Sen. Aquino's Privilege Speech

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, on this day in 1983, my father, Ninoy Aquino, was summarily executed on his return from exile in the United States.

What happened on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport on August 21, 1983 would push an entire country to demand its right to democracy and freedom.  It was the beginning of a new chapter in this country’s history.  It was also the day that heralded our quest for justice in his name.

My father was executed in the presence of law enforcers and national security officials, who, ironically, were there to provide him with security in the face of threats announced by the government.  None of these individuals except the lower ranking officials have been punished for their offenses – complicity at worst, and criminal incompetence, at the very least.

My father’s murder may have sparked the beginning of our long and arduous road to the restoration of democracy, but he was also only one among many whose lives became the currency with which we were to buy back our freedom.

Given the lack of democratic space and academic freedom during martial law, we have had to rely on figures generated by research conducted after this period.  Findings by political scientist Alfred McCoy state that a total of 3,257 cases of political killings occurred during martial law, some 2,520 of whom were salvaged while 737 remain unaccounted for and are presumed dead.  In addition, there were 35,000 torture victims and 70,000 illegal detention cases . Most of these cases remain unsolved.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I stand here before you today not only as Ninoy Aquino’s son and namesake, but as one Filipino who benefited from the sacrifice of his life and that of many others.    

Where are we today, as a country and a democracy sworn to serve and protect its citizens, twenty-four years after the murder of Ninoy Aquino? 

Early this year, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights sent Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur On Extrajudicial, Summary Or Arbitrary Executions, to investigate claims by human rights organizations that more than 800 political activists, human-rights workers, trade union officials, journalists, lawyers and judges have been murdered throughout the country since 2001, the year President Gloria Arroyo came to power.

In his report to the UN following his visit to the Philippines, Alston stated that he had found “strong and consistent evidence [leading] to the conclusion that a significant number of these killings are due to the actions of the military.”  The way in which key institutions and actors approached their responsibilities in relation to such grave human rights concerns, Alston stressed, was significantly influenced by a “passivity bordering on abdication of responsibility.”

A resolution by the European Parliament issued in April this year stressed the need to “stop inciting violence towards certain political or civil society groups, and to restore normal accountability mechanisms to check government abuses.”

Alongside these are pronouncements by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines and civil society groups calling on the President to “seriously address” the spate of political killings that has become a dark cloud hovering over our democracy.

Despite these collective statements of concern, the government’s decision to adopt a position of denial with regard to the gravity of the problem makes one wonder about this administration’s capacity, and indeed, willingness, to protect its citizens and seek justice on their behalf.
Take the case of Jonas Burgos, farmer and son of the late press freedom hero Joe Burgos, who, according to the statements of witnesses, was abducted by armed men on April 28, 2007 while having lunch in a Quezon City restaurant.
A single piece of evidence – missing license plates traced to a vehicle impounded in the 56th Infantry Battalion’s camp in Bulacan – has linked members of the AFP to Jonas’ still unexplained disappearance.
Edita Burgos, Jonas’ mother, has exhausted all Constitutional means of finding any information on the fate of her son:
She has written to President Arroyo, met with Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, and asked AFP Chief of Staff General Hermogenes Esperon Jr. to give her a copy of the military Provost Marshal’s investigation into the missing plates. 

She has petitioned before the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, and has continued to petition the courts for a copy of the said investigation.

Where has Mrs. Burgos’ faith in our democratic institutions taken her?

General Esperon has denied her request for a copy of the Provost Marshal’s report, saying it would “set a bad precedent,” directly in opposition to Article 3, Section 7 of the Constitution, which recognizes the right of people to information on matters of public concern.

The Provost Marshal himself failed to attend a Court of Appeals hearing on Mrs. Burgos’ petition that he disclose the results of the report, saying he was “caught in a traffic jam.”

Presidential Task Force Against Media Harassment head Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to summon for questioning five military officers suspected of having been involved in the disappearance of Jonas.  He was consequently relieved by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales from the Jonas case.

The Supreme Court has ordered the AFP, through its Commander-in-Chief, to produce Jonas.  To this, National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales and Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita have said that they could not possibly produce someone they did not have in their custody.  Their standard reply to the order has been “We will try.”

