wilson petition 4-4-09 final

8/9/2019 Wilson Petition 4-4-09 Final

1/33

Page 1 of 33

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSUPREME COURT

MANILA

ALBERT WILSON,Petitioner,

-versus- Case No. ________________

For: Mandamus

THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVESECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA,SECRETARY OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS ALBERTO ROMULO,

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAULGONZALEZ, BUREAU OF JAILMANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY,

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION,BOARD OF CLAIMS,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THEBOARD 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 countrys penal system. The United


2/33

Page 2 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 Petitioners 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

Committees 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.


3/33

Page 3 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.


4/33

Page 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 Petitioners 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 Petitioners 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.


5/33

Page 5 of 33

involving issues of transcendental significance, and may thus brush aside

technicalities of procedure5where the issues raised are of paramount importance to

the public.6

With the Respondents continuing omission against Petitioners request and

demands for compensation, Petitioners is thus constrained to invoke this Honorable

Courts 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 Petitioners

fundamental rights) against the Respondents continuing omission, inaction and

delay.

5 SeeYoche v. Yoche, G.R. No. 143337, April 2, 2007;

In fine, the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition forcertiorari on the ground of technicality. After all, the rules of procedure should notbe applied in a very rigid, technical sense, their only purpose being to help securesubstantial justice to the parties.

6 SeeTamargo 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, 338SCRA 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, April3, 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 apetition for prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved in thiscase warrants that we set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdictionover the petition at barThis is in accordance with the well-entrenched principlethat rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but tofacilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application,

which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promotesubstantial justice, must always be eschewed.

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


6/33

Page 6 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 2ndFloor, Mabini Hall, Malacaang, 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 ImmigrationBldg., 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.


7/33

Page 7 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 stepdaughters 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 Petitioners release, the Bureau of

Immigration issued a hold-departure order FOR PETITIONERS

8 People of the Philippines vs. Albert Ernest Wilson, G.R. No. 135915, December 21, 1999.9 Id.


8/33

Page 8 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 authors claims under articles 7 and 10 regarding histreatment in detention and the conditions of detention TheCommittee considers that the conditions of detention as

described, as well as the violent and abusive behavior both ofcertain prison guards and of other inmates, as apparentlyacquiesced in by the prison authorities, are seriously in violationof the authors right, as a prisoner, to be treated with humanityin and with respect for his inherent dignity, in violation ofarticle 10, paragraph 1. As at least some of the acts of violenceagainst the author were committed either by the prison guards,upon their instigation or with their acquiescence, there was alsoa violation of article 7. There is also a specific violation of article10, 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, TheCommunication] attached as Annex A an official and accurate copy of which is also accessibleonline at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/868-1999.html, par. 2.9.11Par. 7.3 of The Communication.


9/33

Page 9 of 33

As to the claims concerning the authors mental suffering andanguish as a consequence of being sentenced to death Inview of these aggravating factors the Committee concludesthat the authors suffering under a sentence of death amountedto an additional violation of article 7.12

The Committee concludes that the author was not informed, atthe time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and was notpromptly informed of the charges against him; that the author

was arrested without a warrant and hence in violation ofdomestic law; and that after the arrest the author was notpromptly brought before a judge. Consequently, there was aviolation of article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Covenant. 13

The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 paragraph4 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as foundby the Committee reveal violations by the Philippines of article7, article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and article 10, paragraphs 1and 2, of the Covenant14.

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


10/33

Page 10 of 33

SUBMISSIONS

THE PHILIPPINES HAS THE OBLIGATIONTO PROTECT PETITIONER FROMTORTURE AND WHEN TORTURE ISCOMMITTED, TO PROVIDE REPARATION

AND COMPENSATION TO PETITIONERALBERT WILSON.

The Philippines has the obligation to protectpetitioner from violations of human rights asa State Party to the International Covenant onCivil 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 torespect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory andsubject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the presentCovenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,

sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national orsocial origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or othermeasures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakesto take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutionalprocesses and with the provisions of the present Covenant, toadopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to giveeffect 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 asherein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy,

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


11/33

Page 11 of 33

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

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

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce suchremedies when granted.

