Privilege Speech of Hon. Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte Representative, District 6, Quezon City, 27 October 2014 October 27, 2014 at 4:40am Honorable Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege. I am here to express my grief and outrage over the deathof my friend Arnold Borja Jaramillo who was killed in aso-called “encounter” between the New People’s Army and the 41st InfantryBattalion of the Philippine Army. Mycolleagues, AJ’s death struck me as a personal blow. He and I go way back, to our high school daysin UP Baguio. I hesitated to lead mycolleagues, it took me a while during the budget hearing but I feel it would bea dishonor to my friend if I do not speak up. When I recall those times, I amamazed at how far we have progressed from the teenagers we used to be,preoccupied with insecurities, bravado, ambitions, and yes, crushes on girlswho always seemed to be outside our league. When I look now at the men we havebecome, I wonder at how our youthful idealism took divergent paths. Even then, we thought of ourselves as thecream of the crop, the best students in the best high school in Baguio. We were fiercely competitive, and we stroveto excel. An alumnus who graduated four batches aheadof me chose the path of the law, and is now a sitting justice of the SupremeCourt. Another who graduated a yearahead of me went to the Philippine Military Academy, and is now asuperintendent at the Philippine National Police. Another schoolmate who was a batch behind AJlikewise went to the PMA and is now a full colonel in the Army. On my part, after many years outside thesystem, I now seek change by working within it, while AJ sought to effectchange by working the margins, first in the student and people’s movements ofour hometown of Baguio, then later in the hills and forests of NorthernLuzon. Divergent, yes, but always with ashared goal. UP High School taught us toserve the people. And we were all so deeply influenced by the political fermentin those dying years of Martial Law. It’ssurprising how many milestones in a person’s life are marked by a piece ofpaper: A birth certificate when one is born; a diploma when one completes hisstudies; a marriage certificate when one marries; and, a death certificate whenone dies. AJ, whoI am proud to call my friend, was born in 1966. He was 47 years old when he died, and it is not friendship which movesme to say that he is no ordinary Filipino, living a mundane life whose unremarkabledetails can be known in a handful of documents. He was a key student and mass leader, and wasactive in many causes. He was a charismatic leader and an eloquent publicspeaker. Much later, he joined the NewPeople’s Army and eventually became a ranking member. To say that he died would, in truth, bemisleading. My friend AJ did notdie. To say that a person died gives theimpression that he was felled by the frailties of the human body, or by illnessor simply by the passage of time. To saythat someone died might suggest that he passed away surrounded by the love ofhis family and friends. My friend AJ didnot die: I believe that he wasmurdered. If he fell in battle fighting for hisbeliefs, I would have left it at that, with mixed emotions of sadness, envy,and pride in the gallant manner of his death. But all the evidence point to the contrary. Evidence show that he was killed in the mostbrutal fashion, gunned down in the most cowardly and treacherous manner. Theofficial reports say that AJ was killed in an alleged encounter with the 41stInfantry Battalion of the Philippine Army in Guinguinabang, Lucab, Abra. He was not the only casualty: killed, too, were five of his comrades andtwo civilians who they claim were caught in the crossfire. Thus, the end of AJ’s 47 years were summarizedin a few telling paragraphs in an impersonal document, an autopsy reportprepared by one Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill of the NBI-CAR. Said report is of sucha nature as to convince his wife Cynthia that her husband was not killed simplyin an encounter, but was in fact cold-bloodedly murdered. AJ’s body bore multiple gunshot wounds, andhe also suffered multiple fractures in his limbs and jaws. The report details the wounds likely to havecaused AJ’s death as follows: “GUNSHOTWOUNDS: all modified by suturing andembalming. 1) ENTRANCE: 1.5 centimeters by 1.5 centimeters, oval inshape, edges inverted, with an area of burning of 0.5 centimeters, please notethat area of burning all around the rim, located at the right posterior chestwall, just below the right scapula, 13.0 centimeters from the posterior midlineand etc. etc. etc... 2) MULTIPLE ENTRANCES: with an average size of 0.5 cm.x 0.5 cm., oval, edges inverted, located at the posterior surfaces of the leftthigh and left lower leg, then EXITING; at the anterior surfaces of theright thigh, the right inguinal areas, and the left lower flank area.” Etc.etc. etc.. In a letter dated October 2, 2014, AJ’s wifeCynthia implored the help of Dr. Raquel del Rosario-Fortun, a forensicpathologist with the University of the Philippines College of Medicine, todetermine the real cause of death of AJ. Mr. Speaker, I have read many medico-legaland autopsy reports during the course of my legal practice, and have learned totreat these reports with clinical indifference and cold neutrality. But I have to confess to you, my colleagues,that nothing prepared me for AJ’s autopsy report. Reading such an impersonal document when itpertains to a friend’s brutal end is painful. Its unmistakable meaning isthat AJ was shot repeatedly in the back, and one gunshot —likely the fatalshot—appears to have been fired at close range, as shown by the presence ofpowder burns, using a high-powered firearm. AJ’s body and his face, in particular, were so badly mangled, that theembalmer had to insert cement into his mouth to keep its architecture intact. In criminal law, there are circumstanceswhich aggravate the commission of a crime. One of these would be treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits any of thecrimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the executionthereof which tend to directly and specially to insure its execution, withoutrisk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party mightmake. In AJ’s case, he was shot multipletimes in the back; the placement of the