February 7, 2009

Dear Friends,

Greetings of peace and justice!

	In behalf of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) and the Balao family, we thank you for your continued support in our efforts to search and surface James Moy Balao. The statements, letters to concerned Philippine government agencies in response to our Urgent Alert, letters to the family, financial and material support to the campaign against enforced disappearances and the like have been a source of hope, strength and perseverance. These have also greatly helped in bringing to public attention and condemnation the case of James and other victims of enforced disappearance. 

	On January 21, 2009, the Court has rendered judgment on the Petition for the Writ of Amparo that the family and the CPA have filed for James last October 2008. The Judgment clearly states that: (Emphases provided. You can read the Judgment and related statements at www.cpaphils.org.)

1.	“There being no contrary evidence, I have no reason to doubt that in his time he was a very good CPA researcher, educator, trainor and organizer who spent most of his time living with, educating and organizing farmers in the provinces while doing some research for the CPA.”

2.	Quoting from the Petition, “xxx His abduction came at a time when the government is engaged in an all out war against its perceived enemies and those critical of its policies, which has resulted in unabated extrajudicial killings, abductions, political persecution and violations of civil and political rights of the people. It happened at a time when organizations and individuals critical of the government are tagged as terrorists or enemies of the state.”

3.	“On record is evidence pointing to the more likely than not motive for James Balao’s disappearance – his activist/political leanings. This is shown by several incidents relating to harassments of activists xxx. More likely than not he was not taken to parts unknown for reasons other than his involvement in the CPA, that is, politically-motivated. The Court considers these facts enough circumstances to establish substantial evidence of an enforced disappearance xxx.” 

These strongly affirm our earlier statements that the case of James is clearly an enforced disappearance. It is State-perpetrated and the motives are political – like in extrajudicial killings – it is part of the overall scheme to destroy the militant mass movement in the country.

These also debunk the pronouncements of the military and the police that the disappearance of James is a result of a purge within the CPA, a clan dispute and/or a personal grudge against James.

The Court further defined enforced disappearance as follows:

4.	“On the other hand, ‘enforced disappearance are attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of law.’”

In reply to the solicitor general’s attempt to exclude Pres. GMA as respondent in the Petition. The Court has this to say:

5.	“xxx a Petition for a Writ of Amparo is not by any stretch of imagination a niggling vexing or annoying court case that Her Excellency should be shielded upon. For as explained in The Secretary of National Defense et. al., v. Manalo et. al, ‘The remedy xxx is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings.’ What it does merely is to enable Courts to enforce the Constitution – thereby assisting Her Excellency – by protecting individual rights in particular cases put prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation.

xxx

As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the constitutional guarantee of the rights of life, liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if the government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are under threat.”

The Court is of the finding that the President cannot shield herself from this responsibility. It may be considered as a mundane task but she has alter egos in government who are paid from people’s taxes to do exactly in her behalf and authority. We reiterate our position that the Writ is not a proceeding to determine guilt and culpability, but to provide immediate protection to the victim thus government should not frown on and respond to have such petitions dismissed.

6.	“Next, the violation of the right to security as protection by the government is unmistakable. The police and military miserably failed in conducting an effective investigation of James Balao’s abduction as revealed by the investigation report of respondent’s own witnesses Honorable Chief Superintendent Eugene Martin and Honorable Senior Superintendent Fortunato Albas. The investigation was – to use the words in The Secretary of National Defense et. al., v. Manalo et. al. – very limited, superficial and one-sided.

xxx surely some things are amiss where the investigation DID NOT INVESTIGATE the military officials believed to be behind the abduction as they were merely invited to a dialogue where the investigation DID NOT LEAD to Camp Dangwa where the abductors were supposed to have proceeded as narrated by witnesses. To the mind of this Court, there is a seeming prejudice in the process of investigation to pin suspects who are not connected with the military establishments. xxx”

Basing from unrebutted testimonies and other evidences, the Court in a way castigated the police in its investigation. The above provision disagrees with the statement of military and police that the CPA and the Balao family have been uncooperative in the investigation. They have been quick to dismiss the information that CPA has and gathered on the circumstances of James’ disappearance.

Thus, it disposed of the Petition as written below:

7.	“The Court issued a Writ of Amparo ORDERING the respondents to (a) disclose where James Balao is detained or confined, (b) to release James Balao considering his unlawful detention since his abduction and (c) to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon his person.”

While we are glad with the above, the respondents can simply deny or probably lie that they have James in custody. In such denial, they have already complied with the Court order. 

However, despite the strongly worded Judgment, the Court denied the issuance of Inspection Order, Production Order and Witness Protection Order. It is unfortunate that the stringent provisions of the Writ defeat the very purpose of the Writ of Amparo i.e. to give protection to the victim.

Thus, petitioners filed on January 28 a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. It asks the Court to immediately execute the provisions of the judgment as stated in number 7, but appealing the denial of the other orders. The denial is also the subject of petitioner’s certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, disappointed as we are, we shall not lose hope in our continuing efforts to exact State accountability on the enforced disappearance of James and bring the perpetrators to justice and we will continue to search for James.  

Respectfully,

BEVERLY L. LONGID
Chairperson