Gabawa also asserted that “there is no truth to the allegations attributed to him in an interview that he labeled Grecil Buya as an NPA child-warrior” — which supposedly justified her death — “for there was never an interview given nor statements made by him.” Based on media reports, higher-ranking military officers from the army made the charge that Grecil was an NPA guerrilla.
The CHR decision seemed to have dwelled more on the question on whether the encounter was legitimate rather than on whether Gabawa and his men shot the girl. The question now is: If the CHR could not determine whose bullet killed Grecil, what was its basis for clearing the soldiers, that they did not act irresponsibly and negligently?
The decision merely said that Grecil “was caught in the crossfire.” It added that the murder allegations “may not find merit as there is no clear and convincing evidence that the victim was summarily executed. Neither was there a showing substantial or otherwise as to the existence of gross neglect as regards the protection of noncombants, more specifically children, on the part of the military.”
And in move that is certain to rile human rights groups, the decision asserted that the death of noncombatants during legitimate encountersdoes not constitute a human-rights violation. It cited a 1998 case in Luzon that threw out the complaints of alleged human rights victims on the basis that the encounters were legitimate.
“The warring parties know the consequences of their actions but they cannot be held liable for the death of those caught in the crossfire in the absence of substantial evidence that there was gross negligence as regards the protection of noncombatants,” the CHR said, quoting from the 1998 case decision by the commission en banc.
Meanwhile, the CHR urged the military to “be compliant” with the provisions of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), which enumerates rules directing the welfare and protection of the civilian population including children against the dangers emerging from military operations.
The CHR also ruled that financial assistnace be to the victim’s family, citing a CHR resolution that says “in cases involving the deprivation of life when the death or injury occurs upon a civilian in the course of military/police operations or armed conflicts, the victim shall be entitled to financial assistance.” (Angely Chi/davaotoday.com)
