15 March 2019

Mr. Bernard Duhaime

Chair-Rapporteur
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland

Dear Mr. Duhaime,

Greetings of peace and justice!

We, families and relatives of victims of enforced or involuntary disappearances in the

Philippines through our organization Desaparecidos, express our deep concern on the move of
the Philippine government to “delist” the 625 cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances
between the years 1975 and 2012 reported and submitted before the UN Working Group on
Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance (UN WGEID).

We only learned of the said move through published news articles which presented the reasons
of the Philippine government to move for the “delisting” of the names or cases of enforced
disappearances in the country. Thus, we are compelled to formally write to you to appeal not to
accept the said proposal, and hear the voice of the families of the victims who have been
searching and seeking justice for our missing loved ones -- the same families of victims who
sought for the help of the UN WGEID many years back to raise the issue of enforced or
involuntary disappearances in the Philippines.

The Philippine government says that “adherence to existing ‘legal framework and institutional
mechanisms’ are already in place. It is true that families of the disappeared found hope that the
passage of the Anti-Enforced Disappearance Law (Republic Act 10353) in 2012 will provide
such for the families of victims. May we point out that that the passage of this law was mainly
through the efforts of progressive legislators as well as the families and friends of victims so the
government cannot claim credit for this. We victims and friends campaigned for the passage of
the bill, and supported it until it was passed into law.

However, even with the existence of a law criminalizing enforced disappearance, there is no
assurance that justice will be obtained: justice which means the abducted will be surfaced and the
perpetrators brought to justice. From our actual experience with the Philippine justice system, we

1
know that unless the institutions cooperate and comply, the laws are useless. The Orders from
the Supreme Court to the Military to present bodies of abducted persons whose relatives were
granted the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Writ of Amparo (e.g. Jonas Joseph Burgos, Romulo
Robiños, Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeño) have never been complied with and no one has been
cited in contempt.

Philippine government is bent on the delisting at the UN WGIED while it has not presented any
information or report on the status of the 625 cases of enforced disappearances that it wants to
delist. The participation of the Commission on Human Rights who holds all the information of
victims of human rights violations and particularly the victims of enforced disappearance, have
not been sought. Since the passage of the law, it is disturbing that none of its existing
mechanisms and laws have resolved these cases. Families of the disappeared have not learned of
any information or received any communication that the Philippine government is undergoing
such processes.

It remains a burden on the part of the families to search for their loved ones, much more seek
justice for the disappeared. For cases that were given the privilege of being tried in court, it is the
families who exert efforts to show proof and evidence and present witnesses. Provisions of the
law that require state forces and agencies to make the public aware, especially families and
relatives, on the whereabouts and information on the disappeared persons have not been followed
and implemented by state forces themselves. The law states, under Section 8 (Duty to Certify in
Writing on the Results of Inquiry into a Reported Disappeared):

“In case a family member, relative, lawyer, representative of a human rights organization or a
member of the media inquires with a member or official of any police or military detention
center, the PNP or any of its agencies, the AFP or any of its agencies, the NBI or any other
agency or instrumentality of the government, as well as any hospital or morgue, public or
private, on the presence or whereabouts of a reported victim of enforced or involuntary
disappearance, such member or official shall immediately issue a certification in writing to the
inquiring person or entity on the presence or absence and/or information on the whereabouts of
such disappeared person, stating, among others, in clear and unequivocal manner the date and
time of inquiry, details of the inquiry and the response to the inquiry.”

Even with the most simple certification or inquiry to be signed by state agencies or institutions
which we have gone to in search for the missing, we continue to experience the same ordeal of
being denied of information, sometimes even denied entry to their premises as we go from one
military or police camp and detachment to another armed with court orders in our search.

We are to believe that the Philippine government used the year 2012 as a marker in the move to
“delist” victims because of the law’s passage in the same year. However, since 2012, not a single

2
perpetrator and state agent has been charged and convicted of the crime of enforced
disappearance.

Even the most prominent case of retired Army general Jovito Palparan, mastermind of the
abduction and disappearance of missing University of the Philippines students Karen Empeño
and Sherlyn Cadapan, did not push through due to the law’s implementation. The families of the
victims, with their brave witnesses and overwhelming evidence, were the ones to file charges
against Palparan of kidnapping with serious illegal detention in 2011. After many hurdles and
continuous lobbying, the Department of Justice took on the case with the private counsel of the
families of Cadapan and Empeño, which led to his trial and conviction, and a sentence of life
imprisonment last year.

Aside from the maneuvers used by state forces to evade charges and therefore, accountability,
more cases of enforced disappearances have not been subject to any investigation. Therefore,
even the idea of having to put to trial state forces who were involved in cases of abduction and
disappearance is not deemed possible at this point.

We find the Philippine government’s move to delist cases as a cover-up for not having any
visible and serious effort to pursue justice for the victims of enforced or involuntary
disappearance, and consciously implement the Anti-Enforced Disappearance Law.

