Palace: UN expert's call to end attacks vs rights advocates irks

MANILA, Philippines — Malacañang accused the United Nations of echoing criticisms of local groups critical of the current administration after one of its independent experts expressed concern over the situation of human rights advocates in the Philippines.

In a world report released Wednesday, UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders Michel Forst called on the Philippine government to end all forms of violations against human rights defenders.

 “(The special rapporteur) urges the government to cease immediately the public stigmatization of human rights defenders, which can incite perpetrators to act against them and instead to publicly recognize the legitimacy and importance of their work,” Forst said. 

He added: “The state should develop protection mechanisms that protect and support human rights defenders.”

In a statement Thursday, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo branded the call of Forst “not only reckless but [also] irresponsible for it not only demeans the integrity of the UN special rapporteur system but the entire UN mechanism itself.”

Panelo went on to claim that the UN has been used by groups critical of President Rodrigo Duterte as a “tool for vilification.”

“We are fed up with this practice of using the UN as a platform to parrot baseless criticism of local interest groups who are supported by politicians belonging to the opposition. UNSRs should be less gullible as this reinforces the president’s contempt for them who have consistently manifested bias against the Philippines,” he said.

The report cited data from various organizations, including local rights group Karapatan, which documented 697 killings since 2001. The group tallied 84 killings under the present administration.

Karapatan is associated with the national democratic activist movement while those in the mainstream political opposition are identified with the former ruling Liberal Party, which Karapatan and its allied organizations also criticized when it was in power.

Panelo, who is also Duterte’s chief legal counsel, dared local groups to submit their alleged cases of violations against their members to proper authorities.

“Unless they can properly do so, we stand by our firm admonition of these groups to refrain from making a fool of these UNSRs, a mockery of the UN, as well as using their allegations as a leverage to secure financial resources from overtrusting funding institutions,” he said, without evidence to back his claim.

Read More

Te: Questions why Sandiganbayan didn't accept Revilla AMLC report on plunder case

Former Sen. Bong Revilla

MANILA, Philippines — Former Supreme Court spokesperson and law professor Theodore Te on Monday questioned parts of the Sandiganbayan’s ruling on the acquittal of former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. over the pork barrel scam.

On ANC’s “Early Edition,” Te pointed out: “Revilla was acquitted but [Anti-Money Laundering Council] report proved money went into his account.”

 “[It is] hard for me to understand why the court would not accept that, as the very least, a circumstance because again, if you’re looking at circumstantial evidence as basis for guilt, there must be a chain of evidence,” Te added.

Last week, the Sandiganbayan’s First Division voted 3-2 to acquit Revilla, but ruled to convict his aide Richard Cambe and businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles of plunder.

It held that the court could not hold Revilla liable as the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he “received, directly or indirectly rebates, commission, and kickbacks from his [Priority Development Assistance Fund].”

The Sandiganbayan concluded that the AMLC report is a circumstantial evidence. The anti-graft court said that the report “is not conclusive and does not rule out the possibilities that will tend to exculpate Revilla.”

But Te argued that a circumstance could have “triggered the court to say ‘okay, look there is a red flag, there is AMLC certification, there is testimony... something that says part of this money went into his bank account.”

The law professor stressed: “This is AMLC, this is the body that we trust, we mandate to prove these things. And this is what AMLC is already saying. So it’s a bit difficult to understand why the majority would not accept that.”

Read More