Context of the Phenomenon of Disappearances
FIND’s earliest record of involuntary disappearance occurred in 1971 with the alleged abduction of student-leader and Kabataang Makabayan (KM / Patriotic Youth) Secretary - General Carlos “Charlie” del Rosario. This was soon followed by other cases, victimizing not only student leaders, but also union activists, peasant organizers and even ordinary folk.
However, there may be other cases that have not been recorded by FIND and these may have occurred at an even earlier date than that of the del Rosario case. A case in point is the disappearance of former Marcos henchman-turned whistleblower Primitivo Mijares in 1976 — four years after the declaration of Martial Law.
These early reports of disappearances appeared at a time when the country was experiencing severe economic hardships, marked by the constant devaluation of the peso and the ever-increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots. As a consequence, people began agitating in the streets, calling for the total overhaul of the political system and creation of a more equitable and democratic social consensus. In this charged political climate, militant groups sprang up like mushrooms, organizing mammoth demonstrations which usually ended in violence and running battles with the police, such as the First Quarter Storm of 1970 and the French-inspired Diliman Commune the following year.
This even intensified during Martial Law wherein economic inequality was coupled by political repression. As the repression intensified, so did the protests become more vigorous, calling not only for the removal of Marcos but the dismemberment of the entire system and the termination of what activists claimed was American interference in Philippine affairs.
As dissension grew, so did the cases of involuntary disappearances which reached its peak in 1985 — the same year that also saw the establishment of FIND.
There has been a qualitative difference, however, in the situation during the Marcos regime and the immediate post- Martial Law period on one hand, and the post-EDSA I situation on the other. For one, every activist that experienced the dark years of the dictatorship felt the lingering sense of danger that followed them every step of the way.
But despite the less “dangerous” political atmosphere, one must not forget the most fundamental of all issues—that its effects on both the victims and their families make little difference whether they were committed during Martial Law or in the present era.
In 1990, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (UNWGEID) made a country visit to the Philippines and confirmed that involuntary disappearances indeed occurred during both the Marcos and Aquino regimes. Apart form these, the Working Group also made the following recommendations:
- sever the national police from the army and put the police under a different cabinet minister, in order to reduce the power in the area of maintenance of public order in the hands of one single body;
- disband the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU / the local militias) or at least restrict their deployment to defensive action under supervision of the army in which strict discipline should be enforced;
- introduce legislation to narrow powers of arrest by strictly circumscribing which category of public officials are authorized to make arrests;
- introduce legislation that should provide for civil action against military and police personnel for all offenses involving civilians;
- prosecute those responsible for disappearances and take severe disciplinary measures against officers who have failed to enforce adequate measures to prevent disappearances;
- actively fight against the practice of “red-labeling;”
- establish regional and central registers of arrest in order to facilitate the search for missing persons;
- pursue even more vigorously the clarification of disappearances;
- initiate a thorough overhaul of both the law and the practice of habeas corpus; and
- ensure the protection of the witnesses.
The Aquino administration, however, was greatly disappointed with the report of the UNWGEID, so much so that they demanded its reconstitution.
A number of those fortunate enough to have surfaced alive became involved in human rights work. Many of them, however, have become paralyzed by apprehension, refusing to submit testimonies for fear of reprisal. Some of them have even noted that those who were responsible for their disappearance are now high-ranking officers in the military and police force. One even became a presidential candidate during the last elections. Their negative mindset is further exacerbated by the cumbersome justice system in the Philippines.
For those whose disappeared loved ones have not surfaced, they can best be described as suspended in a state of emotional limbo. The victims’ families are hoping against hopelessness.
It is so because part of the inhuman consequence of involuntary disappearance is the ironic predicament of the loved ones who were left behind. Silently accepting the possible death of their beloved desaparecido (given the sheer passage of time and lack of even a hint of communication from the disappeared kin), they nonetheless still hold on to the slim chance that the victims may still be alive.
Burdened by sheer poverty and lack of any other means of assistance, the victims cannot seem to work for justice on their own except by joining FIND and its numerous activities. With the Philippines’ long and winding justice system and insufficient wherewithal to finance one’s legal initiatives, most of the victims eventually lose hope—a mental condition further exacerbated by the fact that no perpetrator has been punished or incarcerated.
Human rights lawyers such as FLAG, on the other hand, are no longer as vocal as they were during the Martial Law regime, probably because violations are no longer as apparent and widespread as before. More so, despite the repression, the Marcos years saw the united efforts of all sectors — whether they be victims, activists or lawyers — in promoting human rights. But now, the issue of involuntary disappearances has tendency to be characterized by sectoralization and parochialism.
One positive development is the significant strides that FIND has accomplished so far in its engagement with the House of Representatives. In the current 13th Congress, Rep. Edcel Lagman (who is also Honorary Chair of FIND) has filed House Bill No. 11, better known as the Anti-Involuntary Disappearance Bill. It also enjoys good relations with the bill’s co-author Congresswoman Loretta Anne Rosales who is the current Chair of the House Committee on Civil and Political Rights and who is also a human rights victim herself during Martial Law. During the last Congress, Rep. Rosales wrote her own version of the anti-disappearance bill which she subsequently tried to merge with the Lagman version.
