU students from various student-run organizations and academic disciplines across the political spectrum have rallied together to protest the event as it happens from 11:00AM to 2:00PM at Washington Place and Washington Square East. Students are protesting the College Republicans crass manner in handling a rather sensitive topic in American politics. One in particular, Karen Lopez, has gone on record as stating that the event is "ignorant and offensive event" and reflects poorly upon the university. The students are not affiliated with any single entity or political cause, and were rallied together through the website Facebook.com by what some students have labeled a "troubling", "racist" and "dehumanizing" publicity stunt.
During the protest, the pro-immigrant students will hold signs and pass out flyers explaining their position on immigration issues.
The NYU College Republicans is the NYU's student run organization for members of the Republican Party [GOP]. Like all student groups, any of its actions do not reflect the policy, beliefs, or wishes of New York University.
Media Contact: Dalia Yedidia
(415) 216-8844
dy382@nyu.edu
U.N.: Philippines military responsible for killings
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/20/philippines.killings.reut/
U.N.: Philippines military responsible for killings
MANILA, Philippines (Reuters) -- Extra-judicial killings in the Philippines are distressingly high and the military appeared to be responsible for a number of them, a United Nations investigator said on Wednesday. Philip Alston, an Australian law professor and U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, delivered the strong indictment of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's government at a news conference after a 10-day investigation in the southeast Asian nation. Local rights group Karapatan has claimed more than 800 people, mostly left-wing activists, have been murdered or reported missing since Arroyo came to power in 2001. But the military says most of the deaths could be attributed to internal fighting in the communist New People's Army. Alston said he did not know how many had died, but added: "I am certain the number is high enough to be distressing. "The impact of even a limited number of killings of the type alleged is corrosive in many ways," he said. "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." There was no immediate comment from the government or the military. "The armed forces remain in a state of almost total denial of its need to respond effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings which have been convincingly attributed to them," Alston said. He added however that there did not appear to be any state sanction for the killings. "I do not believe that there's a policy at the top designed to direct that these killings to take place. I'm clear on that." The Philippines, also fighting Muslim insurgencies, has been battling the NPA since 1969 in a conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people. Arroyo declared an "all out war" on the communist insurgents last year. Military chief Gen. Hermogenes Esperon has told Reuters that communist rebels were the top security threat to the nation but said troops did not use extra-judicial killings to counter them. He said he will prosecute any soldier found doing so.
Unconvincing
Alston said he asked Arroyo "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". He said the military must begin to investigate the killings seriously and "not in a way that simply protects its own officers". The military's claims of an internal purge within the New People's Army were unconvincing, he said. Arroyo appointed a retired Supreme Court Justice, Jose Melo, to investigate the killings last year but has refused to make his report public. Melo has told Reuters that elements in the military were behind many of the killings. Arroyo has called for the creation of special courts to deal with the political killings and asked the armed forces to update its rules on command responsibility. She also asked the Melo Commission to submit supplemental reports from time to time and said the Department of Foreign Affairs would formally ask the European Union, Spain, Finland and Sweden to send investigators to assist it. Alston said the Melo report must be made public and left-wing groups given space to enter the political mainstream. "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," he said.
Copyright 2007 Reuters . All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
U.N.: Philippines military responsible for killings
MANILA, Philippines (Reuters) -- Extra-judicial killings in the Philippines are distressingly high and the military appeared to be responsible for a number of them, a United Nations investigator said on Wednesday. Philip Alston, an Australian law professor and U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, delivered the strong indictment of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's government at a news conference after a 10-day investigation in the southeast Asian nation. Local rights group Karapatan has claimed more than 800 people, mostly left-wing activists, have been murdered or reported missing since Arroyo came to power in 2001. But the military says most of the deaths could be attributed to internal fighting in the communist New People's Army. Alston said he did not know how many had died, but added: "I am certain the number is high enough to be distressing. "The impact of even a limited number of killings of the type alleged is corrosive in many ways," he said. "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." There was no immediate comment from the government or the military. "The armed forces remain in a state of almost total denial of its need to respond effectively and authentically to the significant number of killings which have been convincingly attributed to them," Alston said. He added however that there did not appear to be any state sanction for the killings. "I do not believe that there's a policy at the top designed to direct that these killings to take place. I'm clear on that." The Philippines, also fighting Muslim insurgencies, has been battling the NPA since 1969 in a conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people. Arroyo declared an "all out war" on the communist insurgents last year. Military chief Gen. Hermogenes Esperon has told Reuters that communist rebels were the top security threat to the nation but said troops did not use extra-judicial killings to counter them. He said he will prosecute any soldier found doing so.