More importantly, the basic principle that enforced or involuntary disappearance is a continuing
crime is being neglected by the Philippine government in its move to “delist” victims of enforced
disappearance.

The Anti-Enforced Disappearance Law clearly states that enforced disappearance is a continuing
crime, as stated in Section 21 of RA 10353:

“An act constituting enforced or involuntary disappearance shall be considered a continuing

offense as long as the perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and whereabouts of the
disappeared person and such circumstances have not been determined with certainty.”

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance,
under Article 8, likewise provides for the continuing character of the crime of enforced
disappearance.

Families of the disappeared can attest to the fact that their loved ones remain missing, and that
state forces who have committed one of the worst human rights violations remain unaccountable.
There is no basis for the delisting. Delisting the 625 cases of enforced disappearances removes

3
the actual testament to the continuing injustice to the victims and their families that we tirelessly
seek.

Another law cited by the Philippine government was the passage and implementation of the
Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013 (RA 10368), which paved the
way for indemnification of victims of human rights violations under the Marcos dictatorship. The
law spells out the state’s recognition that it has the responsibility on the rights violations
committed during that time, including enforced disappearances, in the years of 1972 to 1986.
The said law also stated the role and responsibility taken by the state in the process of
recognition given to victims of human rights violations during the martial law years of Marcos.
Under its preliminary provisions in Section 2:

“The State hereby acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide
reparation to said victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations
and damages they suffered under the Marcos regime.

Similarly, it is the obligation of the State to acknowledge the sufferings and damages inflicted
upon persons whose properties or businesses were forcibly taken over, sequestered or used, or
those whose professions were damaged and/or impaired, or those whose freedom of movement
was restricted, and/or such other victims of the violations of the Bill of Rights.”

Many victims were given compensation, while more are still appealing and demanding
recognition and reparation, which is why there is now a proposed bill filed at the House of
Representatives to reopen the process and make the reparation available to victims who were
denied and who were not able to apply for recognition. The Philippine government is going
against its own law in delisting the said victims, knowing that no amount of compensation have
led to surfacing the disappeared.

Both laws also give stress on the state’s adherences to the principles and standards on the
absolute condemnation of human rights violations set by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and
various international instruments, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CAT), to which the Philippines is a State party.

We stand that “delisting” victims from the lists of the United Nations, runs contrary to the state’s
so-called “adherences to the principles and standards” set by the nation’s laws as well as
international instruments that provide a venue for victims to seek justice outside the country. It
defeats the purpose of providing relief and respite for victims of enforced disappearance so they
may be surfaced, their rights recognized, and for justice to be served.

4
If the Philippine government is indeed serious in recognizing the victims of rights violations,
especially enforced disappearances, then why move to “delist” them? Any recognition or
reparation is partial justice. No amount of compensation can erase the fact that families of
desaparecidos remain unaware of what happened to their loved ones. The Philippine government
should be questioned for this deliberate move to clear up its record while hundreds, if not
thousands, of Filipinos continue to suffer this grave injustice.

Adding insult to injury, state forces who were known to be the brains of an undeclared policy of
enforced disappearances, were given key positions in the Philippine government. One glaring
example is Gen. Eduardo Año, former Army intelligence officer and now secretary of the
Department of Interior and Local Government, who was responsible in the abduction and
disappearance of Jonas Burgos. The case which tried a Philippine Army major, Harry Baliaga,
for serious illegal detention of Jonas has been dismissed. Burgos remains missing to this day.

The family of Maria Luisa Posa Dominado was also one of the families who filed a case with the
UN WGEID. Luisa, along with Nilo Arado, was abducted on April 12, 2007 in Iloilo, and has
been missing since. As they searched for her, Luisa’s family was told that she is a member of the
New People’s Army, as if such claim would justify any human rights violation that she may
suffer.
Meanwhile, she was recognized as a legitimate martial law victim entitled to compensation by
the Human Rights Victims Claims Board under RA 10368 due to her imprisonment for seven
years in four different instances during Martial Law where she suffered torture and sexual
offenses under detention. Now, the present administration wants to use this as a basis for
delisting, as proof that she has been compensated.
The government also continuously vilifies the disappeared despite their continued disapperance.
Luisa, together with Michael Celeste, are two desaparecidos included in the proscription list filed
in February 2018 by the Department of Justice accusing them as terrorists. This is after more
than a decade has passed since Luisa was abducted.
As the family of Luisa laments, they dare to ask to "compel the sources to provide us with details
as they do not want to communicate with us," further burdening the families of the victims with
the obligation to investigate, while seeking applause for their "close cooperation" with the
victims and their families.
Another case filed before the UN WGEID is that of desaparecido James Balao. Balao was
abducted on September 17, 2008 in La Trinidad, Benguet. After a local court granted the
privilege of the writ of amparo and ordered named public officials to state where Balao is being
detained or confined, to release him and cease and desist from inflicting any harm on Balao, the
Supreme Court reversed the grant of the writ in 2011. The High Court has then directed the
Philippine National Police (PNP) to investigate Balao’s abduction, and “relieved the Armed

5
Forces of the Philippines and the Commission on Human Rights from their respective
obligations in the abduction of Balao.”
Since then, there has been no advance in the investigation. There were identified elements in the
AFP and PNP involved in the abduction but remain unaccountable. Balao remains missing to this,
and his family and colleagues in his organization, the Cordillera People’s Alliance, even claim
that they are ones being investigated by the police.

