Corrupt law enforcers, government officials, judges, prosecutors and influence peddlers in government collude to block prosecution of human trafficking cases

THE female fiscal was livid with anger when she stormed the office of her superior, an undersecretary at the Department of Justice. She was geared up for a confrontation.

“How dare you dismiss that case? How could you ignore the evidence?” she fumed at her boss, who was too shocked to react. “Let it be known that I have nothing to do with it. May your conscience haunt you,” she said.

The lady prosecutor, small in frame but big in reputation for being straight, had found out the undersecretary was behind the junking of a human trafficking case. She could not believe what just happened.

After all, it had all the elements of “a strong case,” she tells this writer. “There was the marked money, there was an entrapment. There was transaction for sex. There were victims. There was no reason to dismiss it.”

The International Justice Mission said the case—involving women working in a sleazy bar in Makati—“was one of our stronger cases.” The operation, conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation, was featured in a TV newsmagazine and it showed a bar girl having sex with a foreigner. The IJM is a foundation which helps document and build cases of human trafficking.

When the case was brought to the Department of Justice for preliminary investigation in Dec. 2007, the lady prosecutor said the resolution would be quick considering the evidence. There were two complainants who are minors, which makes the case qualified trafficking, a non-bailable offense and carries with it a punishment of life in prison.

She did deliver, coming up with her recommendation in less than a month.

The lady prosecutor after all is familiar with the intricacies of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act or RA 9208. She was among the first to secure a conviction since the law was passed in 2003. She knew that the elements in the case were sufficient to show that there is probable cause to indict the respondents.

But her superior at the DOJ was not as convinced. After eight months, the case was dismissed “due to insufficient evidence,” one of the IJM lawyers told Newsbreak.

We found out the dismissal of the case was highly irregular. The lady prosecutor’s resolution was set aside and a new resolution was prepared, signed by her immediate boss. “I conducted the inquest and the preliminary investigation, yet somebody prepared the resolution.”

In the new resolution, the case against the respondents was dismissed on the alleged ground that there was no evidence showing that the minors were regular employees at the girlie bar. The ‘new’ resolution also pointed out that the NBI failed to present the video reportedly showing the minors are engaged in prostitution and pornography. It also noted that the NBI failed to secure a court order for the arrest of the suspects.

The ‘new’ resolution was dated Feb. 20, 2008, while the lady prosecutor’s original resolution, now missing, was dated Jan. 9, 2008.

While the undersecretary’s name was not indicated in the ‘new’ resolution, the lady prosecutor said she had learned this official had a hand in the reversal. “I wanted him to know that I knew what was going on.”

Newsbreak interviewed government officials, social workers, lawyers and prosecutors, agents and victims and found out that there are weak links that led to dismissals: weak protection system for the victims, exploitative parents, corrupt law enforcers and prosecutors and influence peddlers in government.

With the right price, cases can be fixed in all levels.

“Human trafficking is fast becoming a big syndicate,” observes the lady prosecutor. “Their influence is everywhere.”

The encounter with her boss, she says, illustrates her observation.

High dismissal, low conviction rate

The above case is just one of the 110 human trafficking cases junked by the Department of Justice (DOJ) since RA 9208 became effective. Based on DOJ records, a total 573 number of cases were referred to the office from 2003-2008. By extrapolation, the dismissal in the DOJ level alone is one for every five cases.

The figure does not include cases terminated in the level of the law enforcement agencies and those withdrawn from the court or dismissed by the courts.

For instance, data from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) showed that from 2005-2008, the agency investigated 452 human trafficking cases, of which 126 have been acted upon. The rest are still under investigation.

But of the acted upon 126 cases, 71 or more than half were deemed closed by the NBI, which meant these did not even reach preliminary investigation stage. Fifty-five cases were recommended for inquest and prosecution.

While there are 12 convictions so far, 171 cases are still pending in court. One case had been junked by a court while five other cases were withdrawn.

The 12 convictions only represent two percent of the total cases referred to the DOJ.

And in the wake of the global recession where it is feared that more will be more vulnerable to trafficking in search of better or decent jobs, the figures above are not very encouraging for anti-human trafficking advocates.