While consistently denying allegations that they had anything to do with Jonas’ disappearance, military officials have publicly accused Jonas of being a member of the New People’s Army, as if to vindicate themselves from a crime they insist they did not commit.

The circumstances surrounding his disappearance, his abduction in a restaurant inside a crowded mall in broad daylight, display the sense of impunity with which the perpetrators committed the crime.

I read in the newspaper today that a kidnap victim in Antipolo City, a 41-year old Indian businessman, was rescued after three of his kidnappers were killed in a shootout with the police. Operatives of the Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response, the Quezon City Police District and the Rizal Police launched a manhunt for Singh after witnesses saw armed men force him into a vehicle Sunday morning. He was rescued on Sunday night.

This case illustrates that our law enforcement officials are capable of solving cases of disappearance through their sense of urgency. Unfortunately, this kind of prompt action is currently absent in the Jonas Burgos case. What makes his case any different from any other kidnapping continues to be a mystery.

To “revive our righteous indignation and spur our united search for the elusive solution to this pestering problem,” the Supreme Court led a National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings, bringing together some 400 delegates and observers representing virtually all sectors of society.

Never in the annals of the judiciary has it convened a summit for any cause.  The National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings was as bold as it was unprecedented.    

Unfortunately, this innovation by the highest court in our land in the name of the rule of law, hailed as a “landmark Summit” by broad sectors of society, did not even merit a mention in Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s State of the Nation Address.   
The attitude that this administration has adopted on the Jonas Burgos case, and indeed, on the entire issue of political killings and disappearances – compliant at worst, uncaring and incompetent at the very least, bears a chilling similarity to the authorities that stood by, watched, and did nothing as my father was murdered on August 21, 1983.
My father once said that “the true test of a democracy is not the ability to protect your friends but the rights of those whom you might consider your enemies.”
In a democracy, the right to due process, free speech and reliable information is given to every individual, regardless of where they stand in the ideological spectrum. 
In a democracy, one’s faith in institutions of government is justified by the ability of these institutions to uphold and protect these basic Constitutional rights.
Mr. President, these were the freedoms that my father died fighting for. 

The rights restored by Ninoy Aquino’s sacrifice, and that of many nameless others, come with the burden of responsibility to uphold and protect the same, especially when they are threatened by the very institutions that are mandated to protect and preserve them. 

It is because of this responsibility, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, that we who now enjoy these rights and freedoms should refuse to accept that the restoration of democracy, however incomplete it might yet be, has failed the likes of Jonas and Edita Burgos. 

While denouncing the institutions of government that have, by their inaction, abdicated their democratic duties, we should also note with pride the existence of those who, by their actions, continue to provide us with hope. 

The Senate as an institution has demonstrated independence, courage and resolve by consistently resisting attempts by the executive to prevent it from exercising its Constitutionally-mandated duty to protect our freedom and liberties.

It was no stroke of luck or coincidence that our people gave the opposition a clear and resounding mandate in the last elections.  Mr. President, the message could not be clearer:  In the face of continuing threats to our fragile democracy, the Senate must continue to play the role of an effective check on the abuse of executive power, and a steadfast guardian of our civil liberties and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has sought to use its constitutional powers over the practice of law to increase protection for civil liberties and to exact accountability from those who violate them. 

In the last few days we have heard Chief Justice Reynato Puno speak of the use of the writ of amparo, a special constitutional writ to protect or enforce a constitutional right in consonance with the high court’s power to do so.  In addition, the writ of amparo also provides the families of victims of disappearances to the right to access information pertaining to their cases.

We in the Senate should throw our full support behind this and other recommendations arising from the Summit: to define “extrajudicial killing” through legislation, to propose a law allowing search for missing persons in military camps and to have separate rules for writ of habeas corpus for cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

As a co-equal, independent branch of government, the Senate must assert its prerogative, specifically its power of oversight, to hold the executive accountable for its actions, and for that matter, its inaction, at all times.    

In matters affecting the national interest and general welfare of our people, no institution of government should be beyond review.  Any attempt to insulate them from scrutiny through Executive Orders and Memorandum Circulars should be condemned and opposed at all cost.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, my father died to bring democracy back to life in our country.  It was the highest possible price anyone could have paid.  It is now up to us to make the institutions of democracy work for our citizens, so that never again should any person’s life be sacrificed in the name of his beliefs.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, the ball is now in our hands.

Thank you.