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

rights under the Covenant, mainly:

Article 101. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treatedwith humanity and with respect for the inherent dignityof the human person.17

2.

(a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptionalcircumstances, be segregated from convicted personsand shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate totheir status as unconvicted persons18;

Article 7No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Inparticular, no one shall be subjected without his free

consent to medical or scientific experimentation19

.

Article 91. Everyone has the right to liberty and security ofperson. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest ordetention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty excepton such grounds and in accordance with such procedureas are established by law.

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

17Article 10 ICCPR.

18Id.19

Article 7 ICCPR.


12/33

Page 12 of 33

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shallbe brought promptly before a judge or other officerauthorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall beentitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. Itshall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trialshall be detained in custody, but release may be subjectto guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of thejudicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, forexecution 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, byvirtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, formpart of the laws of the land even if they do not derive fromtreaty obligations. The classical formulation in internationallaw sees those customary rules accepted as binding result fromthe combination [of] two elements: the established,widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; anda psychological element known as the opinion juris sivenecessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in thelatter element is a belief that the practice in question is

20Article 9 ICCPR.

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


13/33

Page 13 of 33

rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiringit. (Emphasis supplied)23

xxx xxx xxx

"Generally accepted principles of international law" refers tonorms of general or customary international law which are

binding on all states, i.e., renunciation of war as an instrumentof national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, aperson's right to life, liberty and due process, and pacta suntservanda, among others. The concept of "generally acceptedprinciples of law" has also been depicted in this wise24

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 abreach of this international obligation is afinding by the Human Rights Committee inits publicized views that the Philippinesfailed in its obligation not to torture and toprevent 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;

23Mijares vs. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397.24See note 19.25Article 28 of the ICCPR.26See note 10 on the Views of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Communication No. 868/1999 (15 June 1999).


14/33

Page 14 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.27Torture 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.28The 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 internationalcommunity 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

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


15/33

Page 15 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 cogens33norm defined as:

Article 53

Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of generalinternational law(jus cogens) A treaty is void if, at thetime of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptorynorm of general International law. For the purposes ofthe present Convention, a peremptory norm ofgeneral international law is a norm accepted andrecognized by the international community of Statesas a whole as a norm from which no derogation is

permitted and which can be modified only by asubsequent norm of general international lawhaving 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 [theprohibition on torture] protects, this principle hasevolved into a peremptory norm of jus cogens, that is, anorm that enjoys a higher rank in the internationalhierarchy than treaty law and even ordinary customary

law rules. The most conspicuous consequence of thishigher rank is that the principle at issue cannot bederogated from by States through international treaties

31Article 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 andPeoples 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: seeArticle 4(2) of the ICCPR; Articles 2(2) and 15 of the UNCAT; Article 27(2) of the AmericanConvention 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 Protectionof All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatmentor Punishment).33Article 53, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.34Id.


16/33

Page 16 of 33

or local or special customs or even general customaryrules 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 aninternational obligation, is required to makereparations and redress, paying damages tocompensate 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 thecommission 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 ofthat State under international law, whether the organ exerciseslegislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whateverposition it holds in the organization of the State, and whateverits character as an organ of the Central Government orterritorial 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 entityempowered to exercise elements of governmental authorityshall be considered an act of the State under international law

35Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzjia, Judgment, Trial chamber, 10 Dec. 1998.

36Article 4(1) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts as adoptedby the International Law Commission.


17/33

Page 17 of 33

if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if itexceeds 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 internationallywrongful act.38

5.3 The injury that requires reparation may also be moral damage suffered

by individuals such as individual pain and suffering.39Therefore 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 bearsinternational 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 limits40

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 act41

37Article 7,Id..38Article 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 PublicInternational 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 [hereinafterthe Broniowski case], para. 189; Article 35 on the Articles of State Responsibility provides exceptionsto the obligation to provide restitution, that is, to the extent that it is not strictly possible, such as intorture cases which the wrongful acts cannot be undone, such as in this case here- thus compensationand satisfaction apply. See also Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation

for Victims of Gross Violations o f International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of InternationalHumanitarian Law, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005.