Weak links

The US Department of Justice considers human trafficking as the third largest global criminal enterprise, after illegal drugs and illegal arms. The International Labor Organization estimates that 12.3 million migrants alone fall prey to trafficking.

Data from Department of Social Welfare and Development showed that from 2003 to 2008, it has assisted 5,546 victims of human trafficking.

The actual number of victims of human trafficking however is grossly underreported, due to the underground nature of the crime. The Visayan Forum for instance, says it has assisted close to 32,000 victims of trafficking.

The Philippines belongs to Tier 2 of the US State Department’s 2007 Trafficking in Persons Report, which means the country does not fully comply with the minimum requirements of the agency’s Trafficking Victim’s Protection Act but is making significant progress.

The requirements include vigorous investigation and prosecution of trafficking cases, severe punishment to the perpetrators.

In 2005, the NBI created a special task force to focus on trafficking cases and received a grant of $100,000 for the purchase of equipment and training of its personnel on the nuances of the anti-human trafficking law. NBI Anti-Human Trafficking Division chief Ferdinand Lavin says the unit’s agents were trained on how to successfully build a human trafficking case.

The Inter-Agency Against Human Trafficking, consisting of government agencies and non-government organizations has created local chapters in 22 provinces, 16 cities and 63 municipalities to strengthen monitoring of trafficking. It gets grants from international organizations to pursue its mandate.

Despite this support, efficient build-up of cases and their prosecution and conviction remain weak and wanting.

Reluctant victims and exploitative parents

Trafficking has many faces. It could take the form of sexual exploitation, debt bondage, forced labor and exploitation of children as sex slaves or soldiers. Data from the DSWD showed that most victims are females forced to prostitution or children trapped in forced labor.

The common denominator among the victims is a desire to get out of abject poverty, says social worker Ruby Dumpit, officer-in-charge of the social department’s community-based service unit. “In many instances, their own family pushed them to such situations.”

Being a victim carries with it a social stigma, Dumpit notes. And it is this shame that many victims are afraid to come out and file cases in court.

Lavin says the reluctance or disinterest of victims to pursue cases is the major reason why trafficking cases do not prosper in court. By the very nature of the law, there should be a victim who was subjected to exploitation. “No complainant, no case.”

This appears to be the case of one British national and his Filipina wife who was charged in court for luring several minors to engage in cyber sex with foreigners as clients. The NBI set an entrapment, rescued the victims and filed a complaint before the DOJ. The DOJ charged the respondent before the court.

But the judge dismissed the case supposedly because the complainants failed to appear in court. We cannot name the victims and the respondents as the law provides confidentiality for both parties.

Dumpit says that based on experience, parents are instrumental in the victim’s refusal to pursue the case. Others fear for their lives while some refuse to pin the respondents owing to a skewed sense of gratitude. Lavin agrees, noting that many of the NBI cases considered closed were due to failure of victims to file a case.

This is the case of one victim that Newsbreak interviewed at the Haven for Women where victims of trafficking are temporarily sheltered and given counseling. Asked why the victim refused to file a complaint, she insisted that she was not trafficked.

Still, there are instances when the victims recant their statements midway through the trial. State Prosecutor Lilian Alejo said this happened to her first trafficking case. One of the victims turned hostile witness, saying she only pinned down the respondents because the NBI threatened to file charges of prostitution against her and violated her rights. The court however rejected her recantation.

Nelia Pulong, officer-in-charge of the DSWD’s Crisis Intervention Unit, says some parents of victims are to blame “because they see their children as commodities.” Already exploited by strangers, these parents further exploit their children by colluding with the respondents to drop the case, in exchange for monetary consideration.

Social workers say they have heard of settlement for as low as P50,000. “We have no concrete evidence. We only hear it from the victims.”

In the case of minors, Lydia Rubio, a social worker at the Haven, says an assessment is done before trafficked children are turned over to their parents. She cited the case of one minor who has been staying with the Haven for four years after it was assessed that turning the child to the parents may not be for his best interest. The child was a victim of pornography.

