Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 6, 1953

A. Analysis of the Complaint

1. 353. The complainant alleges, on the basis of reports published in two Manila newspapers according to which a number of trade unionists and their leaders were arrested on 26 January 1951 by officers of the Military Intelligence Service and the Manila Police, that the leaders were really arrested because of their trade union activities but under the pretext that they had fought for the liberation of the Philippine people. Among those arrested were Amado V. Hernandez, President of the Congress of Labour Organisations (C.L.O) ; J. J. Cruz, Secretary, and Jacob Espinos, Antonio Mendoza and Amadeo P. Racanday, members of that organisation ; and Adriano Samson, Graciano Plegaria and Teofilo Agravante, members of the Printers' Union. They were interned in Camp Murphy and were there maltreated and placed in solitary confinement, without any official charges having been drawn up against them. Amado Hernandez was subjected by the military authorities to a long interrogation on the subject of trade union activities. Several of them were subsequently released but Amado Hernandez was still held without trial.

B. Analysis of the Replies

• Analysis of the First Reply (5 December 1951)
  354. 354 In its first reply, dated 5 December 1951, the Philippine Government made the following observations.
  355. 355 The allegation that a large number of trade unionists and their leaders were arrested in January 1951 because of trade union activities has no basis in fact. However, certain persons, among whom were Amado Hernandez, J. J. Cruz, Adriano Samson, Jacob Espinos and Amadeo Racanday, had been found engaging in subversive activities. They were arrested, investigated fairly and impartially, but were neither maltreated nor placed in solitary confinement, and had been brought to trial for the crime of rebellion complexed with multiple murder, arson and robberies.
  356. 356 The allegations in the complaint do not deserve reference to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission, the fact that some of those arrested for subversive activities happened to be identified with trade unions being immaterial.
• First Request for Supplementary Information
  357. 357 At its meeting in January 1952 the Committee on Freedom of Association, taking note of the judicial proceedings against the trade union leaders involved, decided to adjourn consideration of the case on the ground that the matter was sub judice in the Philippines and to request the Government to supply information concerning the results of the judicial proceedings.
• Analysis of the Second Reply (8 February 1952)
  358. 358 In its second reply, dated 8 February 1952, the Government stated that the trials of the criminal cases in question had not yet been concluded and that it would be difficult to say when the trials were likely to be terminated. It was further stated that the accused would have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court in case of their conviction.
  359. 359 The Government further stated that the circumstances surrounding the arrest and prosecution of the persons involved in the criminal cases were so political in character that it would be undesirable to pursue the matter further in relation to the exercise of trade union rights in the Philippines. Other persons with no labour union affiliations had previously been similarly accused of subversive activities and had been found guilty by the courts.
• Second Request for Supplementary Information
  360. 360 At its meeting in March 1952 the Committee on Freedom of Association, taking note of the representation by the Government that the trials of the criminal cases were still pending, decided again to postpone its examination of the case and to request the Government to transmit the results of the judicial proceedings as soon as the trials were terminated.
• Analysis of the Third Reply (13 May 1952)
  361. 361 In its third reply, dated 13 May 1952, the Government forwarded a copy of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila in the criminal cases in question, together with a copy of the letter of 15 November 1951 addressed by the Philippine Secretary of National Defence to the Philippine Secretary of Labor. It stated that all but one of the defendants who had been found guilty had signified their intention to appeal to the Supreme Court.
  362. 362 In the said letter of 13 May 1952 the Government made the following observations.
  363. 363 The decision shows that the accused, who where convicted of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arson and robberies, included other persons who have had nothing to do with the trade union activities in the Philippines. The decision supports the previous statement of the Government in its letter of 8 February 1952 regarding the political character of the circumstances, surrounding the arrest and prosecution of the persons involved.
  364. 364 The fact is emphasised that there exists in the Philippines today a state of armed dissidence which constitutes a threat to the internal security of the nation. This fact is sufficiently shown in the decision of the Court and in the letter of the Philippine Secretary of National Defence, dated 15 November 1951, above referred to.
  365. 365 The policy of the Government has always been to further the objectives of free trade unionism in the Philippines. Under the influence of Commonwealth Act No. 213, legitimate labour organisations voluntarily registered under it have increased from 16 in 1937 to 743 as of 31 December 1951, with about 200,000 industrial and commercial workers and over 1,000,000 peasants belonging to trade unions.
  366. 366 In his letter, dated 15 November 1951, to the Philippine Secretary of Labor, the Philippine Secretary of National Defence gave further details of the circumstances in which the trade union leaders were originally arrested and investigated.
  367. 367 Evidence having been found linking Amado Hernandez and other members of the Congress of Labor Organisations with the Communist Party of the Philippines and the Hukbong Magpapalaya Sa Bayan (H.M.B, People's Liberation Army), which are engaged in an uprising to bring about the immediate overthrow of the Government by force, the persons concerned were arrested by the military authorities for investigation.
  368. 368 They were investigated fairly and impartially and had been afforded all the rights and immunities granted by the Constitution of the Philippines. Those against whom no evidence was found were immediately released from custody, among whom were Teofilo Agravante, Graciano Plegaria and Antonio Mendoza. The others against whom strong evidence of guilt existed were indicted before the courts, including Amado Hernandez, Jacob Espinos, Juan J. Cruz and Adriano Samson.
• Analysis of the Court's Decision
  369. 369 The decision, rendered on 31 March 1952, is 120 pages long. It covers Criminal Cases Nos. 15841, 15479 and 14111 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which were tried together. In Criminal Case No. 15841 the defendants were Amado Hernandez, Adriano Samson, Juan J. Cruz, Amadeo Racanday, Jacob Espinos and others, on the charge of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arson and robberies. The defendants in both Criminal Cases Nos. 15479 and 14111 were persons without trade union affiliation ; in the first case the defendants were charged with the same offence as in Criminal Case No. 15841 ; the charge in Criminal Case No. 14111 was for illegal association, i.e., membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines.
  370. 370 The findings of fact in the trial court's decision relevant to this enquiry may be briefly summarised as follows.
  371. 371 The Communist Party of the Philippines is directing, maintaining and supporting the H.M.B in an armed rebellion for the immediate overthrow of the Government. Members of the Party's " Politburo " had been previously tried and convicted of the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arson and robberies in Criminal Cases Nos. 14071, 14082, 14315 and 14344 in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
  372. 372 The defendants in Criminal Case No. 15841 (Amado Hernandez et al.) conspired and co-operated with the Communist Party of the Philippines by organising the Congress of Labour Organisations to synchronise the activities of said organisation with the activities of the H.M.B and other organs of the Communist Party in order to ensure the success of the armed uprising against the Government. The C.L.O played its role by means of propaganda, giving monetary aid and supplies to the H.M.B, recruiting proletarian elements from the cities into the armed forces of the H.M.B, and organising strikes to create what is called a revolutionary crisis to pave the way for H.M.B invasion of the cities.
  373. 373 Amado Hernandez was President of the C.L.O from August 1947 to January 1951 and was an active member of the Communist Party under the assumed names of " Victor " and " Soliman ". As a Communist Party member, he prepared documents for the Politburo of the Communist Party concerning the role of labour organisations in the accomplishment of the Party's aims and objectives, and served as a contact point for a Communist Party courier who was convicted in the Politburo trials, as well as a supply and mailing agent of the Communist Party and the H.M.B.
  374. 374 Adriano Samson, Juan J. Cruz and Amadeo Racanday were members of both the Communist Party and the C.L.O. Samson was a courier and organiser of the two organisations ; Cruz was also an organiser as well as a distributing agent for subversive material of both organisations ; Racanday solicited contributions in money and material for the H.M.B and acted as a mailing agent for the Communist Party.
  375. 375 The Court convicted Amado Hernandez as principal and Adriano Samson, Juan J. Cruz and Amadeo Racanday as accomplices, but made no pronouncement and dismissed the case in regard to Jacob Espinos, who had not yet been apprehended up to the conclusion of the trial. The defendants in Criminal Cases Nos. 15479 and 14111 were also convicted.
  376. 376 In its decision, the Court said in part:
• Naturally, it is absurd to think of taking them to task for merely harbouring ideas of communism. Communism is a mere concept or ideology, not punishable under our laws as such, but the imposition of that ideology by means not sanctioned or permitted by our laws is a contravention not only of the Constitution of this Republic but of her statutes. These defendants together with their co-accused in the Politburo case share the common responsibility for the atrocities committed by the H.M.B's under the direction of the Communist Party. They share in this responsibility as members of the C.L.O and the C.P.P. (Pages 113-114 of Decision.)

