US conducting drone strikes in the Philippines?

The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan on Sunday called on the Philippine government to disclose the truth behind a New York Times report that the United States military conducted a drone strike in the Philippines in 2006.

The July 6, 2012 New York Times article by Mark Mazzetti called The Drone Zone claims that a Predator drone fired a “barrage of Hellfire missiles” in the “jungles of the Philippines”. The drone strike was an attempt to kill Indonesian Bali-bomber Umar Patek.

The New York Times article said that the drone strike was reported as a “Philippine military operation”.

The strike failed to kill Patek, who was recently convicted by an Indonesian court for 20 years for his role in the Bali Bombings.

“Is the US unilaterally conducting these drone strikes in violation of our laws and of the VFA itself? From the looks of it, the claim that the US is not engaged in direct combat in the Philippines is a patent lie being perpetuated by both the US and Philippine governments,” said Bayan secretary general Renato M. Reyes, Jr. in a statement.

In a phone interview with GMA News Online, Reyes also voiced his suspicions that the February 2012 air strike that killed Jemaah Islamiyah leader Zulkifli bin Hir, and Abu Sayyaf leader Umbra Jumdail, alias Dr. Abu, was actually a drone attack.

Reyes said that the U.S. and Philippine governments later revealed that the air strike was conducted with an American guided “smartbomb” dropped from a Philippine plane.

“The Philippine Air Force is not capable of this kind of pinpoint air strike. The strike was done at 2 a.m.,” said Reyes, “Imagine the visibility at that hour.”

Dr. Abu was said to be involved in the 2001 the Dos Palmas and Sipadan, Malaysia kidnapping incidents.

“While the PH government must deal decisively with suspected terrorists, it is unacceptable to allow a foreign power to conduct combat operations in our country. This makes us no different from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq,” he added.

Furthermore, Reyes said that these drone strikes places Filipinos at risk.

“Just remember the countless civilians that have died in Pakistan and Afghanistan because of these drone strikes conducted by the U.S.,” Reyes said.

Drone strikes ban

In a March 2012 Agence France-Presse interview, President Benigno Aquino III said the Philippines is only allowing US drones to conduct reconnaissance flights over Philippine territory. Strikes from the unmanned planes are banned.

When asked whether the Philippines would allow, or had allowed, US drones to drop bombs, Aquino said that would violate a ban on the American forces from participating in combat operations.

“No drone strikes,” he said.

According to the report, hundreds of American troops have been helping to contain an Islamic militant threat for a decade.

“They are here as advisers. They are here as trainers. They can not participate in combat operations,” said Aquino.

As of posting time, Neither the Department of National Defense nor the Armed Forces of the Philippines could be reached for comment regarding the New York Times story or Bayan’s allegations. — DVM/LBG, GMA News

Pinoysnayper.wordpress.com is not responsible for content published on web sites accessible from this blog or for content received from third parties. All trademarks/ copyrights are the property of their respective owners.

AFP dares rights group to name Palparan coddlers

The Armed Forces of the Philippines on Wednesday challenged the group Human Rights Watch to identify the military personnel allegedly coddling retired Army general Jovito Palparan, who is wanted for the disappearance of two student-activists in 2006.

“We challenge them to submit names, you file a complaint and this will be addressed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines,” said AFP spokesman Col. Arnulfo Marcelo Burgos at a press briefing in Camp Aguinaldo.

He was reacting to the reported request of Elaine Person, HRW’s deputy Asia director, to President Benigno Aquino III to send the message to the AFP that the years of protecting Palparan are over.

She also reportedly said Aquino should also tell the AFP to cooperate with civilian authorities in the prosecution of Palparan.

But Burgos assured the New York-based human rights group that the AFP does not condone giving protection or sanctuary to suspected criminals even if they are former soldiers.

“We have the Human Rights Office that can take charge of the complaint,” he said.

Palparan went into hiding last December after a Bulacan court issue a warrant for his arrest for the disappearance of University of the Philippines students Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan in 2006 when Palparan was the commander of the 7th Infantry Division.

