The Department of Justice (at least, the DOJ under the Arroyo administration) has been involved in 2 (as far as we know) fatal decisions under the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program (RA 6981). We’ve talked about the rights and benefits available to a witness under the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program (pursuant to RA 6981) in this post, but now we discuss how these may actually work against the witnesses’ own protection, security and benefit with the “help” of the DOJ.
Being taken out of the Witness Protection Program
One of the rights and benefits of the witness under the Program is “[T]o have a secure housing facility until he has testified or until the threat, intimidation or harassment disappears or is reduced to a manageable or tolerable level.” (Section 8) Thus, the witness can be released when the DOJ determines that “the threat, intimidation or harassment disappears or is reduced to a manageable or tolerable level.”
But, unless the accused, his family members, his gang, his influence, power and money disappear (also die), how can the threat, intimidation or harassment ever disappear or be reduced to a manageable or tolerable level.”? Even if trial ends, a rich and powerful incarcerated convict is no less rich and powerful. Basically, only his travel, food and lodgings are limited.
Let’s take the actual experience of Katherine De Leon and her co-witness, Kelly delos Santos
“A notice that she was no longer in the witness protection program was issued by then Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera on Feb. 12 [2010] who informed her that with the case submitted for promulgation, the threats to her life had been reduced to "a manageable level."
It took effect on March 1.
De Leon
She and Kelly delos Santos
Delos Santos, however, was killed three months after she and De Leon were taken out of the witness protection program.
xxx
[T]here was also an attempt to kill her on June 11 in Paco, Manila
“They (armed men) shot me and hit me in the neck. I was bleeding badly but I stayed down, making them believe that they had shot me in the head. The gunmen left when they heard people coming and I took myself to a hospital,” De Leon
“I have lost everything and my life is still under threat. I came forward as a witness... because I wanted justice for the victim,” she added.”[1]
Lowering the threshold for releasing a witness from the witness protection program to “until he has testified or until the threat, intimidation or harassment disappears or is reduced to a manageable or tolerable level” is no way protective of a witness as clearly shown by the above actual events. Witnesses like Katherine De Leon and Kelly delos Santos
Delay in taking in a witness into the program
Once a witness applies for protection under the program, the DOJ’s decision must be immediate, no more than 24 hours.
If this were so, perhaps the killers of Suwaib Upham - who was involved in the massacre of 58 people in Maguindao province and a willing witness – could not have so easily found him.
Three months before [Suwaib Upham] was killed, Human Rights Watch had raised protection issues regarding Upham with Justice Department officials in Manila, yet the department was still considering his request for protection at the time of his killing.
"Massacre witnesses are dying while the government sits on its hands," said Elaine Pearson, acting Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Suwaib Upham took enormous personal risks by agreeing to testify against Ampatuan family members, yet the government, knowing full well he was in danger, did nothing. This sends the worst possible message to other witnesses thinking of coming forward."[2]
The DOJ’s illogical delay led to fatal results. Compelling the DOJ to decide quickly may prevent future disastrous mistakes.
When they agree to testify, witnesses put their and their loved ones’ lives and futures at stake, especially in our country known for impunity and corruption. The DOJ’s early release of, and non-use of the relocation program for, innocent eyewitnesses Katherine De Leon and Kelly delos Santos
Perhaps it may actually be the Department of Justice that is the problem and not the witness protection program. At least, making stricter rules might help cure the flaws of either. The end we all seek is justice and one way to ensure it is to make it safer for witnesses willing to tell the truth. When the government says no to the protection of a witness, it says no to justice as well.
Updated 09/21/11:
A reader, rosek112@gmail.com, wanted to share “10 Things You Didn’t Know About Witness Protection” which they posted on their own blog. Might be interesting to read.
Updated 09/21/11:
A reader, rosek112@gmail.com, wanted to share “10 Things You Didn’t Know About Witness Protection” which they posted on their own blog. Might be interesting to read.
[1] Andrade, J. (2010, July 26). Witness taken out of protection program cries foul. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/metro/view/20100726-283304/Witness-taken-out-of-protection-program-cries-foul
[2] Philippines
No comments:
Post a Comment