Unconvincing
Alston said he asked Arroyo "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". He said the military must begin to investigate the killings seriously and "not in a way that simply protects its own officers". The military's claims of an internal purge within the New People's Army were unconvincing, he said. Arroyo appointed a retired Supreme Court Justice, Jose Melo, to investigate the killings last year but has refused to make his report public. Melo has told Reuters that elements in the military were behind many of the killings. Arroyo has called for the creation of special courts to deal with the political killings and asked the armed forces to update its rules on command responsibility. She also asked the Melo Commission to submit supplemental reports from time to time and said the Department of Foreign Affairs would formally ask the European Union, Spain, Finland and Sweden to send investigators to assist it. Alston said the Melo report must be made public and left-wing groups given space to enter the political mainstream. "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," he said.
Copyright 2007 Reuters
Monday, February 19, 2007
Antiterrorism bill 101
Antiterrorism bill 101
By DJ Yap, TJ Burgonio, Nancy C. Carvajal
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Last updated 03:52am (Mla time) 02/19/2007
MANILA, Philippines -- Lawyer Maria Socorro Diokno cites a hostage-taking incident to illustrate what to her is the conundrum of the antiterrorism bill that is likely to overcome its final hurdle in Congress Monday before it is sent to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be signed into law.
The Senate version of the bill was adopted earlier this month by the bicameral conference committee. The Senate later passed the bill. On Monday, the House in plenary is likewise expected to approve it.
The antiterrorism bill penalizes any person who commits any of 12 crimes under the Revised Penal Code and other criminal laws and causes “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”
The crimes enumerated include illegal possession of firearms, murder, rebellion, mutiny in the high seas, arson, piracy, robbery, kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Under the bill, these crimes are punishable by 40 years’ imprisonment without parole.
Diokno mentions during a forum an incident two years ago in which a man took his wife and child hostage and threatened to harm them unless the government stopped the demolition of his house, causing panic in the neighborhood.
“Is that considered terrorism?” Diokno asks. “Possibly yes, which is absolutely ridiculous ... that is how difficult this bill is to understand.”
Diokno, secretary general of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), points to the lack of standards and the subjective notion of what constitutes “fear and panic” in the antiterrorism bill, titled the “Human Security Act of 2007” (HSA).
“The crime of terrorism is defined by results,” she says. “In other words, a murder has to have been committed and the murder must be found to have sown widespread fear and panic. Otherwise, what makes a regular murder a terrorist act and what makes it a murder?” she asks.
Murder under the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion perpetua -- 20 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole.
The security act will be enforced by an antiterrorism council composed of Cabinet members with support from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the police and other law enforcement agencies.
Militant groups already are scrutinizing the impact of the bill in the light of concerns that have surfaced even at the outset of its introduction -- in various versions -- in the Senate and House of Representatives over its draconian overtones.
Offshoot of 9/11
The bill was an offshoot of 9/11, the ensuing US-led global war on terror and the emergence in the Philippines of al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups such as the Abu Sayyaf and the Indonesia-based Jemaah Islamiyah, blamed for recent deadly bombings and kidnappings in the country.
The concerns have also been fueled by the Philippine military’s history of human rights abuses during the Ferdinand Marcos regime, a continuing anti-insurgency campaign that intensified following Ms Arroyo’s directive to end the communist threat before the end of her term in 2010, and an opposition campaign to unseat her over alleged cheating during the 2004 presidential election.
Senators led by Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Franklin Drilon, Joker Arroyo and Edgardo Angara have managed to introduce some safeguards into the antiterrorism bill.
