IV. The National Government and Militia Abuses

[State supported militias] only legalized private armies of politicians… The government has a big problem in resolving this [situation] as it is the one who introduced this kind of system.

—Human rights activist, Isulan, February 16, 2010.

The datus, they have their own bailiwicks but it’s the Philippine government that chooses one of them and makes them super-warlords. And when they become super-warlords, the balance of terror is broken, and this one guy Ampatuan became a super-warlord.

—Fr. Albert Alejo, Konsult Mindanaw. [248]

Direct Support for the Ampatuans

The Arroyo government, in exchange for political support from the Ampatuans, tacitly permitted if not actually facilitated the strengthening of various militia forces, increasing the sale of military weaponry, and ensuring impunity for rights abuses in Maguindanao.

The Ampatuans were close allies of Arroyo personally, as well as her government. “Hassan,” an Ampatuan family insider, said that Ampatuan loyalists would say that “as long the leader is GMA [Arroyo] we will not be striped of our leadership because there are deeper relations between the two—being GMA and Ampatuan, Sr.”[249] “Zain,” a community leader who was allied with the Ampatuans prior to the Maguindanao massacre, told Human Rights Watch:

The Ampatuan clan is very close to the [former] president. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo called Datu Andal “ama,” which means father [in our local language, Maguindanaoan]. So, since the Ampatuans and Arroyo are very close, there were favors extended from the president to the Ampatuan clan.[250]

Under the Arroyo administration, militia forces under the control of the Ampatuans grew considerably.[251] Insiders reported that President Arroyo was a regular visitor to the Ampatuan compound.[252] Hassan told Human Rights Watch:

When Gloria visited or General Senga [then the AFP Chief of Staff] we were not allowed to be inside the compound. We would be told to leave…. The next thing you know, you see a helicopter coming…. Almost every anniversary of every municipality in Maguindanao, [Arroyo] would grace that occasion…. Even when she was still a senator, she visited the mansion.[253]

The Ampatuans publicly pledged their support of Arroyo on countless occasions. In 2003, Ampatuan, Sr. led Maguindanao leaders in a petition entitled, “Go Gloria for 2004.”[254] In April 2004, he said to a gathering of about 150 constituents, “Listen to what your father here has to say and bear his every word in mind. Be grateful to GMA.” He declared Maguindanao GMA country.[255]

There are credible reports that the Ampatuans fraudulently manipulated the 2004 and 2007 elections in favor of Arroyo and her administration. In 2004, Maguindanao was one of the provinces mentioned on the “Hello Garci” tapes, the tapes of wiretapped conversations between, among others, a man presumed to be Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano and a woman alleged to be President Arroyo, which prompted allegations that Arroyo had rigged the 2004 elections.[256] In two municipalities in Maguindanao, Ampatuan and Datu Piang, Arroyo’s opponent Fernando Poe, Jr. received zero votes; in two other municipalities he received five votes.

In the 2007 election, Maguindanao delivered the administration’s Team Unity senatorial slate a 12 to 0 win, with the greatest number of votes going to these 12 candidates over numerous other candidates from a variety of political parties.[257] In March 2007, two months ahead of the May elections, Ampatuan, Sr. told reporters “The whole senate slate of the Team Unity will be sure winners in Maguindanao.”[258] Following the Maguindanao massacre, investigators found thousands of voter identification cards in the Ampatuans’ residences.[259]

The government’s prime suspect in the Maguindanao massacre, Andal Ampatuan, Jr., was taken into custody three days after the killings. A government source told Human Rights Watch that when Justice Department officials and police arrested him, he asked, “Which hotel will I be billeted in?” Both the massacre and the Ampatuans’ unconcerned response to it reflect a sense of impunity doubtlessly bred from many years of government indifference to Ampatuan atrocities. During the Arroyo administration the national government provided unwavering support of the Ampatuans despite reports of widespread abuses. The police that were not beholden to the Ampatuans nonetheless showed no willingness to investigate alleged abuses. Ultimately no arm of the Philippine government attempted to provide a check on the Ampatuans’ power or curtail their brutality.