Meanwhile, a state prosecutor said they will file within the week a motion asking the Malolos Regional Trial Court to expunge from the records all pleadings filed by the law firm of Atty. Jesus Santos, who claimed to represent Palparan.

Santos, who used to lawyer for former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, earlier made an appearance as co-counsel for Palparan before Judge Teodora Gonzales of the Malolos RTC Branch 14.

In an interview with reporters Wednesday, State Prosecutor Juan Pedro Navera said they will ask the court to junk the manifestation filed by Santos insisting his appearance for Palparan despite his failure to secure a “conforme” formally authorizing him as Palparan lawyer.

Navera said among the pleadings that Santos filed and which they wanted removed from records are the motion seeking to annul the arrest warrants issued against Palparan and his two co-accused, the motion to lift the hold-departure order, and the motion to suspend the proceedings in the RTC.

The prosecutors also said that they will also argue their point during the next hearing on the case on Feb. 6. — KBK, GMA News

APPEALS COURT DROPS GMA’S NAME IN BURGOS ABDUCTION CASE

The Court of Appeals (CA) has complied with the Supreme Court’s (SC) directive ordering to drop the name of former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as party-respondent in the case of the disappearance of the missing political activist Jonas Joseph Burgos.

In a resolution of CA’s Special Former Seventh Division, the appeals tribunal issued a writ of habeas corpus anew, returnable to the presiding justice “who shall immediately refer the writ to the same division that decided the petition.”

The ruling was penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and was concurred by Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando and then Justice Bienvenido Reyes.

The high court earlier dropped Arroyo as party respondent during her incumbency as president of the Philippines.

The appellate court referred witnesses Jeffrey Cabintoy and Elsa Agasang to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for admission to the Witness Protection Program Security and Benefit Program, subject to the requirements of Republic Act 6981.

It also noted the criminal complaint filed by the Edita Burgos, Jonas’s mother, with the DOJ which the said agency “may investigate and act upon on its own pursuant to Section 21 of the Rule of the writ of amparo.”

The CA impleaded Lt. Harry Bariaga, Jr. in two separate cases, together with the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; the incumbent Commanding General, Philippine Army; and the Commanding Officer—Lt. Col. Melquiades Feliciano—of the 56th IB, 7th Infantry Division, P.A. at the time of the disappearance of Burgos.

They were also required by the appeals court to produce the person of Burgos “under the terms the CA shall prescribe, and to show cause why the victim should not be released from detention.”

The CA resolution likewise required “AFP Judge Advocate General Brig. Gen. Gilberto Jose Roa; the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, JI, AFP, at the time of our June 22, 2010 resolution; and then Chief of Staff and now Bureau of Immigration (BI) Commissioner retired AFP Gen. Ricardo David, (a) to explain show cause and explain this court, within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt…why they should not be held in contempt…for their defiance…”

The Supreme Court (SC) had ordered the Armed Forces to produce Burgos before the court in view of the report from the CHR dated March 25, 2011.

The report stated that it has “graphic descriptions of eyewitnesses to the abduction, relevant testimonies of the witnesses, evidentiary difficulties such as the deliberate refusal of police and military officials to furnish relevant documents and facts that the military has something to do with the disappearance.”

Based on the CHR report, Gen. Baliaga was identified as one of those who abducted Burgos in Quezon City on April 28, 2007.

The CA dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and the writ of amparo filed by Mrs. Burgos in 2008.

It stated that is had not enough evidence to prove the involvement of the military in the abduction and disappearance of Edita’s son.