“It was a threat to human rights when it was introduced,” says Angara. “It has undergone practically an overhaul. It’s a better bill [now].”
Angara said the measure was better than the Patriot Act of US President George W. Bush, or the antiterrorism measures in Britain.
“In the UK, or even here, you can go to any judge and get a warrant,” says Angara.
He says only trained law enforcement agencies can enforce the Philippines’ antiterrorism act. “No Tom, Dick or Harry of a judge can issue a warrant,” he says, pointing out that this will be the responsibility of the Court of Appeals.
He also says that blunders in the implementation of the law can result in 10 to 12 years’ imprisonment of the enforcing authority. He says the “Hello Garci” wiretapping controversy will now be history because of built-in safeguards in intelligence eavesdropping.
Pimentel’s 98 amendments
Pimentel introduced 98 amendments to the Senate version of the bill. Of these, 96 were approved. Now, says the Senate minority leader, the human security act is “a little more humane.”
Among the amendments adopted were:
• Requiring a show of probable cause before anyone is tagged a terrorist.
• Approval by the Court of Appeals before police could place people under surveillance or tap their telephones, e-mails and other communications.
• Requiring the police to immediately bring an arrested person before a judicial authority (whose meaning was expanded to include human rights officials to make sure that there is always a check on police abuses right from the moment the arrested person is picked up).
• Exempting journalists and their sources from making compulsory disclosures to the police or judicial authorities, for that matter, lawyers and their clients, doctors and their patients as well.
• Compelling police to report to judicial authorities the results of their surveillance.
• Compensating victims of illegal or unfounded arrests P500,000 a day for wrongful detention.
• Making the law effective two months after the May elections and suspending its effectivity one month before and two months after every election.
“In any event, I also know from experience that no matter how good a law is, it may be abused,” says Pimentel, who was imprisoned during the martial law years.
‘Basic fear’
“That’s my basic fear. And it is not an empty one, considering the experience of our people. We are not legislating in a vacuum. We have to input the fears and the apprehensions of our people into the enactment of laws that we craft.
“Knowing then that illegal arrests are prohibited by the Constitution and the Revised Penal Code and still they happen -- all this without any anti-terror law, I can only hope for the best,” says Pimentel.
“I would have wanted that the acts now punished as terrorism, since they are already penalized in the Revised Penal Code, be punished under the code or under the special laws that define certain crimes that are included as predicate offenses in the HSA,” he says.
“Had my idea been adopted, there would be less danger of abuse and less chance that our people’s rights would be violated under the pretext of fighting terrorism,” says Pimentel.
‘It’s sufficient’
Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, author of the anti-terror bill, expressed satisfaction that the bill meets the needs of national security. “As far as I am concerned, it’s sufficient. We will see if it’s enough after it’s implemented. You can never tell. Society is dynamic.”
Enrile, defense minister under the late dictator Marcos, says there’s one item in the bill that he wants refined. He says the P500,000 fine for every day of wrongful detention of a suspect is too heavy. He says it should be reduced to P50,000.
He says he agreed to Pimentel’s proposal just to end the long debate. “We can amend it. We’ll see first if there’s grounds to amend it.”
Jamby’s objection
But Sen. Anna Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal remains opposed and plans to question the bill before the Supreme Court, pointing to some provisions which she describes as unconstitutional.
“The bill is not about national security because we don’t have terrorism problems,” says Madrigal. She points out that what the nation needs is tighter implementation of existing laws and more intelligence gathering. “The bill is about legitimizing Gloria Arroyo’s muzzling her political enemies.”
She points to the so-called “Tagaytay 5” -- suspected communist insurgents who were arrested for allegedly attempting to sow terror during the May 1 celebration last year -- and the case of Anakpawis party-list Rep. Crispin Beltran, who is facing rebellion charges.
“They are in jail on mere suspicion,” she says. “If they say you look like a terrorist, they can detain you.”