President Arroyo was directly notified of Ampatuan abuses, yet failed to act. In May 2002, 12 community leaders from Maguindanao wrote to Arroyo at Malacañang Palace alleging that the Ampatuans, their allies, and their paramilitary forces were responsible for at least 33 killings and a number of other abuses.[260] The community leaders said that witnesses to such crimes were either afraid or had been killed and raised concerns about the Ampatuans’ extent of political control in Maguindanao and lack of access to independent police, prosecutors, or courts. They appealed for “immediate, special, impartial, and speedy investigation[s]”; for CAFGUs and CVOs to be disarmed and disbanded; for the police forces of Shariff Aguak, Mamasapano, and Datu Piang to be replaced by special forces not under Ampatuan control; and for the NBI to investigate allegations that numerous bodies had been buried at a location in Shariff Aguak.

In August 2008, the Concern [sic] People’s Organization, wrote to President Arroyo alleging that Andal Ampatuan, Sr. and other members of his family were committing serious human rights abuses, including killings, and engaging in corruption.

Several people close to the Ampatuans and police investigators told Human Rights Watch that commanders in the PNP and AFP knew about these abuses. Police officer “Nabeel” said, “The senior officers in Camp Crame [PNP headquarters] know [about the Ampatuans’ activities]. The intelligence group knows a lot, but they are not disclosing it.”[261] A lead investigator into the Maguindanao massacre said that the national government “refused to know” about the Ampatuan’s use of government security forces and civilian forces as their own private armies.[262]

As noted above, Lieutenant General Ferrer, then the 6th Infantry Division commander, provided the Ampatuans with the ammunition that they requested only after “He started calling people (higher) up.”[263] Ferrer has confirmed that “everyone at Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame knew about the [Ampatuans’] abuses, but were helpless as the government was not under military command.”[264] Further, according to a news report, a November 2004 confidential AFP memorandum on the effects of family feuds in Maguindanao stated that CVO and Special CAFGU members had pillaged and looted communities that are supposedly sympathetic to the MILF.[265]

Failure to Regulate and Oversee

Philippine law fails to fully and transparently regulate the recruitment, payment, supervision, training, and structure of paramilitary forces. The laws do not expressly limit the number of CVOs or Police Auxiliary Unit members a local government can recruit. Even those laws that do exist have not been applied in Maguindanao.

In Maguindanao, local officials maintain any register of these militia members, and, although they work beside police, the police have told Human Rights Watch that they have no supervisory role.[266] Both PNP and AFP officials denied that they have a supervisory role over CVOs. A barangay official in Maguindanao told Human Rights Watch that he had received the same response when there was a military operation and something happened to a CVO, “both the military and the police … said it is not their problem.”[267] Nor does the government have systems in place for reporting the number of CVOs that a local government unit maintains. As one academic told Human Rights Watch, “the only limit to the number of CVOs is money.”[268]

The Ampatuans’ provision of modern military weaponry to untrained or barely trained militia, acquisition of numerous military weapons and ammunition, and the large number of militia members recruited and deployed was well known publicly. Yet it went unchecked by the government. A local activist described seeing his cousin, a CVO member, at a family gathering just prior to the Maguindanao massacre. “Last time I saw him he was [in full battle gear] carrying high-powered M14 [rifle] and a grenade. He finished school in grade 3.” The activist said that when he asked his cousin how he could travel with those weapons, his cousin responded, “If they stop me, I give them my arms. One call from the governor and I get it back again.”[269]

The Local Government Code 1991 provides that governors, mayors, and barangay chiefs are authorized to carry the “necessary firearm” within their territorial jurisdiction.[270] There is no requirement to report these weapons, other than through the normal firearms licensing system.[271] Local governments are expressly permitted to use the peace and order account to purchase weapons and ammunition “that is to be given as aid to local police agencies.”[272]

The government’s Independent Commission Against Private Armies found that the government had a “somewhat ambivalent approach… on allowing civilians to own and possess firearms.”[273] On February 24, 2000, President Joseph Estrada issued an order to allow civilians to own and possess any number of firearms, regardless of caliber, provided that they are test-fired for ballistics, stenciled, and properly licensed.[274] The current estimate of loose firearms, according to the commission, is 1,110,376.[275]

