INTRODUCTION

 
 
Your  Excellency,  Good  afternoon.  
May  it  please  the  court,  my  name  is  Leo  Joselito  E.  Bono,  for  the  respondent.    
 
The  applicant  contends  that  the  infliction  of  torture  upon  a  suspected  terrorist  in  
order   to   obtain   information   on   a   plot   to   blow   up   a   mall   is   legally   justified   for  
being  an  exercise  of  the  police  power.    
 
 
 
 
On   behalf   of   the   respondent,   I   would   like   to   submit   2   submission   before   this  
honorable  court.    
 
1. Inflicting   torture   on   a   suspected   terrorist   violates   R.A.   9745   or   the   anti-­‐
torture  act  of  2009.  
2. Inflicting  torture  on  a  suspected  terrorist  violates  section  12  and  section  
19  of  the  1987  constitution.  
 
If  there   are   no   preliminary   observations,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  my  submissions,  
your  honor?  Thank  You  
 
FIRST  CONTENTION  
 
Your   Exellency,   the   respondent   vehemently   objects   to   this   contention   that   the  
infliction  of  torture  is  justified  under  the  police  power  of  the  state.  
 
The   right   of   the   person   against   torture   has   to   be   respected,   protected   and  
fulfilled  at  all  times.  This  is  a  human  right  that  cannot  be  curtailed,  diminished  or  
taken  away  even  in  times  of  conflict.  
 
Under    
Section  1.  article  3  of  the  1987  constitution  ,  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  
life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law,  nor  shall  any  person  be  
denied  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  
 
All  persons  or  things  similarly  situated  should  be  treated  alike,  both  as  to  rights  
conferred   and   responsibilities   imposed.   Persons   or   things   ostensibly   similarly  
situated   may   nonetheless,   be   treated   differently   if   there   is   a   basis   for   valid  
classification.   However   there   is   no   substantial   classification   between   a   suspect  
and   a   freeman.   This   contention   is   laid   out   on   the   principle   of   presumption   of  
innocence  under  the  Constitution.  So  to  speak.  
 
Under  
 
Section  2  of  REPUBLIC  ACT  9745  states  that  
It  is  hereby  declared  the  policy  of  the  State:  
 (a)To   value   the   dignity   of   every   human   person   and   guarantee   full  
respect  for  human  rights;  
(b)To  ensure  that  the  human  rights  of  all  persons,  including  suspects,  
detainees   and   prisoners   are   respected   at   all   times;   and   that   no   person   placed  
under   investigation   or   held   in   custody   of   any   person   in   authority   or,   agent   of  
a  person  in  authority  shall  be  subjected  to  physical,  psychological  or  mental  
harm,   force,   violence,   threat   or   intimidation   or   any   act   that   impairs   his/her  
free  will  or  in  any  manner  demeans  or  degrades  human  dignity;  
"Torture"   refers   to   an   act   by   which   severe   pain   or   suffering,   whether  
physical   or   mental,   is   intentionally   inflicted   on   a   person   for   such   purposes   as  
obtaining  from  him/her  or  a  third  person  information  or  a  confession;  punishing  
him/her   for   an   act   he/she   or   a   third   person   has   committed   or   is   suspected   of  
having  committed.  
Section   6.   Torture   and   other   cruel,   inhuman   and   degrading  
treatment   or   punishment   as   criminal   acts   shall   apply   to   all  
circumstances.  A  state  of  war  or  a  threat  of  war,  internal  political  instability,  
or   any   other   public   emergency,   or   a   document   or   any   determination  
comprising   an   "order   of   battle"   shall   not   and   can   never   be   invoked   as   a  
justification  for  torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman  and  degrading  treatment  or  
punishment.  
 
Your   excellency,   the   infliction   of   torture   upon   a   suspected   terrorist   in  
order   to   obtain   information   on   a   plot   to   blow   up   a   mall   strikes   the   very  
core   of   the   intentions   of   the   legislative   body   on   enacting   the   anti-­‐torture  
act.  Applying  section  1  of  article  3  of  the  1987  constitution,  it  goes  to  show  
that   the   alleged   terrorist   enjoys   the   right   to   be   equally   protected   of   the  
laws   of   the   land   and   one   of   which   is   R.A.   9745.   The   statute   prohibits   acts  
inhuman   and   degrading   in   nature   and   is   enjoyed   by   suspects,   detainees,  
and  prisoners.    
 