Copyright 2007 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By DJ Yap, TJ Burgonio, Nancy C. Carvajal
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Last updated 03:52am (Mla time) 02/19/2007
MANILA, Philippines -- Lawyer Maria Socorro Diokno cites a hostage-taking incident to illustrate what to her is the conundrum of the antiterrorism bill that is likely to overcome its final hurdle in Congress Monday before it is sent to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be signed into law.
The Senate version of the bill was adopted earlier this month by the bicameral conference committee. The Senate later passed the bill. On Monday, the House in plenary is likewise expected to approve it.
The antiterrorism bill penalizes any person who commits any of 12 crimes under the Revised Penal Code and other criminal laws and causes “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”
The crimes enumerated include illegal possession of firearms, murder, rebellion, mutiny in the high seas, arson, piracy, robbery, kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Under the bill, these crimes are punishable by 40 years’ imprisonment without parole.
Diokno mentions during a forum an incident two years ago in which a man took his wife and child hostage and threatened to harm them unless the government stopped the demolition of his house, causing panic in the neighborhood.
“Is that considered terrorism?” Diokno asks. “Possibly yes, which is absolutely ridiculous ... that is how difficult this bill is to understand.”
Diokno, secretary general of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), points to the lack of standards and the subjective notion of what constitutes “fear and panic” in the antiterrorism bill, titled the “Human Security Act of 2007” (HSA).
“The crime of terrorism is defined by results,” she says. “In other words, a murder has to have been committed and the murder must be found to have sown widespread fear and panic. Otherwise, what makes a regular murder a terrorist act and what makes it a murder?” she asks.
Murder under the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion perpetua -- 20 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole.
The security act will be enforced by an antiterrorism council composed of Cabinet members with support from the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the police and other law enforcement agencies.
Militant groups already are scrutinizing the impact of the bill in the light of concerns that have surfaced even at the outset of its introduction -- in various versions -- in the Senate and House of Representatives over its draconian overtones.
Offshoot of 9/11
The bill was an offshoot of 9/11, the ensuing US-led global war on terror and the emergence in the Philippines of al-Qaida-linked terrorist groups such as the Abu Sayyaf and the Indonesia-based Jemaah Islamiyah, blamed for recent deadly bombings and kidnappings in the country.
The concerns have also been fueled by the Philippine military’s history of human rights abuses during the Ferdinand Marcos regime, a continuing anti-insurgency campaign that intensified following Ms Arroyo’s directive to end the communist threat before the end of her term in 2010, and an opposition campaign to unseat her over alleged cheating during the 2004 presidential election.
Senators led by Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Franklin Drilon, Joker Arroyo and Edgardo Angara have managed to introduce some safeguards into the antiterrorism bill.
“It was a threat to human rights when it was introduced,” says Angara. “It has undergone practically an overhaul. It’s a better bill [now].”
Angara said the measure was better than the Patriot Act of US President George W. Bush, or the antiterrorism measures in Britain.
“In the UK, or even here, you can go to any judge and get a warrant,” says Angara.
He says only trained law enforcement agencies can enforce the Philippines’ antiterrorism act. “No Tom, Dick or Harry of a judge can issue a warrant,” he says, pointing out that this will be the responsibility of the Court of Appeals.
He also says that blunders in the implementation of the law can result in 10 to 12 years’ imprisonment of the enforcing authority. He says the “Hello Garci” wiretapping controversy will now be history because of built-in safeguards in intelligence eavesdropping.
Pimentel’s 98 amendments
Pimentel introduced 98 amendments to the Senate version of the bill. Of these, 96 were approved. Now, says the Senate minority leader, the human security act is “a little more humane.”
Among the amendments adopted were:
• Requiring a show of probable cause before anyone is tagged a terrorist.
• Approval by the Court of Appeals before police could place people under surveillance or tap their telephones, e-mails and other communications.
• Requiring the police to immediately bring an arrested person before a judicial authority (whose meaning was expanded to include human rights officials to make sure that there is always a check on police abuses right from the moment the arrested person is picked up).
• Exempting journalists and their sources from making compulsory disclosures to the police or judicial authorities, for that matter, lawyers and their clients, doctors and their patients as well.
• Compelling police to report to judicial authorities the results of their surveillance.
