IN DECEMBER 2012, a group of lawyers, scientists and academic institutions launched Innocence Project Philippines at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa and the Correctional Institute for Women in Mandaluyong.
Among those on board the network upon its conception were religious volunteer groups (CBCP Episcopal Commission on Prison Pastoral Care, Coalition Against Death Penalty and the Philippine Jesuit Prison Service), the Free Legal Assistance Group, the UP DNA Analysis Laboratory, UP College of Law, De La Salle University College of Law and Ateneo de Davao College of Law.
They patterned their efforts after that of Innocence Project US, affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York and largely propped up by the volunteerism of law students.
The group aimed to review cases that had already been resolved by the courts, finding certain persons guilty of crimes. They want to overturn convictions on the strength of DNA evidence. They work from the principle that no innocent man or woman should be put behind bars for something he or she did not commit.
Those familiar with crime and detective shows would know that DNA technology can conclusively establish a person’s guilt or innocence on the basis of whether his genes are found on the crime scene. This is not at all new, not even here in the Philippines. It has been nearly 10 years—October 2007, precisely—since the Supreme Court issued its Rules on DNA Evidence. The rules say that even those found guilty through final and executory decisions may seek to have their case re-examined using DNA technology so long as there are biological samples to be evaluated.
Our justice system relies heavily on testimonial evidence, which may be compelling but also subject to error or manipulation. Victims and witnesses may make mistakes, inadvertently or on purpose. Tragically, aside from these testimonies, there may be no other way to reconstruct what happened. Only science can do away with these pitfalls.
But there has to be two sets of samples: One to be taken from the suspect, and one from the victim or from the crime scene taken during the very narrow and very critical period of investigation.
It goes without saying that appropriate comparisons cannot be made if there are no samples to compare, in the first place.
***
But this was four years ago, and under a different time. How is the project coming along?
Dr. Maria Corazon de Ungria of the UP DNA Analysis Laboratory says the team has faced challenges over the past few years—challenges that have prevented them from achieving their objectives just yet.
Some of the hurdles are logistical and administrative. There is always the threat of violence inside jails. Student-volunteers advance in their studies and may not be able to stick around for the entire cause of the investigation. The activities overlap with the items already in the students’ curriculum. There is always, always a lack of funds—for meetings, for transportation, all the practical expenses that have to do with getting from one place to another.
Some are systemic weaknesses of our institutions. While the samples offered by convicts asking to be evaluated may be easy to obtain, the collection, storage and preservation of evidence from the crime scene is tricky. There is no established chain of custody and accountability for the samples. Rape kits containing samples that are crucial to the case are just stacked on closets or on the floor of hospitals or police stations—if they are ever gathered at all.
Some are cultural, and it has something to do with saving face.
“When you seek to overturn a judgment, you are basically saying that somebody committed a mistake and that they should correct that,” says De Ungria. “It is in the culture of Filipinos to take this personally.”
But the possibilities remain. “Science can provide options and alternatives that have not been used in the past. We just have to find creative, just and fair ways of providing these alternatives.”
Indeed the desire to use science to bring about genuine change and justice is always there.
“We [in Innocence Project Philippines] remain hopeful. We take challenges as they come, address what we can address,” she says.
***
In our current context where innocent people face the threat not just of being jailed but being killed, we hope there is room for rectification as well. There is a growing clamor against abuses in the fight against drugs— ironically seen as a menace to life itself. This has to be corrected.
Much work awaits in determining who is guilty and who is innocent, in a country where truth has infinite versions. This has to be rectified.
The really guilty must also have the chance to reform under the principle of corrective justice. Killing them as though they have lost all worth should never be an option in an enlightened society.
The jobs appear to have gotten more difficult, but it does not mean we should stop pursuing the ideal. “There are errors in the justice system—just like there are errors in any system, anyway. Let us work to improve it. I am sure there are good intentions everywhere,” De Ungria says.