As  a  matter  of  fact.  
The   prohibition   of   torture   and   other   cruel,   inhuman   or   degrading   treatment   is  
also  to  be  found  in  international  human  rights  law,  both  universal  and  regional.  
For   example,   the   Universal   Declaration   of   Human   Rights   (Article   5),   the  
International   Covenant   on   Civil   and   Political   Rights   (Article   7),   the   United  
Nations   Convention   against   Torture   and   Other   Cruel,   Inhuman   or   Degrading  
Treatment  or  Punishment,  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  
Rights   and   Fundamental   Freedoms   (Article   3),   the   American   Convention   on  
Human  Rights  (Article  5[2]),  the  African  Charter  on  Human  and  Peoples'  Rights  
(Article   5)   and   the   Arab   Charter   on   Human   Rights   (Article   8)   all   contain  
provisions  on  this  prohibition.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
SECOND  CONTENTION  
 
Under  Article  III,  Sec  12    of  the  constitution  Any  person  under  investigation  for  
the  commission  of  an  offense  shall  have  the  right  to  be  informed  of  his  right  to  
remain  silent  and  to  have  competent  and  independent  counsel  preferably  of  his  
own   choice.   If   the   person   cannot   afford   the   services   of   counsel,   he   must   be  
provided   with   one.   These   rights   cannot   be   waived   except   in   writing   and   in   the  
presence   of   a   counsel.   No   torture,   force,   violence,   threat,   intimidation,   or   any  
other   means   which   vitiates   the   free   will   shall   be   used   against   him.   Secret  
detention   places,   solitary,   incommunicado,   or   other   similar   forms   of   detention  
are  prohibited.  
 
The   Miranda   rights   are   available   only   during   custodial   investigation.   Custodial  
investigation   is   any   questioning   initiated   by   law   enforcement   officers   after   a  
person   has   been   taken   into   custody   or   otherwise   deprived   of   his   freedom   of  
action  in  any  significant  way.  The  kernel  of  the  right  is  not  against  all  compulsion  
but   only   against   testimonial   compulsion.   It   is   against   the   legal   process   of  
extracting  from  the  lips  of  the  accused  an  admission  of  guilt.  More  so,  it  is  against  
the  process  of  inflicting  torture,  and  other  means  which  vitiates  the  free  will  in  
order  to  obtain  information  from  the  suspect.  
 
In   People   vs.   Mahinay,   the   Supreme   court   laid   down   the   guidelines   and   duties   of  
arresting,   detaining,   inviting   or   investigating   officers   or   his   companions,   as  
follows:  
 
a. The   person   arrested,   detained,   invited   or   under   custodial   investigation  
must  be  informed  in  a  language  known  to  and  understood  by  him  of  the  
reason  for  the  arrest  and  he  must  be  shown  the  warrant  of  arrest,  .  
b. He   must   be   warned   that   he   has   a   right   to   remain   silent,   and   that   any  
statement  he  makes  may  be  used  as  evidence  against  him.  
c. He  must  be  informed  that  he  has  the  right  to  be  assisted  at  all  times  and  
have  the  presence  of  an  independent  and  competent  lawyer,  preferably  of  
his  own  choice.    
d. He   must   be   informed   that   if   he   has   no   lawyer   or   cannot   afford   services   of  
a  lawyer,  one  will  be  provided  for  him.  
 
Your   Excellency,   inflicting   torture   on   a   suspected   terrorist   violates   his  
Miranda  rights,  these  rights  must  not  be  curtailed,  for  there  should  be  due  
process  of  law  given  to  the  people  even  to  suspected  terrorists.  In  obtaining  
information,  one  must  not  inflict  demeaning  acts  in  order  to  get  this.    
 
