Albert Wilson Petition

of 33

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT

MANILA ALBERT WILSON,

Petitioner,

-versus- Case No. ________________ For: Mandamus THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ALBERTO ROMULO, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL GONZALEZ, BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, BOARD OF CLAIMS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE BOARD OF CLAIMS, SOLICITOR GENERAL AGNES DEVANADERA, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION,

Respondents.x----------------------------------------------------x

PETITION for MANDAMUS

Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The Philippines has obligations under international law owed not only to the international community but also to individuals. Such is the evolution of customary international law where natural persons now possess certain rights and obligations as do states and international organizations. As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Philippines has expressly assumed certain of these obligations.

However the Philippines is yet to translate some of these obligations into concrete action. In particular, with respect to the Petitioner Mr. Albert Wilson, the Philippines has not complied with its obligations to provide redress for the human rights violations he has suffered under the country’s penal system. The United

of 33

Nations Human Rights Committee found that the Philippines is in breach of its obligations as a State Party to the ICCPR. In particular, there was a breach of the right to dignity of all detained persons, a violation of Petitioner’s right to be treated in accordance with his status as a detainee prisoner prior to his conviction, his right not to be subjected to torture, and a violation of his due process rights during the time of his arrest. Indeed, the prohibition against torture is recognized as non-derogable, and no reservations are allowed to be made regarding the same under the ICCPR. The nature of this norm prohibiting torture is also widely recognized as erga omnes, owed to both individuals and to the community of nations, including the parties to the ICCPR. Because this is a recognized principle of international law, it is therefore a part of the law of the land under the incorporation clause of the 1987 Constitution, and even much more so since such is also treaty law duly ratified by the Philippine Senate.

The Philippines must take steps to enforce its treaty obligations and make reparations for the breach of these obligations, as evidenced by the Human Rights Committee’s views and in doing so comply with its treaty obligations under the ICCPR, and its Optional Protocol, also signed and duly ratified by the Philippines, if it is to move forward in protecting these cherished rights that are essential to democracy, progress and the basic values of humanity. Not only are these obligations owed to other state parties to the Covenant, it is owed to all human beings whether foreigners or citizens. It is an obligation of international law, and an obligation of municipal law as well.

THE NATURE AND PROPRIETY OF THE PETITION

Despite being party to the ICCPR, there has been no implementing legislation on the part of the Philippines towards enforcing the views of the Human Rights Committee. Furthermore, despite the claims/response of the diplomatic arm of the Philippine government, the Commission on Human Rights does not actually offer a speedy and adequate remedy. Not only is it a paper tiger with merely the power to investigate, even the findings of fact resulting from the exercise of its power to investigate are not conclusive on any judicial or quasi-judicial body but are merely recommendatory in nature.

of 33

Even an action under the Civil Code filed before the Regional Trial Court is not an appropriate remedy because such does not pertain to an international obligation and will require a level of proof incompatible with the standards of international human rights law as found by the Human Rights Committee. Furthermore Petitioner cannot hope to meet the local standards of evidence and proof given the time elapsed, his lack of access to funds, and his location in the United Kingdom.

Given that neither statute nor other forms of law provide for a speedy, adequate and effective remedy to enforce a finding of a breach of an ICCPR treaty obligation as found by the Human Rights Committee, Mandamus under Rule 65 is the proper and only remedy available to the Petitioner. Under Section 3 of Rule 65 “when any officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, and there is no other plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done… and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.”

In MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay,1 a landmark case in environmental law promulgated recently by the Supreme Court, it was held that the nature of a “continuing mandamus” will lie to compel the respondents to take steps to carry out their ministerial duty under the law.

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

This petition is filed within the reglementary period provided for under the Rules of Court, i.e., sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution or notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration of such judgment, order or resolution. 2 The UN Human Rights Committee communicated its views on October 30, 2003. However Respondents have continuously refused, and are still refusing to

1 G.R. Nos. 171947-47, Promulgated December 18, 2008 [hereinafter the Manila Bay Case]. 2 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Section 4.

of 33

comply with its ICCPR obligations and obligations under the Optional Protocol up to the present date. These actions constitute persistent and pervasive violations of the Constitution and continuing breaches of domestic and international obligations, thereby providing Petitioners cause of action to seek redress from this Honorable Court. Despite diligent and persistent efforts to follow up with the State its obligations to Petitioner, the State has done nothing more than make promises to act. For this reason every day that passes with no action is a breach of the international obligation to provide reparation. Therefore the Petition is timely.

Petitioner is mindful that Rule 65, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, sets a 60-day period “from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution” within which to file the instant petition. This Honorable Court has generally held this period to be “inextendible”, on the rationale that “[t]he period was specifically set to avoid any unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy disposition of their case”.3 However, it should be stressed that the judicial policy underlying the sixty-day reglementary period to file petitions under Rule 65 is not sacrosanct, particularly when weighed against the urgent and continuing deprivation of Petitioner’s right to redress and compensation for torture and other inhuman acts he suffered under detention. It cannot be said that there has been a violation of the “right to speedy disposition of the case” of either the Petitioners or the Respondents in this instance as this is the first time that the continuing omission and inaction of the Respondents regarding this matter is being assailed. The right to a speedy disposition of a case “is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured; or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.”4 Since there has been no actual violation of the right to speedy disposition of a case, the purpose of the rigid implementation of sixty-day reglementary period under Rule 65, Section 4 of the Rules of Court does not exist.