Corrupt law enforcers

Yet even if there are victims willing to pursue a case, some are dismissed due to lack of evidence or the filing of weak cases.

Non-government organizations focusing on trafficking incidents harbor suspicion that some law enforcers “help” in the dismissal of cases by submitting sloppy reports. They suspect law enforcers of colluding with traffickers.

“There are victims blaming the investigators and prosecutors for the dismissal of their cases,” says Visayan Forum president Cecilia Flores-Oebanda. VF is an NGO involved in anti-trafficking efforts.

The suspicion of collusion is not without basis. Assistant State Prosecutor Severino Gana, chief of the DOJ’s anti-trafficking in persons task force, support this.

Gana recalls that he called the attention of the NBI one time regarding an agent who appears to be in collusion with human trafficking perpetrators.

Two of his prosecutors, he said, have told him of their suspicions on the agent’s activities. He declined to elaborate, but hinted it had something to do with defective complaints that the agent filed with the DOJ. “I told his boss to be wary of that agent,” Gana said.

Alejo has a first-hand experience of the dirty tricks that some NBI agents employ. In the first case she handled, the NBI agent supposedly misplaced one of the pieces of evidence she was about to present in court. “It was a good thing that I had it in my laptop. I asked the court if I could just present it from the laptop.”

Alejo refused to name the agent, but said she would always cite her experience with the agent when she conducts trainings with NBI and other law enforcements in safeguarding evidence related to human trafficking cases.

A former NBI agent, who talked on condition of anonymity, says “naughty” agents would delete some portions in the affidavit which could be crucial in establishing trafficking. Without the knowledge of the complainant, the defective complaint would then be filed with the DOJ.

Still, others are instrumental in facilitating pay-off between respondents and the victims which lead to the withdrawal of the case. In these instances, it can be inferred that money changed hands.

One trafficking case we were able to read showed an NBI agent being accused by the respondent of extorting P5 million during an operation. The amount was later reduced to P3 million according to the respondent. When the respondent did not agree, that was when the complaint was pursued.

It may be just a defense of the respondent but such claims are repeated in other cases, triggering a suspicion that law enforcers are not immune from the reach of trafficking violators.

We asked the NBI source if this was the going rate among rogue agents in fixing a case. The source could not surmise how much is involved in pay-off but he heard in the rumor mill that it ranges from P20,000 to P50,000.

Gana says there are many kind of evidence that can be produced to establish the crime of human trafficking from the testimony of the person who has personal knowledge of the facts; documentary evidence like sworn affidavits, documentation relating to the recruitment, travel documents, case report of the law enforcement agencies and object evidence like computers used for cybersex for instance.

But the most crucial evidence is the witness or the complainant “who must be able to identify the accused,” Gana says. Too, the respondents have the right to cross-examine the witness or the alleged victims as part of the due process.

Politicians, media in cahoots

Then there are the higher-ups and corrupt media men whose roles in the dismissal of trafficking cases are hidden from clueless victims and NGOs. We talked with an NBI agent who has first hand knowledge of having been coerced and influenced by colleagues and superiors to drop cases.

The NBI agent, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, says he has experienced being told by his bosses to go easy on a case because of calls from higher-ups. “My superior would just relay the information.” Unnamed officials in Malacanang, congressmen and DOJ prosecutors are some of the personalities that would call his bosses, he said.

If the callers are persistent, the NBI agent says he would let the case “lie low” for a week before filing the case to the DOJ. “The callers would get angry of course, but I have a job to do.”

The NBI agent has a first hand experience where a media man was responsible for the white-wash of a case.

The case involved children who were recruited to work in a factory in Valenzuela. The media man, who hosts a hard-hitting TV show, employed the help of the NBI in rescuing the victims. The employment of the minors provided a strong trafficking case.

When the NBI was already preparing the complaint, the children, accompanied by their parents, desisted from pursuing the case. The agent later found out that the media man initiated a meeting between the parent and the Chinese employer. “It was frustrating.”

The NBI agent however believes that politicians intervene only in case to case basis. The agent could not speculate what percentage of the 71 cases deemed closed by the NBI resulted to intervention of politicians.