• Compensating victims of illegal or unfounded arrests P500,000 a day for wrongful detention.
• Making the law effective two months after the May elections and suspending its effectivity one month before and two months after every election.
“In any event, I also know from experience that no matter how good a law is, it may be abused,” says Pimentel, who was imprisoned during the martial law years.
‘Basic fear’
“That’s my basic fear. And it is not an empty one, considering the experience of our people. We are not legislating in a vacuum. We have to input the fears and the apprehensions of our people into the enactment of laws that we craft.
“Knowing then that illegal arrests are prohibited by the Constitution and the Revised Penal Code and still they happen -- all this without any anti-terror law, I can only hope for the best,” says Pimentel.
“I would have wanted that the acts now punished as terrorism, since they are already penalized in the Revised Penal Code, be punished under the code or under the special laws that define certain crimes that are included as predicate offenses in the HSA,” he says.
“Had my idea been adopted, there would be less danger of abuse and less chance that our people’s rights would be violated under the pretext of fighting terrorism,” says Pimentel.
‘It’s sufficient’
Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, author of the anti-terror bill, expressed satisfaction that the bill meets the needs of national security. “As far as I am concerned, it’s sufficient. We will see if it’s enough after it’s implemented. You can never tell. Society is dynamic.”
Enrile, defense minister under the late dictator Marcos, says there’s one item in the bill that he wants refined. He says the P500,000 fine for every day of wrongful detention of a suspect is too heavy. He says it should be reduced to P50,000.
He says he agreed to Pimentel’s proposal just to end the long debate. “We can amend it. We’ll see first if there’s grounds to amend it.”
Jamby’s objection
But Sen. Anna Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal remains opposed and plans to question the bill before the Supreme Court, pointing to some provisions which she describes as unconstitutional.
“The bill is not about national security because we don’t have terrorism problems,” says Madrigal. She points out that what the nation needs is tighter implementation of existing laws and more intelligence gathering. “The bill is about legitimizing Gloria Arroyo’s muzzling her political enemies.”
She points to the so-called “Tagaytay 5” -- suspected communist insurgents who were arrested for allegedly attempting to sow terror during the May 1 celebration last year -- and the case of Anakpawis party-list Rep. Crispin Beltran, who is facing rebellion charges.
“They are in jail on mere suspicion,” she says. “If they say you look like a terrorist, they can detain you.”
Copyright 2007 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
‘They’re supposed to be our protectors’ When the state is the terrorist
By Phoebe Zoe Sanchez, Jamir Niño Ocampo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Last updated 03:36am (Mla time) 02/19/2007
(First of two parts)
(Editor’s note: Sanchez is assistant professor at the University of the Philippines Visayas working on her Ph.D. in Sociology; Ocampo is with the UP School of Economics. The two were invited by Taripnon, an ecology group in the Cagayan Valley, to study the impact of a military presence as a form of terrorism. Following is their report.)
“Palpasin niyo da kame uray ku pinatay yu diay maymaysak nga baru (Better still, kill us all. You have just killed my only son!),” the old man cried in anguish as he cradled his dying son Nelson Asucena in his arms.
Bleeding from M16 and M14 bullet wounds, Nelson made his last wish for his father Hipolito to take care of his family -- his wife Marifel and 3-year-old daughter Lyka.
Asucena, 19, Sangguniang Kabataan (youth council) chair of Barangay San Juan, Zinundungan Valley, thus became the 821st victim of extrajudicial killings, according to Karapatan, a human rights group (261st by the Philippine Daily Inquirer count), since President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo became president in 2001.
The elder Asucena pointed to Lt. Marcelo Pascua, Alpha company commander of the 21st Infantry Battalion (IB), as the man primarily responsible for the death of his son, a daily companion who helped him plow the fields and shared with him the hardships of peasant life.
He talked with a fact-finding mission that visited the area last month to look into the situation in the Cagayan Valley region. The mission included representatives of Bayan Muna, Karapatan, a church-based organization in Cagayan and other nongovernment organizations.