Juxtaposing the absence of the rationale for the reglementary period with the Respondents’ ongoing breach of Petitioner’s right to compensation and redress, there is likewise a greater impetus for this Honorable Court to exercise its discretion to liberally give due course to the instant petition and resolve the same on the merits. This Honorable Court has not been precluded from taking cognizance of petitions 3 Balayan v. Acorda, G.R. No. 153537, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 637, at 643. 4 Cabarles v. Maceda et al., G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007, 516 SCRA 303, at 319.

of 33

involving issues of “transcendental significance”, and may thus “brush aside technicalities of procedure”5 where the “issues raised are of paramount importance to the public”.6

With the Respondents’ continuing omission against Petitioner’s request and demands for compensation, Petitioners is thus constrained to invoke this Honorable Court’s supervisory power under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners do not have any appeal, or other plain, adequate, or speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law. This Honorable Court has declared that a “remedy is plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment and the acts of the tribunal or inferior court.”7

There is no such available remedy (capable of affording prompt redress for the ongoing refusal to provide compensation for the violation of Petitioner’s fundamental rights) against the Respondents’ continuing omission, inaction and delay.

5 See Yoche v. Yoche, G.R. No. 143337, April 2, 2007; “In fine, the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition for

certiorari on the ground of technicality. After all, the rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, their only purpose being to help secure substantial justice to the parties.”

6 See Tamargo et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992, 209 SCRA 518,

at 522; Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, 338 SCRA 81, at 101; People v. Lucio Tan et al., G.R. No. 144707, July 13, 2004, 434 SCRA 234, at 254. See also Spouses Ley v. Union Bank of the Philippines et al., G.R. No. 167961, April 3, 2007, (no SCRA available yet); Jaworski v. PAGCOR et al., G.R. No. 144463, January 14, 2004, 419 SCRA 317, at 323-324:

“Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a

petition for prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case warrants that we set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over the petition at bar…This is in accordance with the well-entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.”

7 Tan et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 164966, June 8, 2007.

of 33

PARTIES

1.0 Petitioner, Albert Wilson is a British national with residence in the United Kingdom. He may be served with papers and court processes at the address of counsel at 1901 Antel Corporate Center, 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City, Philippines;

1.1 Public Respondent Honorable Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita

has office address at 2nd Floor, Mabini Hall, Malacañang, J.P. Laurel St., San Miguel, Manila, where he may be served with summons and other court processes;

1.2 Public Respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alberto Romulo has

office address at with office address at 2330 Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, where she may be served with summons and other court processes;

1.3 Public Respondent Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzalez has office

address at DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura St., Manila, where she may be served with summons and other court processes;

1.4 Public Respondent the Board of Claims of the Department of Justice

has office address at DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura St., Manila, where she may be served with summons and other court processes;

1.5 Public Respondent the Bureau of Immigration Commissioner

Marcelino Libanan with office address at 2nd Floor Bureau of Immigration Bldg., Magallanes Drive, Intramuros, Manila where he may be served with summons and other court processes;

1.6 Public Respondent Bureau of Corrections under the Department of Justice has office address at DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura St., Manila, where it may be served with summons and other court processes;

1.7 Public Respondent Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera has office

address at 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City where he may be served with summons and other court processes.

of 33

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE

2.1 The Philippines is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [hereinafter ‘the Covenant’], having ratified the Covenant on February 28, 1986 and such entering into force on January 23, 1987.

2.2 The Philippines also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on

August 22, 1989 and such entered into force on November 22, 1989. 2.3 On September 16, 1996 Petitioner was arrested without a warrant as a

result of a complaint for the alleged rape of his step-daughter. 2.4 He was tried for the crime from November 6, 1996 to July 15, 1998

and the trial took place amid much publicity. On September 30, 1998, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of rape by the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela mainly on the stepdaughter’s inconsistent and contradictory testimony.

2.5 Petitioner was then placed on death row at the National Penitentiary in

Muntinlupa during which he suffered financial extortion, torture, inhuman living conditions, and untold psychological trauma inflicted by the prison guards and by the inmates of the detention facility with the concurrence and sometimes, even with the participation or cooperation, of the prison guards.

2.6 On December 21, 1999, on automatic review to the Supreme Court,

the conviction was set aside8 for lack of credible evidence. The High Court ruled that the guilt of Petitioner was not shown beyond reasonable doubt, the Ruling mainly relying on physical evidence to the contrary. The Solicitor General itself recommended the acquittal to the Supreme Court.9

2.7 The very next day, upon Petitioner’s release, the Bureau of Immigration issued a hold-departure order FOR PETITIONER’S

8 People of the Philippines vs. Albert Ernest Wilson, G.R. No. 135915, December 21, 1999. 9 Id.

eunice

Highlight

of 33

OVERSTAYING of his tourist visa and fined him P22, 740.00.The ruling was affirmed despite an appeal by the British Ambassador to the Philippines.