The AFP and PNP do not appear to object to so-called “internal agreements”between local government officials and local military and police. A spokesperson for the AFP, Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner told Human Rights Watch:

CVOs are not supposed to be handled by the AFP. They are not authorized to carry arms…. In Datu Piang, there may have been an internal agreement between the local battalion and CVOs. These types of agreements are not really covered; they’re a local initiative of that infantry battalion. For instance, I used rebel returnees through an informal agreement between me and rebel returnee volunteers.[276]

Appointment of Provincial and Municipal Police Chiefs

By law, provincial governors and municipal mayors have the “power to direct, superintend, and oversee the day-to-day functions” of police in their area.[277]

These local chief executives select the police chief for their area from a number of names provided to them by the PNP regional or provincial director. Mayors also have the power to recommend that provincial police directors transfer or reassign police outside of their jurisdiction.[278]

As the Independent Commission Against Private Armies wrote in its report to President Arroyo:

By having supervision and control not only [do] the local executives direct, superintend, oversee, and inspect police units and forces, they also possess administrative and disciplinary power; authority to choose the chief of police; recommend the transfer, reassignment or detail of PNP members outside their respective areas and recommend the appointment of new members of the PNP. Given the extensive areas of authority granted to the local officials, the abuse of such power is not uncommon.[279]

While civilian oversight of policing is essential, legislation should be amended to specifically preclude local government officials from using this power for personal or political benefit. Such a provision should be vigorously enforced by agencies other than the police, particularly the ombudsman, the Commission on Audit, and the National Bureau of Investigation.

Absence of Auditing

The Philippine government failed to audit federal money provided to Maguindanao province and the ARMM.

The Commission on Audit has raised various concerns about ARMM accounts since 2002.[280] Sultan Kudarat Governor Suharto “Teng” Mangudadatu told Human Rights Watch that when he was a congressman from 2004-2007, he had expressed to President Arroyo the importance of auditing expenditure in ARMM.[281] He said that Arroyo raised concerns about the safety of the Commission on Audit staff, but Mangudadatu had emphasized that there were safe options. Either the books could be brought to Manila or sufficient soldiers could be deployed to protect the auditors. He said that Arroyo did not take his advice and that ARMM expenditures have not been properly audited for some time.[282]

The Independent Commission Against Private Armies has reported:

Because of difficulty in auditing the use of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of a province or city, not to mention the failure to inventory and account for equipment and property bought with public funds, many province[s], like Maguindanao, obtain billions in IRA releases but have little or nothing to show for it, thus making it one of the poorest provinces in the country.[283]

The Ampatuans were able to spend large sums of money on maintaining a militia with modern military weapons and ammunition because the auditing systems were so poor. Only now, following the arrests of the Ampatuans, has Malacañang ordered a special audit of funds disbursed to ARMM.[284]

Failure to Investigate and Bring Perpetrators to Justice

In the 52 cases documented by Human Rights Watch, local police in Maguindanao and surrounding areas routinely failed to conduct serious investigations into the killings, enforced disappearances, abductions, and sexual assaults where the perpetrators may be linked to the security forces or the Ampatuan family. Many families of victims despaired when asked whether the police investigated the crime, and pointed to police involvement in the crime or the close relationship between the Ampatuans and the police. These abuses have gone unchecked for so long that victims and their families say they have no faith in the justice system. Serious crimes are not reported to the state authorities, witnesses are unwilling to come forward for fear of being killed, and the perpetrators know they can commit abuses with impunity.

In apparent political cases in which the authorities are implicated, the police rarely attend the scene of the crime, talk to eyewitnesses, or inform the families of victims of any progress in their investigation. Often, families were relieved that the police did not investigate further as they were afraid that if they did, they would also target other family members and witnesses to the crimes.

Survivors of attacks and families of victims were aware of investigations in only a handful of the cases investigated by Human Rights Watch. Families knew of charges being brought in only two cases until recently. In both instances, the charges were later dismissed.

