What is torture? Is there an anti-torture law in the Philippines?

Torture, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is defined as “the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

Torture is a human rights violation and is universally condemned by international law, including instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), to which the Philippines is a signatory. But what does the Philippines say about torture, and does it have specific legislation that addresses this violation of human rights?

The Anti-Torture Law in the Philippines

Yes, the Philippines has enacted a law specifically addressing torture, known as the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 or Republic Act No. 9745. This law explicitly prohibits and penalizes torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment, a testament to the country’s commitment to uphold human dignity and international human rights standards.

Key Provisions of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009

The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 provides the legal framework to ensure that acts of torture are prevented, investigated, and prosecuted. Below are some of its essential provisions:

1. Definition of Torture: Under Section 3 of the Act, torture is defined similarly to the one provided by international law, focusing on the infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, on a person to extract information, intimidate, or punish, among others. Importantly, the definition highlights that such acts must be perpetrated by state agents or with their acquiescence, which distinguishes torture from other forms of violence.
2. Rights of Torture Victims: The law enumerates the rights of victims, including the right to prompt and impartial investigations, the right to legal assistance, and the right to compensation, restitution, and rehabilitation. Section 18 mandates that victims receive physical, mental, and psychological rehabilitation from government agencies or organizations.
3. Prohibition on Refoulement: Section 17 of the Act prohibits the refoulement (return) of a person to a state where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
4. Non-Derogation: Under Section 7, the law states that no exceptional circumstances—whether during a state of war, political instability, or any other public emergency—can be invoked to justify acts of torture.
5. Criminal Liability: Public officials or individuals acting in an official capacity who commit acts of torture are held criminally liable under this law. Section 13 prescribes imprisonment ranging from 12 years to life imprisonment, depending on the gravity of the offense. Furthermore, the law also imposes penalties on those who attempt to cover up torture incidents.

Torture in the Philippines: Real Cases

To fully appreciate the importance of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, let’s take a closer look at some real-life cases that have shaken the Philippines. These cases underscore the necessity of this law and demonstrate how torture continues to be a concern that requires vigilance and enforcement.

1. The Case of Jerryme Corre (2012)

In 2012, Jerryme Corre, a mechanic from Pampanga, was arrested without a warrant by police officers who accused him of involvement in a robbery. Corre was reportedly subjected to beatings, electric shocks, and suffocation. He was tortured for several days while being coerced into confessing to a crime he maintained he did not commit.

Corre’s case became a significant human rights issue and led to his family filing a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and other international organizations. In 2016, the Philippines’ court convicted two police officers for his illegal arrest and torture under the Anti-Torture Act of 2009. The case highlighted the rampant abuse of police power in certain areas and became a symbol of the ongoing battle against torture in the country.

Source:

The Case of Jerryme Corre (2012):

• Amnesty International, “Philippines: Mechanic Jerryme Corre Tortured by Police,” January 27, 2014. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/01/philippines-mechanic-jerryme-corre-tortured-police/
• Philippine Daily Inquirer, “Torture complaint vs. cops in Pampanga: PNP top brass ordered to explain,” January 28, 2014. Available at: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/570197/pnp-top-brass-ordered-to-explain-torture-complaint-vs-cops

2. The “Wheel of Torture” Case (2014)

In 2014, the Commission on Human Rights exposed a secret detention facility in Laguna, where police officers subjected detainees to torture as a form of punishment and entertainment. This became widely known as the “Wheel of Torture” case. The “wheel” was a literal game of chance where detainees would be spun and subjected to various forms of physical abuse based on where the wheel stopped.

The CHR conducted investigations, and several law enforcement officers were found liable for the acts of torture committed in the facility. This incident drew national outrage and revealed significant gaps in the enforcement of anti-torture measures, as it showed how deeply ingrained the practice was in some sectors of the police force.

Source:

The “Wheel of Torture” Case (2014):

• Commission on Human Rights (Philippines), “CHR Investigation on the ‘Wheel of Torture’ Case in Laguna,” January 2014. Available at: https://www.chr.gov.ph/2014/02/05/chr-investigation-on-the-wheel-of-torture-case-in-laguna/
• Philippine Daily Inquirer, “The ‘Wheel of Torture’: The Filipino Police’s Game of Torture,” January 29, 2014. Available at: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/571357/philippines-police-use-wheel-of-torture-on-detainees

3. The Case of Filomena Tausa (2012)

Another prominent case occurred in 2012, involving Filomena Tausa, a 72-year-old woman who was wrongfully accused of theft and arrested. She was detained in Manila and tortured by being slapped repeatedly, forced to kneel on metal bars, and deprived of food and water. Tausa’s case was one of the few where the victim was able to secure justice through the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 after she filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman and the CHR. The case highlighted the vulnerability of marginalized individuals in detention and the dangers they face when the legal system fails to protect them.

Source:

The Case of Filomena Tausa (2012):

• Office of the Ombudsman, “72-year-old torture victim files complaint with Ombudsman,” September 10, 2012. Available at: https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph
• Commission on Human Rights (Philippines), “CHR condemns torture of elderly woman in Manila,” September 2012. Available at: https://www.chr.gov.ph/2012/09/12/chr-condemns-torture-of-elderly-woman/

Challenges in Enforcing the Anti-Torture Law

Despite the existence of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, there remain significant challenges in fully enforcing the law. Here are some notable issues:

1. Lack of Accountability: Many perpetrators of torture, particularly state agents, are often shielded by the culture of impunity. The slow judicial process and frequent lack of substantial evidence also contribute to the difficulty in holding officials accountable.
2. Limited Awareness: The general public, and even law enforcement personnel, often lack adequate awareness and understanding of the provisions of the Anti-Torture Act. This lack of knowledge hinders victims from seeking justice and protection.
3. Weak Reporting Mechanisms: Victims of torture often face difficulties in reporting cases due to fear of retaliation or further harm. The absence of robust mechanisms to protect whistleblowers and witnesses limits the ability of victims to come forward.
4. Inadequate Rehabilitation: While the law provides for the rehabilitation of victims, in reality, the provision of mental, physical, and psychological services remains underfunded, particularly for victims from marginalized communities.

Conclusion

Torture, a grave violation of human dignity, is universally condemned and prohibited under Philippine law. The enactment of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 was a significant step towards addressing this issue, giving victims the legal means to seek justice and hold perpetrators accountable. However, despite the strong legal framework, torture remains a persistent problem, especially within the ranks of law enforcement agencies.

Cases like those of Jerryme Corre and the “Wheel of Torture” reveal the deep-seated challenges that still need to be addressed in order to fully eradicate this inhumane practice. For the Philippines to fulfill its commitments under both national and international law, there must be sustained efforts to ensure accountability, enhance public awareness, and provide victims with the support they need.

Torture has no place in a just and humane society. By standing firm against it, the Philippines can continue to work towards a future where the dignity and rights of every individual are upheld without exception.

References:

Court decisions from the Philippine Supreme Court archives.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition.

Republic Act No. 9745, Anti-Torture Act of 2009.

United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Case studies from the Commission on Human Rights (Philippines).