2.8 Upon his return to the United Kingdom Petitioner sought

compensation pursuant to Republic Act 7309 under the Board of Claims which awarded him P14, 000.00 but required that he claim it in person. He asked for reconsideration, both for the requirement to claim it in person and for the insufficient amount awarded, but was told that such claims were subject to ‘availability of funds’. He has never received any amount.

2.9 Petitioner sought to return to the Philippines because his family are

residents of the Philippines, but was informed by the Bureau of Immigration that because he overstayed his tourist visa and was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude of rape, he could not be granted a visa unless he was issued travel certification from the Bureau of Immigration, a piece of paper that, in all absurdity, he was required to procure in the Philippines.

2.10 After requiring the Philippines to answer the complaint and to

rebut the allegations, the Committee decided the case and released a Communication on November 2003, finding the Philippines in breach of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Case no. 868/1999.10

“As to the author’s claims under articles 7 and 10 regarding his treatment in detention and the conditions of detention… The Committee considers that the conditions of detention as described, as well as the violent and abusive behavior both of certain prison guards and of other inmates, as apparently acquiesced in by the prison authorities, are seriously in violation of the author’s right, as a prisoner, to be treated with humanity in and with respect for his inherent dignity, in violation of article 10, paragraph 1. As at least some of the acts of violence against the author were committed either by the prison guards, upon their instigation or with their acquiescence, there was also a violation of article 7. There is also a specific violation of article 10, paragraph 2, arising from the failure to segregate the author, pre-trial, from convicted prisoners.11

10Attached is a copy of the Communication from the Human Rights Committee [hereinafter, “The Communication”] attached as Annex “A” an official and accurate copy of which is also accessible online at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/868-1999.html, par. 2.9. 11 Par. 7.3 of The Communication.

of 33

As to the claims concerning the author’s mental suffering and anguish as a consequence of being sentenced to death… In view of these aggravating factors… the Committee concludes that the author’s suffering under a sentence of death amounted to an additional violation of article 7.12

The Committee concludes that the author was not informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and was not promptly informed of the charges against him; that the author was arrested without a warrant and hence in violation of domestic law; and that after the arrest the author was not promptly brought before a judge. Consequently, there was a violation of article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Covenant. 13

The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 paragraph 4 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee reveal violations by the Philippines of article 7, article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and article 10, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant14.

12 Par. 7.4 of The Communication. 13 Par. 7.5 of The Communication. 14 Par. 8 of The Communication.

of 33

SUBMISSIONS

THE PHILIPPINES HAS THE OBLIGATION TO PROTECT PETITIONER FROM TORTURE AND WHEN TORTURE IS COMMITTED, TO PROVIDE REPARATION AND COMPENSATION TO PETITIONER ALBERT WILSON.

The Philippines has the obligation to protect petitioner from violations of human rights as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

3.1 Under the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law which therefore form part of the law of the land. It is also axiomatic that all treaties are binding on the State party ratifying the same and must be performed by them in good faith.15

3.2 As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Philippines has bound itself to fulfill the obligations under the Covenant. The relevant provision reads:16

“Article 2 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy,

15 Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 16 Article 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR].

of 33

notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. “

3.3 In particular, the Philippines bound itself to protect various human

rights under the Covenant, mainly:

“Article 10 1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.17

2.

(a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons18;

Article 7 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation19.

Article 9 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

17 Article 10 ICCPR. 18 Id. 19 Article 7 ICCPR.

eunice

Highlight

eunice

Highlight

of 33

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.”20

3.4 Treaties such as the Covenant become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to the Constitution which provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.”21

3.5 The Covenant and the Optional Protocol is such a treaty as it has been concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of Senate. Therefore the duties and obligations found under the Covenant are State obligations that form part of the “law of the land.” Therefore by the force of the Constitution, both the Covenant and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant are “valid and effective” under the doctrine of transformation and form part of domestic law.22

3.6 However even under the doctrine of incorporation these obligations continue to be valid and subsisting, as they form part of customary international law and even obligations erga omnes. As stated:

“Generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination [of] two elements: the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in question is

20 Article 9 ICCPR. 21 Article VII Section 21, 1987 Constitution. 22 Pharmaceutical Health Care Association vs. Health Secretary Duque et al., G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007.

of 33

rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. (Emphasis supplied)”23

xxx xxx xxx

"Generally accepted principles of international law" refers to norms of general or customary international law which are binding on all states, i.e., renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, a person's right to life, liberty and due process, and pacta sunt servanda, among others. The concept of "generally accepted principles of law" has also been depicted in this wise…”24

3.7 The Philippines through the executive branch as the executor of the law therefore has the obligation to carry out the obligations under the Covenant as interpreted and decided by the Human Rights Committee, itself an organ created under the Covenant which is a duly ratified treaty.25

Compelling and persuasive evidence of a breach of this international obligation is a finding by the Human Rights Committee in its publicized views that the Philippines failed in its obligation not to torture and to prevent torture.