18/33

Page 18 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 Committees 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 underinternational law and municipal law via thedoctrine of transformation to take steps toprevent 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.


19/33

Page 19 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. Poland42decided 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 applicants 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 Philippines 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 awhole 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.

42See the Broniowski case.


20/33

Page 20 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 competenceof the Human Rights Committee to makedeterminations of Philippine compliance withits 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 thecompetence 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 purposesof the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(hereinafter referred to as the Covenant) and theimplementation of its provisions it would be appropriate

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


21/33

Page 21 of 33

to enable the Human Rights Committee set up in part IVof the Covenant (hereinafter referred to as the Committee)to receive and consider, as provided in the presentProtocol, communications from individuals claiming to bevictims of violations of any of the rights set forth in theCovenant.

Have agreed as follows:

Article IA State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to thepresent Protocol recognizes the competence of theCommitteeto receive and consider communications fromindividuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to bevictims of a violation by that State Party of any of therights set forth in the Covenant. No communication shallbe received by the Committee if it concerns a State Partyto the Covenant which is not a Party to the presentProtocol.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 Wilsonfor 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 aninstrument of national policy, adopts the generallyaccepted principles of international law as part ofthe law of the landand adheres to the policy of peace,equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with allnations. (Emphasis supplied)45

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


22/33

Page 22 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 Committees 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 theviews of the Human Rights Committee nortaken steps to comply with its obligation toprovide redress to Petitioner Mr. AlbertWilson 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. Wilsons 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

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


23/33

Page 23 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

47See paragraph 3.2.48Tomasi 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.


24/33

Page 24 of 33

have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the state party

alone has access to the relevant information.49The 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 Petitioners failure to bring his

case before the Commission on Human Rights. Resort to the

Commission on Human Right is not the proper venue for Petitioners

cause, as its powers are purely investigative and recommendatory in

nature:

The most that may be conceded to the Commission inthe way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e.,receive evidence and make findings of fact as regardsclaimed human rights violations involving civil and politicalrights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot belikened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or evena quasi-judicial agency or official.

xxx xxx xxx

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

xxx xxx xxx

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

49Mukong 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 orImprisonment, In Particular, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment, Report of the Special Rapporteur Nigel Rodley, pursuant to Commission on HumanRights Resolution 1997/37.


25/33

Page 25 of 33

The dictionary definition of investigate is to observe orstudy closely: inquire into systematically, to search orinquire into to subject to an official probe to conductan 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 factsinquired into by application of the law to the factsestablished by inquiry.

xxx xxx xxx

Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, havingmerely the power to investigate, cannot and should not tryand resolve on the merits the matters involved

xxx xxx xxx

The only thing the Commission can do is to refer thematter to the appropriate Government agency or tribunalfor 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 applicants complaints and offered reasonable prospects for

success.53

51 Carino vs. CHR, G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991.52Velasquez 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 ofHuman 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 ofBosnia and Herzegovina, The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina; The AfricanCommission 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 Stateto submit specific responses and evidence refuting assertions contained in complainants pleadings).


26/33

Page 26 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 Respondentswho have failed to ensure that conditions ofdetention and imprisonment comply withstandards laid down in the InternationalCovenant 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 persons 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 theSupreme 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, recallsthat in several cases in the past it has called attention to the"incredible overcrowding of prison cells" that lead inevitably to theformation of wolf packs, and confine prisoners "undercircumstances that strangle all sense of decency, reduceconvicts to the level of animals, and convert a prison term intoPROLONGED TORTURE and slow death. [emphasis added]

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


27/33

Page 27 of 33

9.3 Also in the De los Santoscase, 55these 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, thattaxed facilities beyond measure and the starvation allowance of ten

centavos per meal for each prisoner, must have rubbed raw thenerves and dispositions of the unfortunate inmates, andpredisposed them to all sorts of violence to seize from their ownersthe meager supplies from outside in order to eke out their miserableexistence.

All this led inevitably to the formation of gangs that preyed likewolf packs on the weak, and ultimately to pitiless gang rivalry forthe control of the prisoners, abetted by the inability of theoutnumbered guards to enforce discipline, and which culminated inviolent riots. The government cannot evade responsibility forkeeping prisoners under such sub-human and Dantesqueconditions.