The 51-year-old Hipolito recounts vividly how the night of Dec. 13, 2006, turned into a nightmare.
“Bot (Nelson’s nickname), umay kami man (may we come in),” the unexpected caller said thrice.
Nelson rose from his bed but was stopped by his wife. “It is Lieutenant Pascua,” Nelson whispered.
“How do you know?” she asked.
“It is his voice,” he replied.
Asucena walked to the door while his father lit a gas lamp. Hipolito followed his son. Before Nelson opened the door, Hipolito patted his son’s back and asked who was calling him. “It is Lieutenant Pascua,” Nelson repeated.
The two men stepped outside the house to meet with the visitors. Pascua was wearing a camouflage uniform. He was with five hooded men in black carrying long firearms.
‘They are protectors’
“Bring that lamp back. I don’t want to be in the light,” Pascua told Hipolito in Ilocano.
“Cook for us,” Pascua ordered. Hipolito and his wife Catalina began to comply when Pascua changed his mind and said he just wanted a cup of coffee.
Hipolito brought the glasses and a pitcher of water to the men outside, while Nelson stayed inside the house. Doubt never entered the minds of the Asucenas.
Pascua had been a friend. Nelson once sought medication for an injured leg and Pascua’s soldiers provided it.
“Why should we fear them? They are soldiers. They are supposed to be our protectors,” said Marifel.
After Hipolito gave some water to the visitors and went back inside the house, another voice called Nelson: “Bot, come here and get the glasses.”
Nelson came out, alone.
A few seconds later, the family heard the cracking sounds of firearms being loaded followed by the terrified voice of Nelson crying, “Ay! Ay!” Rapid gunfire bursts followed.
The family rushed outside and found Nelson lying face up, his left hand on top of his right rib.
The father shrieked, grabbed his son and watched helplessly as Pascua and his men fled under cover of darkness.
Daughter Lyka came out and embraced her bleeding father, sobbing silently. Relatives and neighbors soon came to mourn the fallen youth.
Agrarian unrest
The Asucenas are among the millions of poor Filipino peasants who dream of owning at least a household farm to live on.
Barangay San Juan has blessed the Asucenas with land suitable for farming and livelihood. But since the Spanish colonial era, San Juan, like other villages in the region, has been engulfed in agitation by peasant movements seeking land for landless tillers.
The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed component, the New People’s Army (NPA), emerged in the region as farmers stepped up demands for the redistribution of the land.
This earned the ire of the landlords who for a time had felt helpless, especially those who had property in areas considered hot spots of CPP-NPA operations -- particularly in the Marag, Paco and Zinundungan triangle.
From the late ’80s to the middle of the ’90s these areas were declared “no man’s land” as the military went after guerrillas of the CPP-NPA. Human rights abuses surged.
‘Hamleting’
Military operations eased in the late ’90s. “Hamleting” -- a failed US strategy during the Vietnam War that called for relocating villages away from sensitive zones -- was lifted between 1996 and 2000.
San Juan is located in the Zinundungan Valley, and it may have been unfortunate for Hipolito and his family to have been caught in the middle of the conflict between the military and the NPAs.
It was also this conflict that brought Hipolito to San Juan when his family was displaced by military operations in their original home in Marag.
In 1982, Hipolito Asucena saw big trouble ahead when the military again evacuated his family from San Juan to Masi, leaving behind their houses and cultivated farms.
Eight months in Masi’s “concentration camp” pushed the Asucenas back to San Juan. Many children died from diseases in the evacuation area.
The elder Asucena recounted alleged abuses: Soldiers raping women, defecating in communal water catchments, beating peasants during questioning about the NPA presence.
‘They beat us just the same’
“The military would ask us if we had seen NPAs in our place, and when we say ‘yes,’ they say that we are members of the NPA so they beat us. But when we say ‘no,’ they accuse us of covering up for the NPAs and then beat us just the same,” said Hipolito.
There were other bitter memories. He recalled how in 1983, the military burned his house and stole his chickens.
Once, he added, he was told to go to the capital of Cagayan to be presented to the media as one of the NPA “surrenderers.”