When Human Rights Watch asked Maguindanao police director Marcelo Pintac about the police response to the killing of Robel Sakilan and his brother in 2007, he said that when he took office in July 2010 there were no police records predating February 2010.[285] He said that he “cannot give any comment on … incidents [prior to February 2010].”[286] He said that he could not comment on whether or not police records existed prior to February 2010, whether such records had been destroyed, or whether they had been moved to another arm of the police force.[287]

Fears of Retribution

The Ampatuans and their militia flaunted their power, money, arms, and abuses. This created a climate of intimidation that deterred others from challenging them politically or from merely asserting their basic rights. Victims and their families remain quiet, and this promotes further compliance with the Ampatuans’ demands. Every family member of victims, eyewitness to abuses, and employee of the Ampatuans who spoke to Human Rights Watch expressed great fear of the governing family.

One resident of Shariff Aguak told Human Rights Watch, “I really feel nervous [just] when I hear their name. I’m so afraid because of what they’re doing, especially when I heard about their massacre.”[288] Another said, “I’m really afraid of the Ampatuans because of [their] arms and [the] armed groups guarding them.”[289] “Zain,” the community leader, said that people are scared of them because “they are powerful and they can do everything. They can kill people anytime.”[290]

Several residents of Maguindanao reported that when the Ampatuans travelled, they maintained a convoy of at least 30 cars including armored and police vehicles.[291] A relative of a victim of an extrajudicial killing told Human Rights Watch:

They [the Ampatuans] travel in a massive convoy, lots of cars. Whenever you see them, you can’t get near them without fear; there are so many cars and high-powered firearms. All the people in the community see this. I know how powerful they are. They kill and everyone is talking about that. All I know is how powerful they are when it comes to killing.[292]

A local academic described a “culture of entourage” with a “show [of] power with arms and followers.”[293] One of the Ampatuans’ vehicles, the sangguko, a truck painted army olive green with two .50 caliber and two .30 caliber machine guns set on it, is designed particularly for this purpose. The firearms carried by the Ampatuans, which include Israeli, Russian, Korean and Singaporean-made weapons, are flaunted publicly to instill fear as much as they are to use.

The intimidation has continued even after six Ampatuan family members were jailed following the Maguindanao massacre. Upahm, the militia member, stated in his witness statement:

Even while in detention, Datu Unsay [Ampatuan, Jr.] has still been able to contact his followers in Maguindanao. He would send word to us to stay where we are, to be patient, because he will prevail over his enemies. Not even the Mangudadatus [the ruling family targeted], he said, would be able to defeat him because the Ampatuans have the money and the connections. He would also warn us that any of us who decides to betray him will pay dearly for it. He would warn us that he will eventually catch up with anyone who turns against him. Not even prison walls can stop him, he would say.[294]

A resident of Shariff Aguak confirmed that she remains in fear of the Ampatuans despite the arrests after the massacre. She said, “Until now we feel afraid… We’re afraid to tell the truth, it is only one shot. We give tolerance to the authority. We – the civilian – keep silent.”[295]

Numerous survivors, witnesses, and victims’ families told Human Rights Watch that they are afraid to report abuses to police because they fear being targeted for reprisals by the Ampatuans. A local civil society activist explained that it is “too scary” to report to police, so instead, people “run away or become silent.... That’s why [they] are able to do this again and again.”[296] After all, these families note, perpetrators linked to the Ampatuans are armed, have close relationships with police, and have so far proven their ability to act with impunity. A man who witnessed the killing of two relatives said:

We were afraid to file [criminal complaints] because during that time all government agencies were under the Ampatuans’ control. No one dared to file a case as people look at Datu Andal Ampatuan Sr. as [he was] the little president.[297]

Many witnesses were unwilling to be interviewed by Human Rights Watch out of concerns for their security, despite assurances about speaking anonymously and offers to interview them outside of their home villages to avoid surveillance by local security forces.