9.4

There are numerous other instances56where 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

55People v. Delos Santos, 14 SCRA 4702.56G.R. No. L-46397; People vs. Garcia, 96 SCRA 497; G.R. No. L-38755.


28/33

Page 28 of 33

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

officials to:

A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or likeenabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion:these government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutoryobligation, to perform certain functions relating directly orindirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and

preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded fromchoosing 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 Organizationand a signatory to the International Convention for thePrevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL73/78, the Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure theprovision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminalsfor the reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine

ports.

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

Under what other judicial discipline describes as continuingmandamus,58the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances,issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decisionwould not be set to naught by administrative inaction orindifference. In India, the doctrine of continuing mandamus wasused to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length ofthe Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.

9.9 Therefore:

The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hocmeasures is over.Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real orimaginary, and buckle down to work before the problem athand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate thatdifferent government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirkfrom their mandates; they must perform their basic functions incleaning 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 ofcontinuing mandamus, shall, from finality of this

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


29/33

Page 29 of 33

Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressivereport of the activities undertaken in accordance with thisDecision. [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 forthe 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 theordinary 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 Executives 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 Secretary61stating 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.60See the copies of the demand letters which are attached as Annex B and C.61A copy of the Letter is attached as Annex G.


30/33

Page 30 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 Petitioners 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 andimprisonment in the Philippines, in the manner laid down in theManila

Bay case.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Manila, __________, 2009.


31/33

Page 31 of 33

ROQUE AND BUTUYAN LAW OFFICESCounsel for Petitioner1904 Antel Corporate Center121 Valero Street, Salcedo VillageMakati CityTel Nos. 750-3847 to 48/887-3893 to 94Fax No. 887-3893

Email: [email protected]

H. HARRY L. ROQUE JR.Roll No. 36976PTR No. 1573586, 1.08.09/MakatiIBP No. 499912/ LifetimeMCLE Exemption No. II-002169

JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN

PTR No. 1573588, 1.08.09/MakatiIBP No. 500459, LifetimeRoll No. 36911MCLE Compliance No.0000571

ROMEL REGALADO BAGARESPTR No.1580064, 1.14.09/MakatiIBP No. 775414, 1.12.09, SocsargenMCLE Compliance No. II 0015132Roll No. 49518

MARK PEPITO J. RABEPTR No. 1580066, 1.14.09/MakatiIBP No. 775416, 1.12.09/MakatiAdmitted to the Bar 2008Roll No.55681


32/33

Page 32 of 33

Copy Furnished:

Eduardo ErmitaExecutive SecretaryOffice of the President

Alberto Romulo

Secretary of Foreign AffairsDepartment of Foreign Affairs2330 Roxas Boulevard,Pasay City 1300

Raul GonzalezSecretary of JusticeDepartment of JusticePadre Faura Street, ErmitaManila 1000

Bureau of Jail Management and Penology

144 Juco BuildingMindanao Avenue, Quezon City

Commissioner Marcelino LibananBureau of ImmigrationBureau of Immigration Building, Magallanes Drive,Intramuros, Manila

Board of ClaimsDepartment of JusticePadre Faura Street, ErmitaManila 1000

Agnes DevanaderaSolicitor General134 Amorsolo StreetLegaspi Village, Makati City

EXPLANATION

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

MARK PEPITO J. RABE


33/33

Page 33 of 33

VERIFICATION andCERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Mr. Albert Wilson, a British national, of legal age, with address at________________________________________________, hereby depose andstate that:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above captioned case;

2. I caused the preparation of the Petition, have read the same and certifythat the allegations therein are true and correct based on my personalknowledge and based on authentic records.

3. I certify that I have not theretofore commenced any other actioninvolving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals ordifferent divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and if I shouldthereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pendingbefore the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisionsthereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to promptly inform theaforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) daystherefrom.

Mr. Albert WilsonAffiant

.SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

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

Doc. No. ____________Page No. ____________Book No. ____________Series of 2009.

wilson petition 4-4-09 final

Documents