Ryan P.

Acosta 3/2/2013 Constitutional Provisions, Laws, and Jurisprudence on Torture

Constitutional Provisions on Torture Article 2, Sec 11. states that it is a policy of the state to value "the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights." To this end, the 1987 Constitution has several provisions on torture. One is found in Sec. 12 (2) of the Bill of Rights, which states, "No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited." The provision is specifically designed to prevent coerced confession of detained persons. Moreover, the said section also provides for an exclusionary rule against the inadmissibility of confessions or admissions obtained by coercion (Sec. 12, para 3, Art 3). Section 19 (para 1) of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution also protect individuals from cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. The second paragraph of the said section also prohibits the use of torture on detainees or convicted prisoners as well as the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions. Laws on Torture The foremost torture law in the Philippines is the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (RA 9745). The law defines torture and various acts considered as torture, which is defined by the law as, "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on any person under the custody of persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State." It also provides for prohibited acts and the corresponding penalties. Aside from the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, there are also other laws that covers provisions related to torture. One is RA 7309 which provides for compensation for victims of torture, the manner of filing claims for compensation, and the process of awarding compensation. RA 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation as Well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers) also contains provisions against torture. For one, RA 7438 gives detainees the right to demand to be visited by an immediate family member, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President (Sec 2, f). Violation of such right is considered as an act of torture under RA 9745. The Human Security Act (RA 9372) also contains provisions prohibiting commission of acts of torture against persons charged with terrorism who are under investigation or interrogation by the authorities (Sections 24 and 25). Lastly, there is a

new law, RA 10368, that provides for reparation and recognition of victims of human rights violations, such as torture, during the Marcos regime. The newly signed law will be funded by billions of funds from the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos, which will be awarded by a Human Rights Victims Claims Board to bona fide victims. Recent Jurisprudence on Torture One of the most recent SC jurisprudence regarding torture is People vs Nagares (G.R. No. 175330, January 12, 2010). One of the main issues in the case is the inadmissibility of the evidence gathered against Nagares who was charged with murder as per Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution. Nagares alleged that confessions that sustained his conviction in the lower court were obtained by coercion by the police during his detention. The SC affirmed the decision of the CA who said that no marks of violence were observed on his body and he did not have himself examined by a physician to support his claim. The Court also said that his confession is replete with details, which makes it highly improbable that it was not voluntarily given. The Court also cited the photographs taken during the signing, thumbmarking, and swearing of the extrajudicial confession. All the pictures depicted a cordial and pleasant atmosphere devoid of any sign of torture, threat, duress or tension on Nagares person. In fact, the Court said the photographs showed Nagares smiling. Another recent jurisprudence centering on torture is IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ (G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011). Here, the Court found sufficient evidence proving commission of torture against the victim Noriel H. Rodriguez, a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant organization affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). The SC affirmed the CA ruling that the soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military abducted Rodriguez on 6 September 2009, and detained and tortured him until 17 September 2009. The Court said that Rodriguezs Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 4 December 2009 was a meticulous and straightforward account of his horrific ordeal with the military, detailing the manner in which he was captured and maltreated on account of his suspected membership in the NPA. There was also sufficient medical evidence that the victim was indeed tortured, as per the certification of doctors. Thus, the Court ruled that respondents Gen. Victor S. Ibrado, Lt. Gen. Delfin Bangit, Maj. Gen. Nestor Z. Ochoa, et al. are responsible or accountable for the violation of Rodriguezs right to life, liberty and security on account of their abject failure to conduct a fair and effective official investigation of his ordeal in the hands of the military.