Section  19  article  3.  Excessive  fines  shall  not  be  imposed,  nor  cruel,  degrading,  or  
inhuman   punishment   inflicted.   Neither   shall   the   death   penalty   be   imposed,  
unless  for  compelling  reasons  involving  heinous  crimes,  the  Congress  hereafter  
provides  for  it.  Any  death  penalty  already  imposed  shall  be  reduced  to  reclusion  
perpetua.   2.   The   employment   of   physical,   psychological,   or   degrading  
punishment   against   any   prisoner   or   detainee,   or   the   use   of   substandard   or  
inadequate   penal   facilities   under   subhuman   conditions   shall   be   dealt   with   by  
law.  
 
In   People   vs.   Dionisio,   to   violate   the   constitutional   guarantee,   the   penalty   must  
be  flagrantly  and  plainly  oppressive,  wholly  disproportionate  to  the  nature  of  the  
offense  as  to  shock  the  moral  sence  of  the  community.  
 
Since,   respondent   respectfully   requests   that   the   infliction   of   torture   upon   a  
suspected   terrorist   to   obtain   information   on   a   plot   to   blow   up   a   mall   violates   r.a.  
9745  and  …  
 
___________________________________________________________________________________  
 
 
Constitution  
casino  
centino  
 
 
Section  1.  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  
due  process  of  law,  nor  shall  any  person  be  denied  the  equal  protection  of  
the  laws.  
 
 
Equal   protection   clause   is   a   specific   constitutional   guarantee   of   the   person.   the  
equality  that  it  guarantees  is  legal   equality   of   all   person   before   the   law.  Under  
it,  each  individual  is  dealt  with  as  an  equal  person  in  law,  which  does  not  treat  
the  person  differently  because  of  who  he  is  or  what  he  is  or  what  he  posses.  
 
 
the  suspect  enjoys  the  equal  protection  of  the  law.  he  enjoys  every  single  right  a  
free  man  enjoys.  Without  being  proven  to  be  guilty  of  the  charge;  he  enjoys  the  
presumption  of  innocence.  he  is  then  subject  to  all  the  rights  a  freeman  posses.    
 
 
Art  2.  Section  11.  The  State  values  the  dignity  of  every  human  person  and  
guarantees  full  respect  for  human  rights.  
(ang  details  btaw  ani  kay  more  likely  kanang  sa  thos  who  have  less  in  life  
should   have   mor   ein   law;   pang   lipat   lipat   lang   ni   siya.   not   a   principal  
statement  :[])  
 
 
Art   2.   Section   5.   The   maintenance   of   peace   and   order,   the   protection   of   life,  
liberty,  and  property,  and  promotion  of  the  general  welfare  are  essential  for  the  
enjoyment  by  all  the  people  of  the  blessings  of  democracy.  
   
The  mention  of  “peace  and  order”  provoked   the   objection  that  it  could  create  
the  notion  that  the  peace  and  order  must  be  promoted  at  all  cost  and  even  at  the  
expense   of   justice   and   could   encourage   the   use   of   military   solutions   to   what  
could   be   normally   treated   as   social   economic   and   political   problems.   But   the  
author,   commissioner   Ambrosio   Padilla,   explained   the   provision   recognize  
hierarchy   of   rights-­‐   Life>liberty>property.   Therefore,   the   life   and   safety   of   the  
accused  is  given  more  more  value  than  other  things.  (di  ko  sure  ani  )  
 
 
Incase  he  is  under  custodial  investigation  
Art  3.  Section  12.  Of  the  1987  constitution  states  
1.        Any  person  under  investigation  for  the  commission  of  an  offense  shall  have  
the  right  to  be  informed  of  his  right  to  remain  silent  and  to  have  competent  and  
independent  counsel  preferably  of  his  own  choice.  If  the  person  cannot  afford  the  
services  of  counsel,  he  must  be  provided  with  one.  These  rights  cannot  be  waived  
except  in  writing  and  in  the  presence  of  counsel.  
2.        No   torture,   force,   violence,   threat,   intimidation,   or   any   other   means   which  
vitiate   the   free   will   shall   be   used   against   him.   Secret   detention   places,   solitary,  
incommunicado,  or  other  similar  forms  of  detention  are  prohibited.  
3.        Any   confession   or   admission   obtained   in   violation   of   this   or   Section   17  
hereof  shall  be  inadmissible  in  evidence  against  him.  
4.        The   law   shall   provide   for   penal   and   civil   sanctions   for   violations   of   this  
Section   as   well   as   compensation   to   the   rehabilitation   of   victims   of   torture   or  
similar  practices,  and  their  families.  
 