Police officer “Nabeel” told Human Rights Watch: “Civilians tried to report, or tell me stories, but [they] don’t report officially; no blotter. Mostly they just tell their story [or] shut their mouth because they are afraid … What can we do? This is an influential family.”[298]

A number of survivors, victims’ family members, and witnesses have taken security into their own hands and have gone into hiding. “Amir” has remained in hiding ever since he was abducted by the military and threatened by the Ampatuans, for fear of being attacked and killed. He has not reported the abuses he suffered.[299]

The witness protection program provided for under Philippine law is very limited. Under the Witness Protection Security and Benefit Act, the Department of Justice is tasked with providing secure housing and a means of livelihood to “any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority.” [300] Yet police consistently fail to offer or arrange protection, and victims and witnesses are wary of having to rely on the government for protection while they are accusing government officials of serious abuses, including murder.

The Maguindanao massacre case has exposed the inadequacies of the state witness protection program. The program does not begin until after the preliminary investigation. Members of the police and the armed forces, who in this case are witnesses as well as perpetrators, are not eligible. In addition, as a CIDG investigator explained, “ There are financial considerations. [The department of justice] is unwilling to take the witnesses.”[301] He explained that the Justice Department did not wish to provide protection to the witnesses because of the monetary cost.

Suwaib Upahm, an Ampatuan militia member, came out of hiding in February 2010 and offered, through one of the private prosecutors in the Maguindanao massacre case, to testify against the Ampatuans. He said he was one of the gunmen in the massacre and was able to provide details of the planning meeting ahead of the incident as well as broader details as to the sources of the Ampatuans’ weapons and money.

At this time, Philippine authorities knew that witnesses in the case had been killed, that Upahm had publicly come out against the Ampatuans, and that he had received direct threats on his life. When he was killed by an unknown assailant on June 14, 2010, the Justice Department was still considering his request for witness protection. Philippine authorities failed to take any measures to protect him. No government investigators had taken a statement from him. Even after Upahm’s killing, CIDG investigators did not offer witnesses to his killing any form of protection, explain to them the witness protection program, or encourage them to contact the authorities should they feel in danger.[302]

Poor Policing

In the vast majority of cases documented by Human Rights Watch, survivors of attacks, victims’ families, and witnesses did not report the abuses to the police or any other government authority. Despite this, several insiders and local residents have confirmed that the police and the military know about the abuses “but do nothing about it.”[303]

Police officers have told Human Rights Watch that they cannot investigate a crime unless it is reported directly to the Philippine National Police. However, the police have a duty to protect lives and property, and investigate and prevent crimes, irrespective of how they come to their notice. This duty extends to patrolling in order to identify that a crime has been committed, rather than merely awaiting a report.

In the few political cases in Maguindanao and environs where the police conducted an investigation, efforts were inadequate. For example, Bajunaid Candao told Human Rights Watch that the CIDG investigation into the 2003 execution of his uncle, Abdul Kadhil Candao, went no further than taking a statement from the witness that the family had the police interview. He said, “My uncle’s son was sitting next to him when he was shot. They asked him some questions. We told them that the main suspect was Andal Ampatuan Sr. and his hired killers…. The investigation report said only what we told them. They assured us that they will continue the investigation but they wouldn’t dare question the Ampatuan family.”[304] Police later filed charges against Rodolfo Bangkuri, an army sergeant who was reportedly Ampatuan Sr.’s chief of security, but an arrest warrant was never served.[305]

Concerns about the police investigating their own have been magnified in the Maguindanao massacre case. For instance, a CIDG investigator working on the case told Human Rights Watch that they had investigated the military officer who supervised CAFGUs in the area and concluded he was not involved in the massacre as “we feel if he had been involved he would have hidden some facts in the case.”[306] He said that there is no crime in allowing the Mangudadatu convoy to pass, having seen the massing of Ampatuan armed men. “By knowing that the crime was being committed, they are not committing a crime.”[307] He went on to say that “no police or military will dare to check the Ampatuans. That’s why we made the conclusion that the degree of collusion of police and military was that they did not have control.”[308] The CIDG did not investigate these paramilitary and security force members for any criminal act that they may have been liable for by their failing to act.