C. C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 377. The only issue in this case is : what was the real ground for the arrest of the trade union leaders named in the complaint ? If the allegation that they were really arrested for trade union activities were true, it would show an impairment of the workers' freedom of association. The Government, on the other hand, contends that they were arrested without regard to their trade union activities but for subversive action which constitutes a common law offence in the Philippines.
2. 378. In considering this question, the Committee notes that the contention that the trade union leaders were really arrested because of their trade union activities appears to be based by the complainant on newspaper reports concerning their arrest. The principal reason for this contention appears to be expressed in the further allegations that these trade union leaders had been held without any formal charges having been drawn up against them and that they were maltreated and placed in solitary confinement. In regard to Amado Hernandez, it is further alleged that he was interrogated on the subject of trade union activities, but there is no allegation that the others were similarly interrogated.
3. 379. The Government contends that Amado Hernandez, J. J. Cruz, Jacob Espinos and Amadeo Racanday were formally indicted in court. While the Government has denied that they were maltreated or placed in solitary confinement, it has not made any specific observation in regard to the alleged questioning of Amado Hernandez on the subject of trade union activities.
4. 380. It appears from the Government's observations that the investigation of the trade union leaders who had been arrested was conducted with due regard to the rights and immunities afforded by the Philippine Constitution.
5. 381. The Government offers the decision of the court finding Amado Hernandez et al guilty of the crime charged against them as proof:
   • (a) that there was real ground for the Government's proceeding against them for subversive action in connection with the armed uprising of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the H.M.B to secure the immediate overthrow of the Government by force; and
   • (b) that the trade union leaders involved could not have been prosecuted on account of their trade union activities inasmuch as other persons without trade union connections had been similarly prosecuted and convicted, in the same and in other trials.
6. 382. It appears from the letter from the Secretary of National Defence above referred to that the arrest which preceded the indictment of Amado Hernandez et al was of the same character as the arrest of other trade union leaders who where not indicted. They were arrested for purposes of investigation to determine if there was evidence against each of them individually of complicity with the subversive action of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the H.M.B, with the result that Amado Hernandez, J. J. Cruz, Adriano Samson, Jacob Espinos and Amadeo Racanday were brought to trial, while Teofilo Agravante, Graciano Plegaria and Antonio Mendoza were cleared and released from custody.