 
rpc  
borinaga  
cabardo  
Acts   of   torture   fall   under   the   offense   of   "physical   injuries"   defined   in   the   Revised  
Penal   Code   as   wounding,   beating,   or   assaulting   another   person   resulting   in  
injuries  with  no  intention  to  kill.  
source  
 
 
ARTICLE   235   (RPC)   Maltreatment   of   prisoners.   -­‐   The   penalty   of   prision  
correccional   in   its   medium   period   to   prision   mayor   in   its   minimum   period,   in  
addition   to   his   liability   for   the   physical   injuries   or   damage   caused,   shall   be  
imposed   upon   any   public   officer   or   employee   who   shall   overdo   himself   in   the  
correction   of   handling   of   a   prisoner   or   detention   prisoner   under   his   charge   by  
the   imposition   of   punishments   not   authorized   by   the   regulations,   or   by   inflicting  
such   punishments   in   a   cruel   and   humiliating   manner.   If   the   purpose   of   the  
maltreatment   is   to   extort   a   confession,   or   to   obtain   some   information   from   the  
prisoner,  the  offender  shall  be  punished  by  prision  mayor  in  its  minimum  period,  
temporary   special   disqualification   and   a   fine   not   exceeding   six   thousand   pesos,  
in   addition   to   his   liability   for   the   physical   injuries   or   damage   caused.   offended  
party  is  either:  1.  A  convict  by  final  judgment  2.  A  detention  prisoner  (he  must  be  
placed   in   the   jail   even   for   a   short   while)   the   public   officer   must   have   actual  
charge   of   the   prisoner   to   hold   him   liable   for   maltreatment   of   prisoner   Argument  
:  would  this  apply  to  a  terrorist  who  is  a  threat  to  the  national  security?  answer  :  
(sorry  wa  jud  ko  kita,  try  naku  pangita  taman)  ARTICLE  II  (1987  CONSTITUTION  
  
 
 
international  law  
spl  
bono  
paki  check  na  beb  spl  man  guro  na  
ra  9745  
asian  human  rights  
 
 
everyone:cases  
 
 
guys  every  law  or  provision  butangan  nato  ug  argument  :]]  
our  topic  is    against  the  use  of  torture  upon  a  suspected  terrorist  in  order  
to  obtain  information  on  a  plot  to  blow  up  a  mall  
 
 
so  rights  of  the  accused  ni  
niya  human  rights  
 
 
 
(formulate  possible  defense  of  the  opposing  counsel  )  
Possible  arguments  of  the  opposing  counsel  and  how  are  we  going  to  turn  it  
down  
A=  argument  D=  defense  
 
 
A:Inherent   right   of   every   state   to   existence   and   self   preservation.   the   state   my  
take  up  all  necessary  action,  including  the  used  of  armed  force  to  repel  any  threat  
to  its  security  
 
 
D:  Under  Article  III,  Sec  12    of  the  constitution  which  states  that  No  torture,  force,  
violence,  threat,  intimidation,  or  any  other  means  which  vitiate  the  free  will  shall  
be  used  against  him.  Secret  detention  places,  solitary,  incommunicado,  or  other  
similar  forms  of  detention  are  prohibited.  
 
 
under   the   incorporation   clause…   the   philippines   adopts   the   generally   accepted  
principles  of  international  law  as  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.1  Under  the  rule  of  
Pact   Sunt   Servanda,   a   generally   accepted   principle   of   international   law,   should  
be   observed   by   us   in   good   faith.   International   law   like  
__________________________should   be   observe   in   good   faith.   (reason   why   we   adopt  
international  law)  
 
 
A:  incase  naa  silay  international  law  na  mo  support  sa  ilang  contention  
D:   if   there   is   a   conflict   between   the   international   law   and   municipal   law.  
Municipal  law  shall  prevail.  this  was  upheld  in  the  case  of  Gonzales  v.  Hechanova  
(issue:  doctrine  of  separation  of  powers),  In  re  garcia  (rule  making  power  of  the  
supreme   court).   therefore   the   constitutional   law   shall   prevail.   take   note   the  
Constitution   is   considered   as   the   fundamental   law   of   the   law;   anything   that   is  
against  it  is  null  and  void.  
 