In 2003, during a resurgent anticommunist campaign, the military took pictures of the people in San Juan and asked them to write down their names on a document, purportedly to be used in clearing their records as NPA members.
‘Land 6 feet under ground’
In 2004, a military squad stayed in Hipolito’s house for about two months.
On Nov. 24, 2006, soldiers of the 21st IB gathered the people of San Juan in a community meeting for a “census.” Here, a soldier who identified himself as Army de la Cruz declared: “Ex-Mayor Baloran owns the land being given to you by the NPAs. Your only land is six feet below the ground.”
Hipolito says he felt weak and defenseless as the military tightened control of everyday life. Military abuses became rife. It was only on that tragic December night that Hipolito realized his son would give up his life for the festering land dispute.
At the age of 9, Nelson was allegedly already included in the order of battle, a list of people monitored by the Philippine Army suspected of being members of the CPP-NPA.
Most victims of extrajudicial killings were in the AFP order of battle.
On Nov. 26, 2006, Marifel had a premonition of Nelson’s death when she overheard a conversation between Pascua and her husband: “Surrender to us,” Pascua told Nelson after an exchange of jokes.
“What shall I surrender, sir, my plow and my bolo? I am just a farmer,” Nelson replied.
“Watch out for yourself,” Pascua reportedly said.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Last updated 03:36am (Mla time) 02/19/2007
(First of two parts)
(Editor’s note: Sanchez is assistant professor at the University of the Philippines Visayas working on her Ph.D. in Sociology; Ocampo is with the UP School of Economics. The two were invited by Taripnon, an ecology group in the Cagayan Valley, to study the impact of a military presence as a form of terrorism. Following is their report.)
“Palpasin niyo da kame uray ku pinatay yu diay maymaysak nga baru (Better still, kill us all. You have just killed my only son!),” the old man cried in anguish as he cradled his dying son Nelson Asucena in his arms.
Bleeding from M16 and M14 bullet wounds, Nelson made his last wish for his father Hipolito to take care of his family -- his wife Marifel and 3-year-old daughter Lyka.
Asucena, 19, Sangguniang Kabataan (youth council) chair of Barangay San Juan, Zinundungan Valley, thus became the 821st victim of extrajudicial killings, according to Karapatan, a human rights group (261st by the Philippine Daily Inquirer count), since President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo became president in 2001.
The elder Asucena pointed to Lt. Marcelo Pascua, Alpha company commander of the 21st Infantry Battalion (IB), as the man primarily responsible for the death of his son, a daily companion who helped him plow the fields and shared with him the hardships of peasant life.
He talked with a fact-finding mission that visited the area last month to look into the situation in the Cagayan Valley region. The mission included representatives of Bayan Muna, Karapatan, a church-based organization in Cagayan and other nongovernment organizations.
The 51-year-old Hipolito recounts vividly how the night of Dec. 13, 2006, turned into a nightmare.
“Bot (Nelson’s nickname), umay kami man (may we come in),” the unexpected caller said thrice.
Nelson rose from his bed but was stopped by his wife. “It is Lieutenant Pascua,” Nelson whispered.
“How do you know?” she asked.
“It is his voice,” he replied.
Asucena walked to the door while his father lit a gas lamp. Hipolito followed his son. Before Nelson opened the door, Hipolito patted his son’s back and asked who was calling him. “It is Lieutenant Pascua,” Nelson repeated.
The two men stepped outside the house to meet with the visitors. Pascua was wearing a camouflage uniform. He was with five hooded men in black carrying long firearms.
‘They are protectors’
“Bring that lamp back. I don’t want to be in the light,” Pascua told Hipolito in Ilocano.
“Cook for us,” Pascua ordered. Hipolito and his wife Catalina began to comply when Pascua changed his mind and said he just wanted a cup of coffee.
Hipolito brought the glasses and a pitcher of water to the men outside, while Nelson stayed inside the house. Doubt never entered the minds of the Asucenas.
Pascua had been a friend. Nelson once sought medication for an injured leg and Pascua’s soldiers provided it.
“Why should we fear them? They are soldiers. They are supposed to be our protectors,” said Marifel.