We believe that it is the State’s obligation to respond to communications sent by the UN WGEID
on the complaints reported to the Working Group and provide information on the measures
undertaken by the State regarding these cases. However, we have not read nor encountered any
information that there is a such a delisting process within the UN human rights mechanisms.

Also, even while the Philippines has not ratified the International Convention for the Protection
of all Persons from Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, it remains duty-bound to observe
and implement all international agreements and optional protocols for the promotion and
protection of human rights.

It is downright an insult to families of victims of enforced disappearances that while we

continuously uphold the names of our disappeared, the Philippine government, along with its
obligation to protect the rights of its people, is more concerned in cleaning the slate of atrocities
in the past. It is also as if enforced disappearances have completely been erased from the
memory of the country, and even the international community.

It also remains a painful truth that enforced disappearances continue to this day. With the help
primarily of human rights organizations and fellow advocates like Karapatan, Desaparecidos has
recorded eight victims of enforced disappearances under the Duterte administration. This number
may be smaller number compared to that of the previous administrations, but they are proof that
there are still persons denied of their rights, and that more families are looking for their missing
kin.

We respectfully hope that the UN WGEID echo the stand of the families of victims as the
Philippine government has yet to fully implement the said laws and its provided mechanisms.
We respectfully ask the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to visit
the country and investigate the cases. Even before giving audience to the proposal to “delist” the
victims, we appeal to the UN WGEID to hear the families of the victims on the ground. We ask
to maintain the list of the 625 victims, and raise this concern to the Philippine government.

We hope that the UN WGEID remain steadfast in serving its functions in providing international
mechanisms for the victims and their families. We have sought your assistance in previous years

6
for cases of enforced disappearances in the Philippines. We believe that your respectful body
will remain open to the plight of the families of victims of enforced disappearances.

Ultimately, we continue to aspire for a society free of enforced disappearances. Until then, we
vow to continue seeking justice here in the Philippines and elsewhere. We hope that you may
hear our voices and be part of our journey to justice, however long this may take.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

ROMEO ANCHETA
Brother of Leopoldo Ancheta, Desaparecido

ALELI DEW AYROSO

Husband of Honor Ayroso, Desaparecido

MIGNONETTE BALAO
Sister of James Balao, Desaparecido

ISABEL BATRALO
Sister of Cesar Batralo, Desaparecido

EDITA BURGOS
Mother of Jonas Burgos, Desaparecido

ASHER CADAPAN
Father of Sherlyn Cadapan, Desaparecido

7
ERLINDA CADAPAN
Mother of Sherlyn Cadapan, Desaparecido

ELIZABETH CALUBAD
Wife of Rogelio Calubad, Desaparecido
Mother of Gabriel Calubad, Desaparecido

LIZA CALUBAD
Daughter of Rogelio Calubad, Desaparecido
Sister of Gabriel Calubad, Desaparecido

REBI MAE CALUBAD

Daughter of Gabriel Calubad, Desaparecido
Granddaughter of Rogelio Calubad, Desaparecido

MAYWAN POSA-DOMINADO
Daughter of Maria Luisa Posa-Dominado, Desaparecido

TAMARA POSA-DOMINADO
Daughter of Maria Luisa Posa-Dominado, Desaparecido

CONCEPCION EMPEÑO
Mother of Karen Empeño, Desaparecido

8
EMILY GARCIA
Husband of Reynaldo Garcia, Desaparecido

CRESENCIA DELA CRUZ HIZARSA

Husband of Abner Hizarsa, Desaparecido

SHARA HIZARSA
Daughter of Abner Hizarsa, Desaparecido

CRIS VILLEN HIZARSA

Son of Abner Hizarsa, Desaparecido

BONIFACIO ILAGAN
Brother of Rizalina Ilagan, Desaparecido

ERLOREB MENDEZ
Son of Prudencio Calubid and Celina Palma, Desaparecidos

SHIRLEY PASCUAL
Husband of Roberto Pascual, Desaparecido

LOLITA ROBIÑOS
Mother of Romulos Robiños, Desaparecido

9
LORENA SANTOS
Daughter of Leo Velasco, Desaparecido

EUGENIO SOCO, JR.

Son of Gloria Soco, Desaparecido

CONSOLACION TORRES
Wife of Joey Torres, Sr., Desaparecido

10