 
 
Constitutional  rights  of  an  accused  –  article  3  
 
 
Definition   of   a   Terrorist   -­‐   A   terrorist   is   just   a   made   of   word   of   propaganda,   a  
terrorist  against  the  united  states  is  basically  a  freedom  fighter  for  the  millions  of  
families  who  have  lost  family  members,  friends,  compatriot  from  the  middle  east.  
A   terrorist   is   a   human   person,   whom   given   the   choice   would   not   die   or   kill   another  
person  for  the  simple  virtue  of  self-­‐preservation.    
 
 
A   terrorist   is   basically   just   a   guerilla   fighter   fighting   a   war   in   his   own   capable  
ways.   A   human   being,   people   in   the   virtue   of   self-­‐preservation   will   not   blow   up   a  
mall  without  a  reason  which  he  sees  fit,  he  is  basically  a  soldier  on  the  wrong  side  
of  the  news,  the  victim  of  a  propaganda  term,  so  point  is  he  is  just  a  soldier  without  
a   big   military   war   chest   backing   him   up,   a   terrorist   for   the   west,   a   freedom   fighter  
for  his  families  and  friends.  Basically,  what  rights  you  afford  to  a  soldier  under  the  
Geneva  Convention:  
 
 
The  Geneva  Conventions  of  1949  and  their  Additional  Protocols  of  8  June  1977  
contain  a  number  of  provisions  that  absolutely  prohibit  torture  and  other  cruel  
or  inhuman  treatment  and  outrages  upon  individual  dignity.  
For   example,   torture   is   prohibited   by   Article   3   common   to   the   four   Geneva  
Conventions,  Article  12  of  the  First  and  Second  Conventions,  Articles  17  and  87  
of  the  Third  Convention,  Article  32  of  the  Fourth  Convention,  Article  75  (2  a  &  e)  
of   Additional   Protocol   I   and   Article   4   (2   a   &   h)   of   Additional   Protocol   II.   In  
international   armed   conflict,   torture   constitutes   a   grave   breach   under   Articles  
50,   51,   130   and   147   respectively   of   these   Conventions.   Under   Article   85   of  
Additional   Protocol   I,   these   breaches   constitute   war   crimes.   In   non-­‐international  
armed  conflict,  they  are  considered  serious  violations.  
The   prohibition   of   torture   and   other   cruel   or   inhuman   treatment   and   outrages  
upon   personal   dignity,   in   particular   humiliating   and   degrading   treatment,   is  
recognized   as   a   customary   rule   in   the   ICRC’s   study   Customary   International  
Humanitarian  Law  (Rule  90)  and  by  the  International  Criminal  Tribunal  for  the  
former  Yugoslavia.  
The   prohibition   of   torture   and   other   cruel,   inhuman   or   degrading   treatment   is  
also  to  be  found  in  international  human  rights  law,  both  universal  and  regional.  
For   example,   the   Universal   Declaration   of   Human   Rights   (Article   5),   the  
International   Covenant   on   Civil   and   Political   Rights   (Article   7),   the   United  
Nations   Convention   against   Torture   and   Other   Cruel,   Inhuman   or   Degrading  
Treatment  or  Punishment,  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  
Rights   and   Fundamental   Freedoms   (Article   3),   the   American   Convention   on  
Human  Rights  (Article  5[2]),  the  African  Charter  on  Human  and  Peoples'  Rights  
(Article   5)   and   the   Arab   Charter   on   Human   Rights   (Article   8)   all   contain  
provisions  on  this  prohibition.            United  Nations  Convention  against  Torture  
Ban  on  torture  and  cruel  and  degrading  treatment  
 