4.1 The Human Rights Committee in its publicized views on this case26,has found that the Philippines failed in its obligations under the Covenant, in particular:

a. Article 10 paragraph 1, 2; b. Article 7; c. Article 9 Paragraphs 1, 2, 3;

23 Mijares vs. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397. 24 See note 19. 25 Article 28 of the ICCPR. 26 See note 10 on the Views of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Communication No. 868/1999 (15 June 1999).

of 33

4.2 The Philippines recognized that the Human Rights Committee is competent to make such findings when it ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on August 22, 1989. Therefore like any international instrument or treaty, this recognition is valid and effective and constitutes even more reason to accord great weight and validity to these findings of a breach of an international obligation under the Covenant.

4.3 Under international law, torture is defined as “any act by which severe

pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is 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 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.”27 “Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacity, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.”28 The prohibition against torture forms part of the body of erga omnes obligations and part of “the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person.”29

4.4 Everywhere in the world States have recognized that torture is unlawful. In fact is has long been recognized by the international community that torture is “an offense to human dignity” and is “condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”30 The Universal Declaration on Human Rights has declared that “No one

27 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1(1) [hereinafter the Torture Convention]. 28 Article 2, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 29 Barcelona Traction Case, ICJ Reports, 1970, (p 3, 32). 30 Article 2, Resolution 3452 adopted by consensus on December 99, 1975, Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR)

eunice

Highlight

eunice

Highlight

of 33

shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”31

4.5 These declarations against torture have gained universal recognition, and also evince that international community including states from all parts of the civilized world now recognize that the prohibition on torture as an obligation that permits no derogation32, a peremptory norm or a jus cogens33 norm defined as:

“Article 53

Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law(“jus cogens”) A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general International law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.”34 [emphasis supplied]

4.6 In fact, as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former

Yugoslavia (ICTY), in a landmark decision, declared,

“Because of the importance of the values [the prohibition on torture] protects, this principle has evolved into a peremptory norm of jus cogens, that is, a norm that enjoys a higher rank in the international hierarchy than treaty law and even “ordinary” customary law rules. The most conspicuous consequence of this higher rank is that the principle at issue cannot be derogated from by States through international treaties

31 Article 5, UDHR. 32UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Reports to General Assembly (2005, §§ 38-39; 2004, § 28; and 2002, § 32); American Convention on Human Rights (Article 5); African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 5), Arab Charter on Human Rights (Article 13), UNCAT and European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;(The prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is specifically excluded from derogation provisions: see Article 4(2) of the ICCPR; Articles 2(2) and 15 of the UNCAT; Article 27(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights; Article 4(c) Arab Charter of Human Rights; Article 5 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; Articles 3 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). 33 Article 53, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 34 Id.

of 33

or local or special customs or even general customary rules not endowed with the same normative force.”35

4.7 This is gives rise to an obligation erga omnes omnium, or obligations owed to the international community in the general sense; Under the Torture Convention it is an obligation for State Parties to take measures to prevent torture and to ensure that acts of torture are legally punishable in their jurisdiction. The Philippines has failed to observe that obligation.

The Philippines, being in breach of an international obligation, is required to make reparations and redress, paying damages to compensate for the injury.

5.1 The failure of the Philippines to observe its obligations to prevent torture and not to commit torture under the Covenant gives rise to the commission of an internationally wrongful act which is a breach of treaty. The acts of the prison officials in Muntinlupa and the prison guards are considered acts of State, and acts of the Philippines, being directly attributable under the doctrine of State organs.

5.2 Under customary international law, it has been stated that:

“The conduct of any state organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the Central Government or territorial unit of the State.”36

Additionally, it has also been stated that:

“The conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law

35 Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzjia, Judgment, Trial chamber, 10 Dec. 1998. 36 Article 4(1) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts as adopted by the International Law Commission.

of 33

if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if it exceeds its authority or contravenes instructions.”37

The embodiment of this principle of reparation is stated in the following manner:

“The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.”38

5.3 The injury that requires reparation may also be moral damage suffered by individuals such as individual pain and suffering.39 Therefore in this case this would be the suffering and pain inflicted on Albert Wilson which will require reparation in the form of compensation.