Threats to Human Rights Defenders

The climate of fear and intimidation in Maguindanao extends to the human rights community. At least one human rights defender has been threatened since investigating the Maguindanao massacre and other Ampatuan abuses. She has received at least two text messages, the last which read, in Tagalog, “How many more days to live?”[309]

Human Rights Watch also spoke to a human rights defender who could not follow up the case of Nasrodin Sadang Guiamalon’s enforced disappearance in 2009 in Datu Piang out of fear of being targeted by the Ampatuans. She told Human Rights Watch that a member of her network warned her not to proceed because “they had received information that Guiamalon had already been turned over to the Ampatuans and, if ever they found out that I was following up this case, I might be in danger.”[310]

Weakness of Human Rights Institutions

The widespread impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of targeted killings is exacerbated by the inadequacies of institutions charged with promoting human rights and accountability, including the Commission on Human Rights, the Ombudsman, and inspectors general of the AFP and PNP.

National Commission on Human Rights

The Commission on Human Rights is an autonomous government body charged with the duty, amongst other things, to “[i]nvestigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights,” and to recommend prosecution when its investigation establishes a prima faciecase of a violation.[311] Public confidence in the commission, which was previously considered largely ineffectual, greatly improved under the leadership of chair, Leila de Lima, who has been named Secretary of Justice in the Aquino administration.

The commission has a central office in Metro Manila, and regional and sub-regional offices throughout the rest of the country. It does not have a regional office in ARMM. Instead, the offices of Regions IX, X, and XII in Mindanao cover certain provinces in ARMM.

After the Maguindanao massacre, de Lima spoke out strongly about warlord and state-backed militia abuses in the region. However, despite having previously received reports of Ampatuan and militia abuses in Maguindanao, the commission said that inadequate resources prevented it from launching an investigation into these abuses until after the massacre. The commission’s response to the massacre was to interview witnesses in private and conduct excavations at two alleged grave sites.

Beyond the shortage of resources, the commission’s investigation has been marred by capacity of field-based staff and threats to human rights defenders in the region.

Office of the Ombudsman

The office of the Ombudsman is a government body tasked with investigating complaints filed against government officers or employees and enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal liability.[312] Since it is formally independent of the executive branch and the armed forces, it is in a position to effectively investigate allegations of abuse by local government officials and security force personnel. However, it has acquired a poor record in resolving complaints brought to its attention.

Human Rights Watch has found that the office of the Ombudsman has done almost nothing to investigate the involvement of government officials in extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and other abuses in Maguindanao. The office’s absence of transparency in its investigations further mars its effectiveness. Following the Maguindanao massacre, Assistant Ombudsman Mark Jalandoni announced that his office had begun a “lifestyle check” on the Ampatuan family’s wealth. The Ombudsman’s office investigated the Ampatuans for possible violation of anti-graft and corruption laws.[313] The team that undertook the inquiry, led by the deputy ombudsman for Mindanao, Humphrey Monteroso, submitted its report to Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in July 2010. At this writing, Gutierrez has not acted on the report and no reports have been made public.

Human Rights Watch is not aware of any Ombudsman investigations into government officials’ culpability for the massacre or past abuses. Deputy Ombudsman Monteroso told Human Rights Watch that due to security concerns, staffing, and language difficulties, his officers do not visit either Maguindanao or Cotabato City. He has 25 investigators on staff, all but one of whom is based in Davao City, outside ARMM. Because none of them speak Maguindanaon, they must coordinate with NBI investigators in Maguindanao and Cotabato City.[314]

Role of Internal Investigations Within PNP, AFP

Inspectors general in the military and police are tasked with investigating members of their respective security forces for administrative violations. The AFP and PNP have told Human Rights Watch that inspectors general are investigating members for involvement in the Maguindanao massacre.[315] These investigations lack transparency. There is no indication that the inspectors general are investigating more broadly members’ involvement in killings, enforced disappearances, or other abuses in Maguindanao.