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has also been supportive of the victims’ and families’ struggle for justice. Occasionally, it would even accompany FIND in its camp-hopping every time a new disappearance case is reported.
Under the Ramos administration, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Order No. 88 dated February 8, 1993 creating a Fact-Finding Committee on Involuntary Missing Persons mandated to determine the whereabouts of the desaparecidos and determine those responsible for these gruesome deeds. It was also tasked to recommend to the President a package of indemnification for the heirs of the missing persons. Chaired by the head of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the said Committee included the Department of Justice (DOJ); Department of National Defense (DND); Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG); the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP); the Philippine National Police (PNP); National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); and FIND.
Despite its noble intentions on paper, the Committee was only able to meet twice and failed to produce any report, most probably due largely to the presence of military and police personnel. People soon began to lose interest and it died a natural death.
The biggest problem still lies in the judiciary. Up to this time, not a single perpetrator has been punished and most of them have even been promoted or are now occupying elective posts. Moreover, the judicial process is so long and tedious that poor families are unable to proceed with their lawsuits due to the sheer financial drain. On the average, a hearing is scheduled every four (4) months, due to the numerous postponements issued by the defense.
History of FIND
To address the increasing number of disappearance cases, FIND was established on November 23, 1985 after a series of meetings and discussions among family members of the disappeared and the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFD-P).
Prior to the establishment of FIND, the organization tasked to look for the disappeared was TFD-P. But given its other human rights concerns, and the need for the families and victims to attain self-healing and empowerment, it facilitated the creation of a separate organization solely concerned with enforced disappearances.
Initially, FIND was particularly focused on search and documentation. But as it grew and matured over the years, new programs were added, providing a well-rounded approach in the struggle for justice. These new lines of work included (1) organizing and education; (2) national and international advocacy; (3) welfare and rehabilitation; (4) cooperative building; and (5) the formation of the Samahan ng mga Anak ng Desaparecidos (SAD / Association of the Children of the Disappeared). In 1995, FIND gave serious concentration to its organizing work, leading to the expansion of its members and attaining national status.
Through its organizing efforts, FIND now has more than 1,000 members nationwide spread in nine (9) chapters, namely:
- National Capital Region
- Central Luzon
- Bicol
- Panay
- Negros
- Cebu
- Leyte
- Northern Mindanao
- Southern Mindanao
- Western Mindanao
FIND was also able to exhume 66 sets of remains, 55 of which were identified. More than half of these exhumations were done in the two provinces of Zamboanga in Western Mindanao. Its success in terms of search and documentation has been such that since its first exhumation in Isabela in 1995, FIND has not looked back.
It now also has the capacity to form Quick Response Teams (QRTs) whenever a new case for a disappearance is reported.
SAD, for its part, since its establishment in the early 1990s, has already accommodated several batches of members and has been very effective in mainstreaming the issue of involuntary disappearances.
FIND was also successful in establishing nine (9) cooperatives which are now financially self-reliant. And even as this piece is being written, the said organization’s rehabilitation sessions are still continuing
FIND’s international efforts can be clearly reflected in its strong support with counterparts in Latin America, particularly FEDEFAM. It was also instrumental in the formation of AFAD. It also regularly releases statements on the International Day of the Disappeared, the International Week of the Disappeared and whenever one of its networks is in need of our solidarity and support.
Plea for Justice
Despite these gains, however, it is still imperative that the victims take part in the campaign for justice by coming out with their stories so that the younger generation may know and the older ones may remember. It is a pity that most stories remain undocumented, except if one has been part of the leadership of the anti-dictatorship movement or one of the articulate few who has managed to put their experience into writing. It is thus important to have these testimonies published, for those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
In short, the challenges for the human rights movement remain. Hence, the need for the continuing support from the families of the victims. More so, they should never forget the cause for which our beloved disappeared have made their sacrifice. It is important that they lead in the process of “re”-membering—that is, not simply recalling the lives and deeds of the disappeared but making them a permanent presence in our lives, in our everyday struggles, in our communities.
The government, for its part, has the responsibility to draft a comprehensive human rights agenda to sufficiently cover all forms of violations, most especially involuntary disappearances, and bring to justice whoever may be responsible for these inhuman deeds, regardless of their political background or station in life. They must also have the political will to bring this to fruition, given the degree of resistance that will surely come from the perpetrators. So far, what we have witnessed has been a succession of governments with the backbone of a banana.
The seed of human rights can only grow in a society where its citizens are aware of their freedoms, cherishes them above all else, and are ready to make their leaders accountable for any form of infraction, even of the slightest kind. It is for this reason that the public has a pivotal role in the struggle for human rights. An apathetic public gives would-be dictators and scheming politicians the most impeccable opportunity to rule arbitrarily and dispense with human dignity without even a hint of moral compunction. The public are not beneficiaries but partners in the realization of human rights. Along with the victims, they must also say: NEVER AGAIN!
Prospects for the Future
The strength of the human rights movement will come, not from its leaders, but from the members themselves. Such strength will be a source of inspiration and reason to go on.
What the movement needs right now are committed leaders, more so since human rights work is not a financially rewarding profession. But the service that we are able to give, the part of ourselves that we are able to share and the sense of fulfillment and the boundless gratitude that we receive from the victims and their families are more than enough compensation.