5.4 Thus States are also responsible for acts committed within the apparent

or general scope of its authority. Additionally “the State also bears international responsibility by its officials or its organs which are delictual according to international law, regardless of whether the official organ has acted within the limits of his competency or has exceeded those limits…”40

5.5 As a consequence of the commission of an internationally wrongful act, the Philippines is obliged to make reparation. Because restitution is not possible, there may be compensation with respect to the damage. The reparation “must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act…”41

37 Article 7, Id..38 Article 31(1) Articles on State Responsibility. 39 Article 31(2) Articles on State Responsibility. 40Merlin Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law, p. 65 citing Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 1980, p.437 citing the President of the Franco-Mexican Claims Commission; 41 Chorzow Factory Case, Permanent International Court of Justice (PCIJ) Series A, No. 17, 1928, p. 47; Broniowski v. Poland (Grand Chamber) (App no. 31443/96) ECHR 22 June 2004 [hereinafter the Broniowski case], para. 189; Article 35 on the Articles of State Responsibility provides exceptions to the obligation to provide restitution, that is, to the extent that it is not strictly possible, such as in torture cases which the wrongful acts cannot be undone, such as in this case here- thus compensation and satisfaction apply. See also Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005.

of 33

5.6 Instead of attempting in good faith to comply with these obligations

the obligations and the findings of the Committee have been denied by the officials concerned. Instead of taking an effort to provide redress for the human rights violations committed against Albert Wilson, the Philippines through its consular officials replied in such a manner as to contest the findings of the Committee’s decision, re-raising issues already raised, discussed and considered, matters which are clearly res judicata. There were no steps taken to implement the views of the Committee. Thus there is a breach of international law obligation to provide redress and to make good faith efforts to comply with the views of the Committee.

The Respondents have an obligation under international law and municipal law via the doctrine of transformation to take steps to prevent a similar breach of such obligation from occurring.

6.1 The respondents also have the obligation to ensure that the jails and places of detention in the Philippines do not violate the human rights of detainees as laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Unfortunately the conditions in Philippine jails and prisons do not conform to acceptable standards as laid down in human rights laws.

6.2 The legal community is fully aware of the terms and conditions for the

regular inspection of jails by judges to ensure that certain standards and prevention of overcrowding are met. However the system of inspection and visits is either inadequately enforced, not followed, or ineffective, since conditions existed that made it possible for Petitioner to be tortured and to be subjected to torture with the consent, acquiescence and even participation of elements of the State, the prison guards in this case.

of 33

6.3 This Petition for mandamus is thus appropriate to command the Executive Branch to fulfill a duty under law and

6.4 In the case of Broniowski v. Poland42 decided by the European Court of

Human Rights (ECHR), claimant Jerzy Broniowski could not get compensation for property lost when his grandmother was repatriated from one side of the Polish border to the other. The forced repatriation deprived thousands of their property. In response to this predicament, the Polish government in that case made compensation theoretically available. However subsequent acts and omissions later made it clear that complete and adequate compensation was not forthcoming. This was attributable to the fact that the State did not make it practical and feasible for claimants to obtain compensation, and did not enact legislation to make it possible. In the words of the Court “The Polish authorities, by imposing successive limitations on the exercise of the applicant’s right to credit, and by applying the practices that made it unenforceable and unusable in practice, rendered that right illusory and destroyed its very essence.”

6.5 That is exactly the case here. Petitioner is entitled to the protection of basic human rights under the ICCPR and the Philippine’s subsequent ratification of the Optional Protocol reinforces its recognition of the existence of any breach as found by the Human Rights Committee.

6.6 In Broniowski, the ECHR held that there was a violation due to the

malfunctioning of domestic legislation and practice, thus denying a whole class of individuals of their human rights protected under treaty. The Court found that there were shortcomings in the Polish legal order and that a breach imposed upon the State a legal obligation to adopt measures and put an end to the violations and redress so far as possible the effects. The State was held to be free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligations provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions of the Court in that case.

42 See the Broniowski case.

of 33

6.7 As an organ of the State, this Honorable Supreme Court thus may take measures in the form specific orders so that the right to compensation is not rendered illusory. Mandamus is the only available remedy to obtain such compensation given that the Philippines has not enacted legislation (specific statutes) or administrative measures to ensure that victims of human rights violations are redressed in the form of compensation and that such are enforceable, effective and offer a realistic chance of compensation.

6.8 In making these orders this Honorable Supreme Court will be

following a mandate of both treaty law and general principles of customary international law; thus the norm undergoes both the process of transformation and incorporation under our Constitution.

6.9 It is a matter of judicial notice that the conditions of our jails and

prisons are unacceptable under international human rights standards, as will be discussed extensively below.

The Philippines recognizes the competence

of the Human Rights Committee to make determinations of Philippine compliance with its obligations under the ICCPR.

7.1 The Philippines is a party to and has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7.2 By becoming a party to this Protocol, the Philippines recognizes the

competence of the Committee to determine whether or not there has been a violation of its obligations under the Covenant43. The relevant provision reads thus:

“The States Parties to the present Protocol, Considering that in order further to achieve the purposes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Covenant) and the implementation of its provisions it would be appropriate

43 Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the Philippines on August 22, 1989.

of 33

to enable the Human Rights Committee set up in part IV of the Covenant (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to receive and consider, as provided in the present Protocol, communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.