There is also no indication that they are investigating senior commanders at the national level for command responsibility for failing to address abuses committed over a decade by their subordinates in central Mindanao. Police officer “Nabeel” said, “The senior officers in Camp Crame [PNP headquarters] know [about the Ampatuans’ activities]. The intelligence group knows a lot, but they are not disclosing it.”[316]

After the Maguindanao Massacre

Despite the global attention that the Maguindanao massacre drew to the abuses of the Ampatuan family and its militia in the province, the Arroyo administration’s response was inadequate to address either the massacre or the longstanding problem of militia abuses.

The government has failed to dismantle and disarm all the militias within the locale of Maguindanao. In the weeks following the massacre, President Arroyo announced that CVOs in Maguindanao would be disbanded. The AFP disarmed four companies of Special CAFGU.[317] However, several local residents have told Human Rights Watch that they have seen many militia members still active. One resident said she saw ex-CVOs “now wearing CAFGU uniform.”[318]Another said that she saw an ex-CVO now with the National Bureau of Investigation.[319] A third said that “the Ampatuans still have their CVOs in Shariff Aguak—they are not wearing their uniforms but they still have more than a hundred firearms.”[320] In February 2010, a relative of the eight killed while harvesting palay in August 2008, told Human Rights Watch:

I received threats last night. I received information that I would be massacred [too]. The threats came from the CVOs. I never leave the house, just stay inside. The CVOs are still there, mixed in with the civilians. CVOs are looting the houses. We’re confined in our houses.[321]

In December 2009, the Arroyo administration created the Independent Commission against Private Armies. The government’s use of the term “private armies” indicated an attempt to distance itself from responsibility for the Maguindanao massacre and other abuses by the official paramilitary forces that are supported, created, funded, and armed by local officials, the military, and the police.

The commission, whose term came to an end on June 30, 2010, had a mandate to oversee the dismantling of private armies in the country, provide action and policy recommendations to the president, and advise the PNP. It was also “to be the government’s sole voice on such issues.”[322] It was empowered to summon witnesses, take testimony, and to demand production of other evidence, and held hearings to investigate the operations of private armies.

The commission strongly urged the AFP and PNP to conduct an inventory of firearms and ammunition issued to CAFGUs, CVOs, Police Auxiliary Units, provincial jail guards, and provincial security forces, to enhance monitoring of CAFGU and Special CAFGU, and to increase troop presence in some areas that face high security-risks.[323]

The AFP took up several of these recommendations. It prepared an inventory of firearms provided to CAFGUs and Special CAFGUs, which it submitted to the PNP. The AFP also issued policy directives prohibiting partisan political activity in military camps, and provided sanctions for military personnel who violated the gun ban or engaged in partisan politics, and prohibited off-duty CAFGUs and Special CAFGUs from acting as bodyguards for politicians. It also acted on the recommendation to deploy additional police in certain areas.[324] The PNP also provided the commission with a breakdown of firearm inventory records and took specific action in two specific localities, for instance, by rotating police officers in Lanao del Sur “to deter local candidates from exerting undue influence on the police.”[325] The AFP’s response contributed to reducing election-related violence in the lead-up to the May 2010 elections.

The commission reported that as of May 2010, 35 out of the 107 existing private armed groups in the country had been dismantled by the police and military, with 130 members arrested and 127 firearms confiscated. In its May 2010 report to the president, it recommended disbanding paramilitary forces not needed for counter-insurgency operations. Commissioner Herman Basbaño said that, “private armies have been ... sourcing their manpower from these paramilitary forces. These are not needed in some areas of the country; they must be disbanded.”[326] The commission also recommended a more restrictive policy on the possession and carrying of firearms, and stricter sanctions against holders of firearms who fail to comply with mandated licensing and registration, including the abolition of Executive Order 194.[327] At this writing, the government has not implemented these recommendations.

Since the Aquino government took office, it has ordered the AFP to make an inventory of all weapons and CAFGUs, to determine which CAFGUs may be serving as members of private armies.[328] They will consider whether CAFGUs are complying with their rosters; if they are, they are viewed as legitimate. The administration has also requested an update twice a month on the steps taken to dismantle private armies.[329]