Sulong CARHRIHL Comments on the Landmines Bill or House Bill 1054

The philosopher Bertrand Russel once said: “War doesn’t determine who is right – only those who are left.” The same may be said of anti-personnel mines (APMs), booby traps, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and similar devices. These indiscriminate weapons do not determine who is right about the war, its causes and effect, nor its partisans’ rights and status. These weapons only blindly choose those who will be killed and those who will be left behind.

From this basic peace and humanitarian standpoint, we support the long-overdue House Bill No. 1054 or the “Philippine Comprehensive Law on Landmines” introduced by AKBAYAN Party-List Representative Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel. When passed, as we hope it will -- finally -- in its present form, the national legislation will put flesh to the commitments the Philippine government made when it joined the bulk of the international community and signed the two documents: the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and Their Destruction (also known as the Ottawa Treaty); and the 1996 Amended Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices or Amended Protocol II Annexed to the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Former President Fidel V. Ramos made these commitments way back in 1997, more than eleven years ago. The Senate then ratified Amended Protocol II in 1997 and the Ottawa Treaty in 2000. Congressional action in the form of national or domestic legislation is indeed long-overdue. Sulong CARHRIHL, the citizens’ network promoting observance of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) signed by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front (NDF), commends the following notable features of the Bill: 1. The Bill is advancing the highest standards of observance of humanitarian principles by combining the best of the two international legal frameworks. It provides a comprehensive legal regime on both anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines, which neither international document standing alone accomplishes. It includes in its scope booby traps and similar devices that have unduly harmed civilians and combatants.

2. It finally provides for sanctions and penalties for violations of these aspects of international humanitarian law as our mere ratification/accession does not provide the enforcement and retributive mechanisms. Such criminalization of the acts covered applies to all potential violators, state and non-state.

3. It qualifies in clear terms the meaning of anti-personnel mines (APMs), as this has often been a cause of confusion in the mass media and state-issued reports. Moreover, to address ambiguities in the Ottawa Treaty, it emphasizes that indiscriminate mines are indiscriminate because of their effect, and not just because of their design.

4. It elaborates on specific conditions or situations that may put at risk civilians and civilian objects, since war conditions blur these constraints in favor of military objectives or utility. By spelling out specific conditions, there is clearer basis to enforce the provisions and penalize violations.

While not necessarily endorsing a planned Visiting Forces Agreement with Australia, we note that Australia, at least, has ratified both the Ottawa Treaty and Amended Protocol II.

6. It re-enforces commitments made in peace talks between the government and armed non-state actors. The GRP-NDF’s CARHRIHL upholds “the right [of civilians] not to be subjected to the use of landmines” and “to be protected … from the use of explosives as well as the stockpiling near or their midst.” The GRP-MILF’s ceasefire agreement lists the use of APMs among the prohibited hostile acts. Sec. 17 of the Bill welcomes these voluntary pledges of compliance. Moreover, the Bill en toto provides additional deterrents and mechanisms for securing justice for victims, which the peace processes standing along do not, or cannot.

7. The Bill provides a mechanism for promotion, monitoring and investigation in the form of the Coordinating Committee. The participation of civil society groups through the Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines (PCBL) is not only recognition of the substantial efforts contributed by the PCBL in seeing through the birth of the Ottawa Treaty as an active member of the ICBL since 1995. It also indicates the state’s commitment to transparency and collaboration with all stakeholders in addressing the global scourge of mines and similar devices.

8. Finally, the Bill does not in any way take away the right to self-defense of the Armed Forces of the Philippines personnel since it allows substitution with non-indiscriminate weapons.

For these reasons, we urge the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to endorse to Congress at large the undiluted version of House Bill 1054. A wise person once said: “If those who died in war can return, then there will be no more wars.” We need not see those who have been victimized by mines, booby traps and IEDs return to describe the horror of instant death to move us to take this action once and for all. Bills to achieve this purpose have been filed and re-filed far too many times in the past so many years.

May the 14 th Congress live up to its responsibility and honor the people of this country with this gift.

 

This position paper was presented by lead convener Prof. Miriam Coronel Ferrer during the public hearing on House Bill No. 1054 called by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives last 4 March 2009. Sulong CARHRIHL, together with the Philippine Campaign to Ban Landmines, have also been invited to join the House’s Technical Working Group tasked with refining the bill, taking into account the positions made by government and civil society organizations. Other government agencies that attended the public hearing were the Department of Foreign Afffairs, the Department of Justice, the AFP, the PNP, and OPAPP.