Have agreed as follows:

Article I A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to the present Protocol recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Covenant which is not a Party to the present Protocol.”44 [emphasis provided]

7.3 The Committee not only found that the Philippines committed violations of its obligations under the provisions of the ICCPR, but it also concluded that there thus existed the obligation to provide compensation to Mr. Albert Wilson for these violation of Articles 7, 9 and 10 and additionally to refund the money paid by him for the imposition of immigration fees and visa exclusion. 7.4 The rules and standards laid down in the ICCPR and the Optional Protocol are indeed valid and effective because such was transformed by the concurrence to both instruments by the Philippine Senate as required by Article VII Section 21 of the Constitution. 7.5 Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations. (Emphasis supplied)45”

44 Id. 45 Article II, Section 2, 1987 Constitution.

of 33

7.6 One of the generally accepted principles of international law is pacta sunt servanda46. State parties must comply with their treaty obligations in good faith. The Philippines has to comply with its treaty obligations in good faith, and at least take steps to fulfill these obligations. Under the doctrine of incorporation, the principle of pacta sunt servanda thus forms part of municipal law. 7.7 After recognizing the Committee’s competence in matters regarding the obligations under the Covenant, the Philippines therefore has the obligation to exert reasonable efforts to fulfill obligations under the Covenant, part and parcel of which is Philippine compliance with the views of the Committee.

7.8 Therefore the Views of the Committee form part of the law of the land, and the Philippines has an obligation to grant reparation to Mr. Albert Wilson for the violations of Article 7, 9 and 10 of the Covenant.

The Philippines neither complied with the views of the Human Rights Committee nor taken steps to comply with its obligation to provide redress to Petitioner Mr. Albert Wilson under the Committee views

8.1 Despite several communications made by both the Petitioner and the Committee, the Philippines has not taken steps to comply with its obligation to provide redress to Mr. Albert Wilson. Attached to this Petition are the demand letters written by Mr. Wilson’s counsel to the office of the Executive Branch, including the Office of the President, and letters written by The Redress Trust to the Philippine Embassy and the responsible officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs. These are attached as Annexes “B” to “F.”

8.2 As far back as August 10, 2005, the Views of the Committee were

referred by the Philippines to the Department of Justice and the Department of Interior and Local Government. However, to date, no

46 Tanada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 592.

of 33

effort has been taken by any of these agencies to comply with the said Views.

8.3 The obligation of the Philippines to provide an effective remedy is set

out in Article 2 paragraph 3 (a) of the ICCPR.47

8.4 The Committee made findings that the compensation under the domestic laws of the Philippines are not directed against violations of these rights under the ICCPR. The Board of Claims only compensates for unjust imprisonment, and not for the torture and other violations committed during such imprisonment. The letters to the Executive Branch demanding redress have yet to be acted upon.

8.5 Instead of providing redress, through its letter-responses to several

follow-ups by the Committee and The Redress Trust, the Philippines re-raised several factual and legal issues, the issue of admissibility, claiming that Albert Wilson failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to go to the Commission on Human Rights. They also claim that he should have instituted civil and criminal suits in Philippine Courts. Afterwards, the Philippines claimed that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof laid on him. In all, the Committee has found the response of the State Party, the Philippines, unsatisfactory.

8.6 Furthermore in proceedings before the Committee, as laid down in

several Committee decisions, it is the State party (the Philippines in this case) that has the unique burden of proof in such human rights cases. This is because of the absence of direct proof in torture cases, so that if a person is found in good condition before he was taken into custody but injured at the time of release, a presumption of responsibility arises.48

8.7 More importantly, it has been stated that in torture cases, “the burden of proof cannot rest alone with the author of a communication, especially considering that the author and the state party do not always

47 See paragraph 3.2. 48 Tomasi v. France, Judgment 27 August 1992, par. 108-111, European Court of Human Rights; Ribitsch v. Austria, Judgment 04 December 1995, par. 34., 21 E.H.R.R. 573 at par. 111.

of 33

have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the state party alone has access to the relevant information.”49 The Special Rapporteur on Torture stated that “the burden of proving that a person was subjected to torture should not fall wholly on the alleged victim. The officials involved or their superiors should also be obliged to provide evidence to the contrary.”50

8.8 Although the Office of the President has subsequently referred the matter to the Department of Justice, the government has continued to do nothing and has taken no action to provide compensation to the Petitioner.

8.9 The Philippines in its evasion of its obligations further states that there

was failure to exhaust local remedies by Petitioner’s failure to bring his case before the Commission on Human Rights. Resort to the Commission on Human Right is not the proper venue for Petitioner’s cause, as its powers are purely investigative and recommendatory in nature:

“The most that may be conceded to the Commission in

the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or official.

xxx xxx xxx But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well understood and quite distinct meanings.

xxx xxx xxx “Investigate,” commonly understood, means to examine, explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study.