wounds suggest against a confrontationbecause otherwise, the bullets would have entered from the front and exited atAJ’s back. Likewise, the sheer number ofshots fired at AJ belies the Army’s claim of an encounter as more shots seem tohave been fired than was actually necessary. Another aggravating circumstance that would accrue would be cruelty. Itis when the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately augmentedby other wrongs not necessary for its commission. One cannot discount the possibility that AJ,pigeonholed as an enemy of the State, was deliberately shot multiple times,causing him untold pain and misery, until his suffering was ended with a coup de grace. AJ could have survived these non-fatal shots,but he had no chance with a single shot at close-range from a high-poweredfirearm. With that one shot, AJ was putto death like a dog, without the benefit of a fair trial that ended with theimposition of a non-existent death penalty. The military, through the information chief of the 41stIB, said “the operation conducted was a legitimate operation with properplanning following the rules of engagement.” Mr. Speaker, the autopsy reports on AJ and anothercasualty of that so-called “encounter” revealed otherwise. The autopsy reportof Recca Noelle Monte, one of those reportedly slain in the said militaryoperations, revealed that she had no gunshot wound and actually died of “blunttraumatic injuries, massive, head, face and chest.” Her skull resembled that ofa “crushed egg.” She had hematoma and lacerations in the chest, and her leftlower extremity shattered. Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, just like what happenedto my friend AJ and based on the autopsy report conducted by NBI-CAR, I firmlybelieve that Recca Noelle Monte was not killed-in-action; she was brutally andinhumanely murdered. I am proud that I am part of this administration, I amproud that is pursuing peace as shown by its commitment in pursuing the passageof the Bangsamoro Basic Law. However, Ibelieve that we cannot achieve genuine peace without pursuing justice. We need to pursue both. I point out to you,Mr. Speaker, the concurring opinion of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonenin the recent case of Ocampo v. Abando,wherein the honorable Justice wrote: “The rebel, in hisor her effort to assert a better view of humanity, cannot negate himself orherself. Torture and summary execution of enemies or allies are never acts ofcourage. They demean those who sacrificed and those who gave their lives sothat others may live justly and enjoy the blessings of more meaningfulfreedoms. “Torture andsummary execution — in any context — are shameful, naked brutal acts of thosewho may have simply been transformed into desperate cowards. Those who may havesuffered or may have died because of these acts deserve better than to be toldthat they did so in the hands of a rebel.” I say Mr. Speakerthat the armed forces should be held to the same, if not to a higher level ofconduct and morals in the field of battle in its war against insurgency. The Welsh poetDylan Thomas urges us: “Do not go gentleinto that good night/Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” Most people lead unremarkable lives that endin unremarkable deaths. Dying becomesmeaningful when the process reveals the true character of the person. For AJ, he lived as he believed, and he diedas he believed. He had the courage ofhis convictions. The words I speak are paltry in light of the tremendous esteemin which I hold AJ. To his wife Cynthia,his children Raia and Cholo, your grief is surely shared by AJ’s many friendswhose lives have been touched by his grace and honor. To my dear friend, you have fought the good fight. Though you did not deserve the fate you suffered,know that we who are still here will not forget the legacy of your sacrifice. Mydear colleagues, I rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege. My friend was killed for his belief. My friend was killed in the most inhumanemanner. My friend was killed in a mannercontrary to the provisions under International Humanitarian Law. My friend was killed by those who took anoath to uphold our Constitution and our laws, and to protect the people. The41st Infantry Batallion of the Philippine Army claims that it was avalid operation, and that the rules of engagement were followed. But my friends, evidence points to thecontrary. Mr.Speaker, dear colleagues, AJ and I joined the student and people’s movementsduring the dark days of Martial Law. We have since taken different paths. Hetook the road less traveled by. More than three decades later, the remnants ofthe injustice that we fought against still linger. Mr.Speaker, dear colleagues, I don’t have to remind you that just last week, we passedon second reading a joint resolution of Congress, we passed on the second readingand we are moving to pass to the third reading, a joint resolution of Congressto extend by six months the period for human rights victims during martial lawto file their claims for recognition and compensation. Our commitment to seeingjustice served to more than 70,000 victims of the atrocities committed duringMartial Law is negated by these occurences and puts to question our claims andour efforts to uphold human rights. Duringthis time that we are all focused on peace in Mindanao. . . During this timethat we are all focused on promoting and protecting the rights of our people. .. During this time that we are all focusedon ensuring that our people benefit from our country’s economic gains. . . Thisis unacceptable. I call for aninvestigation, in aid of legislation, on the series of incidents which tookplace in Lacub, Abra. Lastly Mr. Speaker, I know that many of us here who haveexperienced war know that there are no winners in war, least of all the peoplewho are its victims. Even the participants in war are affected and are damagedby war. Since we are in the process of peace, I push that we pull all ourefforts for the resumption of the peace talks not only in Mindanao but acrossthe nation, to all the parties including the NPA and the NDF. I call Mr. Speaker for peace. Thank you verymuch Mr. Speaker, thank you very much dear colleagues.
Posted on: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 06:30:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015