 
Article   2   of   the   convention   prohibits   torture,   and   requires   parties   to   take  
effective   measures   to   prevent   it   in   any   territory   under   its   jurisdiction.   This  
prohibition   is   absolute   and   non-­‐derogable.   "No   exceptional   circumstances  
whatsoever"   may   be   invoked   to   justify   torture,   including   war,   threat   of   war,  
internal   political   instability,   public   emergency,   terrorist   acts,   violent   crime,   or  
any   form   of   armed   conflict.   Torture   cannot   be   justified   as   a   means   to   protect  
public  safety  or  prevent  emergencies.  Neither  can  it  be  justified  by  orders  from  
superior   officers   or   public   officials.   The   prohibition   on   torture   applies   to   all  
territories  under  a  party's  effective  jurisdiction,  and  protects  all  people  under  its  
effective  control,  regardless  of  citizenship  or  how  that  control  is  exercised.  Since  
the  convention's  entry  into  force,  this  absolute  prohibition  has  become  accepted  
as  a  principle  of  customary  international  law.  
 
 
Because  it  is  often  difficult  to  distinguish  between  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  
treatment   and   torture,   the   Committee   regards   Article   16's   prohibition   of   such  
treatment  as  similarly  absolute  and  non-­‐derogable.  
 
 
The  other  articles  of  part  I  lay  out  specific  obligations  intended  to  implement  this  
absolute  prohibition  by  preventing,  investigating  and  punishing  acts  of  torture.  
 
 
Bottom   line,   torture   is   not   an   effective   way   of   obtaining   information.   Worse,   it  
might  produce  wrong  information  since  the  person  is  under  duress  or  in  pain  …  a  
person   who   can   die   as   well.   (and   we   don’t   wanna   dig   into   that   issue,   because   for  
one,  even  though  being  suspected,  such  person  still  has  his  right  to  life).  
 
 
 
Since   the   beginning   of   2010,   Balay   rehabilitation   center,   Medical   action   group  
and   the   International   rehabilitation   council   for   torture   victims,     have   been  
actively  involved  in    
 
cases  of  torture  and  ill-­‐treatment  in  the  Philippines:    
 
1.  Lenin  Salas  et  al  (Jose  L.  Gomez,  Jerry  Simbulan,  Rodwin  M.  Talaand  Daniel    
 
Navarro)  vs.  PSupt.  Madzgani  M.  Mukaram  &  John  Does  for  Violation  of  RA  9745,    
 
The  CHR  regional  office  filed  the  case  in  Pampanga  shortly  after  the  Anti-­‐Torture  
Act  took    
 
effect  in  2009.  It  is  among  the  first  case  of  torture  that  reached  the  prosecutor’s  
office.    
 
The   complainants   are   five   political   detainees   who   claim   that   they   have   been  
badly    
 
beaten  and  threatened  with  death  by  their  police  captors  whose  names  appeared  
on    
 
official   records.   The   alleged   torture   and   ill-­‐treatment   was   documented   by  
forensic    
 
experts   and   the   visual   marks   was   captured   by   a   TV   crew   from   Al   Jazeera  
television    
 
visiting  their  detention  facility.  The  complaint  was  filed  on  September  21,  2010  
at  the    
 
Office  of  the  City  Prosecutor  of  the  City  of  San  Fernando,  Pampanga.  The  Office  of  
City    
 
Prosecutor  of  the  City  of  San  Fernando,  Pampanga  issued  resolutions  dated  July  
21,  2011    
 
and  November  21,  2011  dismissing  the  complaint  against  respondents.    
 
   
 
The  prosecutor’s  office  found  it  probably  that  torture  had  taken  place  based  on  
the    
 
forensic  medical  reports  but  at  the  same  time  rejected  the  victims’  voice  based    
 
identification   of   the   perpetrators.   Since   the   victims   were   blindfolded   from   the  
time  of    
 
arrest  and  during  the  alleged  torture.  This  decision  has  now  been  appealed  but  at  
as  of    
 
20  July  2012,  no  decision  has  been  issued.  The  alleged  victims  are  still  detained  
on