49 Mukong v. Cameroon, HRC Communication No. 458/1991, 21 July 1994. 50 Question on the Human Rights of all Persons Subjected to Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, In Particular, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report of the Special Rapporteur Nigel Rodley, pursuant to Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1997/37.

of 33

The dictionary definition of “investigate” is “to observe or study closely: inquire into systematically, “to search or inquire into… to subject to an official probe… to conduct an official inquiry.” The purpose of investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling, deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into by application of the law to the facts established by inquiry.

xxx xxx xxx Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power to investigate, cannot and should not “try and resolve on the merits” the matters involved…

xxx xxx xxx The only thing the Commission can do… is to refer the matter to the appropriate Government agency or tribunal for assistance;”51

xxx xxx xxx 8.10 What the Philippine government attempted to do is to require

Petitioner to seek an inefficacious remedy. In fact, international law jurisprudence states that the State which contests the exhaustion of administrative remedies must prove that those remedies are effective.52 The European Court of Human Rights has stated that “in the case of exhaustion of remedies it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice… that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects for success.”53

51 Carino vs. CHR, G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991. 52 Velasquez v. Rodriguez, Judgment 29 July 1988, par. 134, Inter-American Court of Human Rights; See Mukong v. Cameroon, at note 50, Human Rights Committee. 53 Admissibility Case of Akdivar v. Turkey, Judgment 16 September 1996, European Court of Human Rights [ECHR]; Markovic v. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 11 April 1997, ECHR; See also Decision on the Admissibility of Case No. CH/96/21 Krstan CEGAR vs. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina; The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Information Sheet No. 3: Communication Procedure (stating that complainants need only present a prima facie case… then the burden shifts to the State to submit specific responses and evidence refuting assertions contained in complainants’ pleadings).

of 33

8.11 The Human Rights Committee was the only appropriate, accessible, fair and impartial body from which Mr. Wilson could seek legal remedies and redress for a breach of the Philippines’ international obligations. To require Mr. Wilson to go to Philippine Courts and commence a lawsuit to re-litigate and re-raise the claims would be to ask an impossibly difficult task and to effectively doom his claim to failure. Mr. Albert Wilson has never at any point had access to evidence and to witnesses who will testify in his behalf regarding the torture and inhumane conditions he suffered while incarcerated in Philippine detention centers. As a foreigner, he does not have the resources to pursue his claims in the Philippines. He is only able to do so now in this Petition because of the helpful intervention and assistance of a non-governmental organization based in London, The Redress Trust.

Mandamus lies to compel the Respondents who have failed to ensure that conditions of detention and imprisonment comply with standards laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

9.1 The conditions of detention in Philippine jails are not compliant with the treaty obligations assumed by the Philippine government under the ICCPR. In particular, the conditions prevalent in Philippine centers of detention are indicative of a failure to protect a person’s physical integrity and are the equivalent of torture. That these conditions exist are so established it has become the subject of judicial notice in several criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court.

9.2 Supporting this is the decision in People v. Dahil54, where the Court stated:

“The Court, taking note of appellant's said manifestation, recalls that in several cases in the past it has called attention to the "incredible overcrowding of prison cells" that lead inevitably to the formation of wolf packs, and confine prisoners "under circumstances that strangle all sense of decency, reduce convicts to the level of animals, and convert a prison term into PROLONGED TORTURE and slow death.” [emphasis added]

54 G.R. No. L-30271, June 15, 1979.

eunice

Highlight

eunice

Highlight

eunice

Highlight

of 33

9.3 Also in the De los Santos case, 55 these conditions were relied on as mitigating

circumstances to reduce the penalty imposed by law. The Court stated:

“It is evident that the incredible overcrowding of the prison cells, that taxed facilities beyond measure and the starvation allowance of ten centavos per meal for each prisoner, must have rubbed raw the nerves and dispositions of the unfortunate inmates, and predisposed them to all sorts of violence to seize from their owners the meager supplies from outside in order to eke out their miserable existence.

All this led inevitably to the formation of gangs that preyed like wolf packs on the weak, and ultimately to pitiless gang rivalry for the control of the prisoners, abetted by the inability of the outnumbered guards to enforce discipline, and which culminated in violent riots. The government cannot evade responsibility for keeping prisoners under such sub-human and Dantesque conditions.”

9.4 There are numerous other instances56 where the Supreme Court has decried

the sub-human conditions in Philippine jails that give rise to murders and riots of detention prisoners whose cases are under appeal and which violate the Philippines’ obligations under the ICCPR.

9.5 This Honorable Court thus has the opportunity in this case to bring attention

to this festering problem and to direct the Office of the President which supervises and controls the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Jails to take steps to protect the human rights of prisoners in the National Penitentiary and other jails and detention centers. This is only proper given that as the officials carrying out the execution of the penalties imposed by law, they are also tasked to ensure that the basic human rights to life, dignity, and the right not to be tortured are accorded all prisoners.

9.6 Certainly it will be up to the officials concerned to come up with the necessary

and specific steps to bring about this result in accordance with the ruling laid down in the recently decided case of MMDA et al. vs. Concerned

55 People v. Delos Santos, 14 SCRA 4702. 56 G.R. No. L-46397; People vs. Garcia, 96 SCRA 497; G.R. No. L-38755.

of 33

Residents of Manila Bay et al.57 which directed the responsible executive officials to:

“A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.”

9.7 And even under international law as a member of an international

organization, the respondents in the said case were required to fulfill the obligations assumed under such treaty.

“Lastly, as a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL 73/78, the Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports.

9.8 In the same case, the propriety of mandamus was thus set in this manner:

“Under what other judicial discipline describes as “continuing mandamus,”58 the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the doctrine of continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.”

