HUMAN
RIGHTS WATCH
Compensation Bill
Recognizes 3 Salient Points in History
Although one of its principal authors says it is “not fully satisfactory,”
the Compensation Bill passed on third reading by the House of
Representatives June 21 nonetheless recognizes three significant points in
the people’s struggle against Martial Law.
BY
DABET CASTAÑEDA
Bulatlat
People Power 1 at the Epifanio De Los
Santos Avenue (EDSA), from Feb. 21 to 25, 1986, marked the downfall of the
Marcos dictatorship. Widely perceived as a middle class movement, People
Power 1 launched the political careers of the four most popular
personalities during the uprising namely, Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino, the
widow of assassinated opposition senator Benigno Aquino Jr., became the
country’s president after Marcos; Fidel V. Ramos became Philippine
president after Aquino; Juan Ponce Enrile is now a senator; and Gregorio
Honasan became a senator and is now in hiding after being charged with
rebellion by the Arroyo administration.
However, not much is written today
about the thousands of workers and peasants who fought the Marcos
dictatorship and comprised the bulk of the victims of authoritarian rule.
Marie Hilao-Enriquez, secretary
general of the Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detensyon at Para sa
Amnestiya (SELDA or Association of Ex-Detainees Against Detention and for
Amnesty), said that human rights organizations recorded 120,000 victims of
political arrest and detention, 1,500 victims of extra-judicial killings
and 800 victims of enforced disappearances during the 14 years of Martial
Law. This does not yet include victims in the Moro areas in Mindanao, she
said.
Class suit
After the ouster of Marcos in February
1986, Hilao-Enriquez said SELDA initiated a class action suit against the
Marcos family for the thousands of victims of human rights violations
during the dictatorship. Plaintiffs, numbering 9,539, filed a case before
the Federal District Court of Honolulu in Hawaii last April 7, 1986. The
court ruled with finality against the Marcos family on Sept. 22, 1992. The
court ordered the Marcos family to pay US$776 million in damages to the
victims.
Although succeeding administrations
have recovered from the Marcos family a total of P35 billion ($657.15
million, based on an exchange rate of P53.26 per US dollar) from hidden
bank accounts in Switzerland, the victims have not yet been compensated
due to many factors. One of the main legal obstacles is that under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), all recovered assets from the
Marcos family shall be used for its implementation.
Voting 140-13 with six abstentions, it
was only on June 21 when the Lower House passed House Bill 3315 or the
Human Rights Compensation Act of 2006.
Salient points
Although one of its principal
sponsors, Rep. Satur Ocampo of the party-list Bayan Muna (People First)
said that the bill is “not fully satisfactory of its original intention,”
he stressed that three salient points in the bill recognized the
sacrifices of thousands from the basic sectors of society who fought
martial rule.
First, Ocampo said the bill recognizes
that the Marcos dictatorship indeed violated the rights of thousands who
fought against it.
But he accused post-Marcos
dictatorship administrations of recognizing the legitimacy of the Martial
Law period, “kasi pinagpatuloy ang mga paglabag sa karapatang pantao at
yung mga mapanupil na presidential decrees at batas ay hindi ginalaw,”
(because they continued violating human rights and they never removed
repressive presidential decrees and laws) said Ocampo. For example, Batas
Pambansa 880 (BP 880) or the Public Assembly Act of 1985 is still being
used as legal basis for restricting and violently dispersing protest
actions. Likewise Presidential 442, as amended May 1, 1974, allowed the
Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE) to assume
jurisdiction over labor disputes. Once the DoLE issues an Assumption of
Jurisdiction order, the workers are compelled to lift their strike.
Although post-Martial Law
administrations acknowledged that 14 years of the Marcos presidency was
indeed a dictatorship, Ocampo said, these never repudiated that period and
even considered it as a “legitimate government.”