In its order, the CA directed the AFP to submit before the court, within a non-extendible period of 15 days from receipt, a copy of the documents requested by the CHR (Commission on Human Rights), particularly:

1) The profile and summary of information and pictures of T/ Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine Army); Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco (Philippine Air Force); M/ Sgt. Aron Arroyo (PAF); an alias T.L.—all reportedly assigned with Military Intelligence Group of Intelligence Service of the AFP—and 2Lt. Fernando, a lady officer involved in the counter-insurgency operations of the 56th IB in 2006 to 2007;

2) Copies of the records of the 2007 Erap 5 incident in Kamuning, Quezon City and the complete list of the intelligence operatives involved in that said convert military operation, including their respective summary of information and individual pictures; and

3) Complete list of the officers, women and men assigned at the 56th and 69thInfantry Battalion and the 7th IB from January 1, 2004-June 30, 2007 with their respective profiles, summary of information and pictures; including the list of capture rebels and rebels who surrendered to the said camps and their corresponding pictures and copies of their Tactical Interrogation Reports and the cases filed against them, if any.

The appellate court further noted that “these documents shall be released exclusively to this court for our examination to determine their relevance to the present case and the advisability of their public disclosure.”

DRUG SUSPECTS’ ASSETS FROZEN FOR 6 MONTHS

The Court of Appeals (CA) ordered concerned agencies and banking institutions to extend the freeze order on the accounts and properties of several suspected drug traffickers tagged in manufacturing of dangerous drugs in the Philippines.

From a period of 20 days, the appeals court, found it necessary to extend the effectivity of the freeze order to 6 months against the assets of respondents Annie Faustino Co a.k.a. Annie F. Co/ Ching Ching Co., Dave Go a.k.a. Jimmy Ong, Wang Wei Guo a.k.a. Wang Wei Go/ Jason Santiago Chua/ Michael Chua Michael Jason Chua/ Kalkal, Li You Xin a.k.a. Alex Sy Li/ Wah Ya/ Francis Lee, Jackson Sy Tan, Margarita Carpio and Robert Asto.

The CA likewise reiterated its directive to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) to comply with the order against the motor vehicles and cars registered under the names of the said respondents.

“Wherefore, the subject freeze order is hereby extended…Moreover, respondent IBank and the LTO are hereby directed to submit to the CA and the AMLC within a period of 24 hours from receipt of this resolution a detailed return on their compliance therewith, specifying all pertinent and relevant information on all frozen bank accounts and motor vehicles, it appearing that, to date, they have not submitted the same,” the CA stated.

“Let a copy of this resolution be served on LTO Chairperson Virginia Torres for appropriate action,” it likewise said.

Covered by the order are the accounts of the respondents under their names in Banco de Oro Unibank, Allied Bank, China Bank, East West Bank, Metrobank, Union Bank, International Exchange Bank, Security Bank, Commercial Banking Corp., Bank of Commerce and Rizal Banking Corporation.

Among the respondents in the petition filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) are the Crytalline Trading and the LTO.

Records show that on August 24, 2010, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) served search warrant at Unit 1B Clarinda Raymond St., BF Resort Village, Las Pinas City due to suspected manufacturing of illegal drugs which resulted to the arrest of the foreign suspects and seizure of huge quantity of shabu.

Last January 31, operatives of the Philippine National Police-Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force Group (PNP-RAIDSOTG) conducted a buy-bust operation resulting in the arrest of Ong and Go where numerous cars and items were yielded.

According to the AMLC, there are links between the said respondents, Crystalline Trading and CRS Foreign Exchange are being used as conduits in order to give a semblance of legitimacy to the proceeds of manufacturing and trafficking dangerous drugs.

The freeze order was originally scheduled for a period of only 20 days but was extended by 6 months for it was found very crucial.

“Considering that the financial examination and analysis of the subject bank accounts as well as the investigation regarding the subject motor vehicles may not be completed within the original period of twenty (20) days already granted by this court, there is a need for a continued freezing of the subject bank accounts and motor vehicles to prevent any further withdrawal, removal, transfer, concealment or disposition thereof,” the CA’s 4-page resolution stated.

The ruling was penned by Third Division Associate Justice Elihu Ybanez and was concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

The appellate court noted that, “this court, therefore, finds it necessary to extend the effectivity of the freeze order for a period of six (6) months, or until 15 December 2011.”