9.9 Therefore:

“The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is over. Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, and buckle down to work before the problem at hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates; they must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay.” [emphasis added]

9.10 And in a portion of the dispositive part of the decision:

“The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of “continuing mandamus,” shall, from finality of this

57 G.R. Nos. 171947-47, Promulgated December 18, 2008.

of 33

Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this Decision.” [emphasis added]

9.11 Similarly situated to the Petitioners in the previously cited Broniowski case, a whole class of individuals to which the petitioner in this case belongs is deprived of the right, not only to compensation for torture suffered under prison detention, but also for the individuals who continue to remain in such inhuman, degrading tortuous conditions as recognized by the Supreme Court itself. They are also entitled to relief.

Petitioner has established the requisites for the issuance of a writ of mandamus

10.1 Under the Rules of Court, when an officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person may file a verified petition alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, to do the act required to be done.59

10.2 Petitioner sent demand letters60 on June 19, 2008 and October 20, 2008 to the Chief Executive’s Office, the Office of the President, asking that action be taken by the government to comply with its treaty obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol as expressed by the Human Rights Committee.

10.3 On November 07, 2008 undersigned counsel received a letter from the

Office of the Executive Secretary61 stating that it is referring the matter to the Department of Justice.

10.4 However despite these efforts and several other communications and

efforts in the past, the Philippine Government through the Executive

59See Rule 65, Section 3, Rules of Court. 60 See the copies of the demand letters which are attached as Annex “B” and “C.” 61 A copy of the Letter is attached as Annex “G.”

of 33

Branch and its offices have either contested the existence of the breach and the findings of the Human Rights Committee long after they have attained finality, or have taken no action at all. Thus even if there is no outright denial by the Executive Branch, the long standing lack of action amounts to a denial thereof and a denial of Petitioner’s right to a speedy and adequate remedy.

10.5 Thus in a last effort to obtain the relief he seeks, Petitioner is thus

constrained to file this petition for mandamus under Rule 65.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Court issue a writ of mandamus and order that:

1. Respondents take steps to ensure that Albert Wilson is paid and given reparation in the amount sufficient to compensate him for the torture and abuse he suffered under the penal system of the Philippines, in compliance with Philippine treaty obligations in the ICCPR as embodied in the Communication of the Human Rights Committee in Case no. 868/1999 in keeping with international law on reparations.

2. Respondents undertake continual efforts and steps to ensure that no

torture and inhuman and degrading treatment are suffered by prisoners in the National Penitentiary and other places of detention and imprisonment in the Philippines, in the manner laid down in the Manila Bay case.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Manila, __________, 2009.

of 33

ROQUE AND BUTUYAN LAW OFFICES Counsel for Petitioner 1904 Antel Corporate Center 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village Makati City Tel Nos. 750-3847 to 48/887-3893 to 94 Fax No. 887-3893 Email: [email protected]

H. HARRY L. ROQUE JR. Roll No. 36976 PTR No. 1573586, 1.08.09/Makati IBP No. 499912/ Lifetime MCLE Exemption No. II-002169

JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN PTR No. 1573588, 1.08.09/Makati IBP No. 500459, Lifetime Roll No. 36911 MCLE Compliance No.0000571

ROMEL REGALADO BAGARES PTR No.1580064, 1.14.09/Makati IBP No. 775414, 1.12.09, Socsargen MCLE Compliance No. II 0015132 Roll No. 49518

MARK PEPITO J. RABE PTR No. 1580066, 1.14.09/Makati IBP No. 775416, 1.12.09/Makati Admitted to the Bar 2008 Roll No.55681

of 33

Copy Furnished: Eduardo Ermita Executive Secretary Office of the President

Alberto Romulo Secretary of Foreign Affairs Department of Foreign Affairs 2330 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City 1300

Raul Gonzalez Secretary of Justice Department of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ermita Manila 1000

Bureau of Jail Management and Penology 144 Juco Building Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City

Commissioner Marcelino Libanan Bureau of Immigration Bureau of Immigration Building, Magallanes Drive, Intramuros, Manila

Board of Claims Department of Justice Padre Faura Street, Ermita Manila 1000

Agnes Devanadera Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo Street Legaspi Village, Makati City

EXPLANATION

Due to the distance and lack of time, resources and available personnel, copies of this Petition were served and filed through registered mail instead of personal service. .

MARK PEPITO J. RABE

of 33

VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Mr. Albert Wilson, a British national, of legal age, with address at ________________________________________________, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above captioned case; 2. I caused the preparation of the Petition, have read the same and certify that the allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and based on authentic records. 3. I certify that I have not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.

Mr. Albert Wilson Affiant

.SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

___________________2009, by affiant _______________, is the same person who executed the foregoing Verification/Certification Against Forum Shopping and appearing before me personally and exhibiting to me his ______________, issued on _________________, at ____________________.

Doc. No. ____________ Page No. ____________ Book No. ____________ Series of 2009.

Albert Wilson Petition

Documents

Transcript of Albert Wilson Petition