But since it has been proven in court
that the Marcos dictatorship violated the rights of its citizens, Ocampo
said the succeeding administrations have a responsibility to recognize
these violations and thus grant compensation to the said victims.
Second, Ocampo said, the bill also
implies that the lifting of Martial Law through Proclamation No. 2045 on
January 17, 1981 was done only on paper. This is implied by the fact that
the bill covers victims of summary execution, torture, involuntary
disappearances and other forms of human rights violation committed by
agents of the state during the period from Sept. 21, 1972, the declaration
of Martial Law, to Feb. 25, 1986, the day Marcos and his family were flown
to the U.S. and Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino was sworn in as president of the
republic.
Third, “the bill also recognizes that
armed struggle was a legitimate form of defiance against the Marcos
dictatorship,” Ocampo said.
The Bayan Muna representative pointed
out that this issue became controversial during second reading
deliberations at the Plenary.
In the second draft of the bill,
Section 3 under Definitions, a) Compensable Human Rights Violation,
paragraph (2) states that “compensable” individuals are those who
“peacefully” exercised their “civil or political rights.”
This phrase, Ocampo said, was intended
to eliminate the significance of armed struggle in the fight against the
Marcos dictatorship. Various books and reading materials, however, have
previously stated that many peasants, workers, students and professionals
joined the underground movement, particularly the New People’s Army, the
armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), when Martial
Law was declared.
In the approved bill, the word
“peacefully” was removed.
Limitations
Ocampo nonetheless admitted that the
said bill has its limitations. In the original version drafted by Bayan
Muna, Ocampo said the 9,539 victims who filed and won a class suit in
Hawaii were “automatic beneficiaries.” However, he said, some members of
the House voted against this provision arguing that there might be “fake
claimants.” To avoid such cases, the final version provides that
claimants should produce sufficient evidence to prove their claims.
In a separate interview, Hilao-Enriquez
said this specific phrase in the bill discourages rather than encourages
victims to come forward and file claims. “We’ve won a case in court so
what’s there to prove?” she asked.
She also pointed out that it would be
extremely difficult for victims from far-flung provinces to produce
documentary evidences because martial rule happened more than three
decades ago. This is also true with the victims from Moro areas in
Mindanao “because human rights organizations were not able to document
their cases during that time,” Hilao-Enriquez said.
But the bill states that in
recognition of their efforts to pursue the case against the dictator, the
class-suit plaintiffs will be given priority once compensation is
disbursed.
Another limitation, Ocampo said, is
the exclusion of the organization of victims in the Board of Compensation
that will be created once the bill is passed. The bill states that
interested parties should not take part in the implementation.
Hilao-Enriquez however argued it is
important for the victims’ organization to be part of the Board so as to
expedite the implementation process. “It is a practical matter,” Hilao-Enriquez
said, “because we are the ones who documented these cases, therefore, we
can distinguish the genuine and fake claimants, if there are any.”
Among the organizations Hilao-Enriquez
is referring to are SELDA, which was organized in 1985 by former political
detainees during Martial Law; the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines
(TFDP), which was formed in 1974, and the Families of Victims of
Involuntary Disappearances (FIND), organized in 1985.
Hilao-Enriquez said they will lobby
the Senate to include these three organizations in the Board.
Compensation
The bill earmarks P8 billion ($150.21
million) for the victims’ compensation. This amount will come from the
P35-billion ($657.15-million) Marcos ill-gotten wealth recovered and
transferred to the Philippines by order of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court
on Dec. 10, 1997. The rest of the amount goes to the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the implementation of its agrarian reform
program.
Section 4 of the bill however states
that the “compensation received under this Act shall be without prejudice
to the receipt of any other sum” by the victims from the estate of
Ferdinand Marcos. Ocampo explained this bill does not hinder the victims
from acquiring other amounts of compensation if and when there are other
Marcos assets recovered. He said it was not clear, however, if another law
shall be passed to compensate the victims if and when the government
recovers other Marcos assets. Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Media Center
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