An analysis of the NBI showed that on a year to year basis, majority of “acted upon” cases were either dropped or already considered “closed.” The most glaring is the NBI’s data from Jan. to Dec. 2008, when 40 cases were considered closed and only 14 were recommended for inquest or prosecution.

Fiscals also in cahoots?

Yet, the influence and clout of traffickers extend to the DOJ, abetted by prosecutors with questionable character. Strong cases are suspiciously dismissed, usually without the knowledge of the victims.

How much is involved in this level?

The lady prosecutor said case-fixing in the prosecutor level could go as high as P300,000.

Another DOJ prosecutor said it could reach half a million. One could only deduce how much is paid when those who intervened are higher-ranking officials of DOJ.

In the DOJ, trafficking cases undergo several layers. Cases are initially referred to the Task Force headed by Gana. The task force has 17-20 prosecutors trained to handle trafficking cases.

Gana says he usually upholds the recommendations of his prosecutors. In cases where the recommendation is dismissal, he holds a one-on-one meeting with the prosecutor “to justify his recommendation.”

Cases which seek indictment are then forwarded to the Office of the State Prosecutor under Jovencito Zuno for review. The justice secretary has the final say whether to file the case or not in court.

Gana says cases submitted for review to Zuno’s office are reviewed by Zuno’s hand-picked prosecutors. And there appears to be a gap at this stage.

Gana’s office is not informed by Zuno’s reviewers if and when a motion for review is filed by the respondents. Moreover Gana’s office is also clueless whether cases are reversed leading to dismissal.

The case of the lady prosecutor is one example. Her superior dismissed the case without her knowing it. She only found this out when she inquired about the case.

But case-fixing does not have to be in the upper level. In the prosecutor’s level alone, cases get waylaid or dismissed for no apparent reason.

Two cases, involving controversial prosecutor John Resado illustrate this. Resado has been dragged in the alleged suspicious dismissal of a drug case involving scions of rich families, after allegedly receiving a P800,000 bribe. Resado dismissed the case supposedly because the search and arrests of the suspects were done illegally.

Both cases involved minors who were rescued from separate girlie joints in Makati City. The operations were both conducted by the NBI.

The NBI went through all the motions—from surveillance to undercover operations and applying for search warrant before the court. In the resulting entrapment, women forced into prostitution, including minors were rescued.

In the first case, despite the overwhelming evidence to establish probable cause, Resado dismissed the case for supposed insufficiency of evidence. He also junked the motion for reconsideration prompting the IJM to file a petition for review before Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales

In the second case, Resado initially issued a resolution to indict the respondents. He also denied a motion by the respondent for reconsideration.

A case was filed before the Makati regional trial court for qualified trafficking against the respondents in view of the minors rescued from the brothel.

Yet, when the IJM requested for copies of legal documents from the Makati RTC, it found out that a second resolution dismissing the case has been forwarded to the court. In the first resolution, the IJM noted it bore the signatures of Resado, Gana and Zuno. The second resolution however only bore Resado’s signature.

We called the Makati RTC and we were told that the case has been withdrawn a few months after it was filed. The IJM says the case was already dismissed by Gonzales who sustained the petition for review of the respondents. We sought to secure the two motions filed by Resado but we were told on the confidential nature of the documents.

We called up Resado and he admitted recalling the two cases but could remember the grounds for the dismissal. He said he is a member of the task force headed by Gana.

But Gana said he has since refrained from referring human trafficking cases to Resado when he observed that he had been dismissing cases one after the other. He admitted that he had approved the above two cases handled by Resado. “I had full trust on my prosecutors then,” Gana said.

An analysis of DOJ data showed that two out of 10 cases (110 dismissals out of 573 referred cases) forwarded has been dismissed. About four out of 10 (210 of 573) are still pending investigation.

The only consolation, if at all, is that there is only one acquittal by the court. - with research by Victoria Camille Tulad, Newsbreak researcher

This article was made possible with the generous support of the American people through the United States Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat trafficking in Persons and The Asia Foundation. The contents are the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Department of State of the United States or The Asia Foundation.