After Hipolito gave some water to the visitors and went back inside the house, another voice called Nelson: “Bot, come here and get the glasses.”
Nelson came out, alone.
A few seconds later, the family heard the cracking sounds of firearms being loaded followed by the terrified voice of Nelson crying, “Ay! Ay!” Rapid gunfire bursts followed.
The family rushed outside and found Nelson lying face up, his left hand on top of his right rib.
The father shrieked, grabbed his son and watched helplessly as Pascua and his men fled under cover of darkness.
Daughter Lyka came out and embraced her bleeding father, sobbing silently. Relatives and neighbors soon came to mourn the fallen youth.
Agrarian unrest
The Asucenas are among the millions of poor Filipino peasants who dream of owning at least a household farm to live on.
Barangay San Juan has blessed the Asucenas with land suitable for farming and livelihood. But since the Spanish colonial era, San Juan, like other villages in the region, has been engulfed in agitation by peasant movements seeking land for landless tillers.
The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed component, the New People’s Army (NPA), emerged in the region as farmers stepped up demands for the redistribution of the land.
This earned the ire of the landlords who for a time had felt helpless, especially those who had property in areas considered hot spots of CPP-NPA operations -- particularly in the Marag, Paco and Zinundungan triangle.
From the late ’80s to the middle of the ’90s these areas were declared “no man’s land” as the military went after guerrillas of the CPP-NPA. Human rights abuses surged.
‘Hamleting’
Military operations eased in the late ’90s. “Hamleting” -- a failed US strategy during the Vietnam War that called for relocating villages away from sensitive zones -- was lifted between 1996 and 2000.
San Juan is located in the Zinundungan Valley, and it may have been unfortunate for Hipolito and his family to have been caught in the middle of the conflict between the military and the NPAs.
It was also this conflict that brought Hipolito to San Juan when his family was displaced by military operations in their original home in Marag.
In 1982, Hipolito Asucena saw big trouble ahead when the military again evacuated his family from San Juan to Masi, leaving behind their houses and cultivated farms.
Eight months in Masi’s “concentration camp” pushed the Asucenas back to San Juan. Many children died from diseases in the evacuation area.
The elder Asucena recounted alleged abuses: Soldiers raping women, defecating in communal water catchments, beating peasants during questioning about the NPA presence.
‘They beat us just the same’
“The military would ask us if we had seen NPAs in our place, and when we say ‘yes,’ they say that we are members of the NPA so they beat us. But when we say ‘no,’ they accuse us of covering up for the NPAs and then beat us just the same,” said Hipolito.
There were other bitter memories. He recalled how in 1983, the military burned his house and stole his chickens.
Once, he added, he was told to go to the capital of Cagayan to be presented to the media as one of the NPA “surrenderers.”
In 2003, during a resurgent anticommunist campaign, the military took pictures of the people in San Juan and asked them to write down their names on a document, purportedly to be used in clearing their records as NPA members.
‘Land 6 feet under ground’
In 2004, a military squad stayed in Hipolito’s house for about two months.
On Nov. 24, 2006, soldiers of the 21st IB gathered the people of San Juan in a community meeting for a “census.” Here, a soldier who identified himself as Army de la Cruz declared: “Ex-Mayor Baloran owns the land being given to you by the NPAs. Your only land is six feet below the ground.”
Hipolito says he felt weak and defenseless as the military tightened control of everyday life. Military abuses became rife. It was only on that tragic December night that Hipolito realized his son would give up his life for the festering land dispute.
At the age of 9, Nelson was allegedly already included in the order of battle, a list of people monitored by the Philippine Army suspected of being members of the CPP-NPA.
Most victims of extrajudicial killings were in the AFP order of battle.
On Nov. 26, 2006, Marifel had a premonition of Nelson’s death when she overheard a conversation between Pascua and her husband: “Surrender to us,” Pascua told Nelson after an exchange of jokes.
“What shall I surrender, sir, my plow and my bolo? I am just a farmer,” Nelson replied.
“Watch out for yourself,” Pascua reportedly said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)