FACTSHEET ABOUT THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF JOSE SUMAPAD

Appeal for Help on This Case

1.   Jose Sumapad was a 44-year old farmer and a resident of
     Barangay Laperian, Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur.  He was born
     on May 10, 1944, stood 5'5 in height, had straight hair nape
     level, fair-complexioned and slim in built.  He was married
     to Editha Sabillena.

2.   The place Laperian is situated in the western part of
     Tukuran town, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines, about 50
     kilometers away from the poblacion.  It is surrounded by big
     mountains, tagged as NPA hideout.  Thus, military and para-
     military groups could not exist in the area.  However, its
     nearest barrio, which is Barangay Buenasuerte, is an area
     where the camp of the Tadtad was located.  95% of the area's
     total population are farmers.

3.   Jose Sumapad was known to be against the activities of the
     Integrated Civilian Home Defense Force (ICHDF), a
     paramilitary group and the Tadtad group, an infamous fanatic
     group in the Philippines, who were mostly based in
     militarized rural areas in the mid eightees.  Jose Sumapad
     was kidnapped by a group of about 10 alleged members of the
     CHDF and the Tadtad.  The CHDF claimed that Jose Sumapad was
     supporting the group of New People's Army (NPA), the armed
     group of the Communist Party of the Philippines.   Thus,
     FIND believes that the case is politically-motivated and
     state-perpetrated.

4.   The kidnapping of Jose Sumapad happened on May 23, 1986 at
     about 300 a.m.  Footsteps of about 10 armed men were heard
     in the yard of the victim's residence.  This group of about
     ten armed men with long firearms and bolos were seen on a
     peephole.  Witnesses had it that one of the men called and
     ordered Jose to come down, otherwise, the entire family
     would be strafed.  Since Jose did not obey the order, four
     armed men entered the house, passing the back door and
     forcibly brought Jose away from their house.  They saw Jose
     Sumapad held with both hands together with the 10 armed men.

5.   According to the brother of the victim, Emiliano Sumapad,
     since the time that the news broke out, his family had not
     heard anything about Jose's whereabouts for ten years.

6.   Ten years after, on May 20, 1996, SERAFIN CORTES AND FELIPE
     AMUCAY, farmers and residents of the same place, in a joint
     affidavit, testified their knowledge about the disappearance
     of Jose Sumapad.  The testimony spoke that on May 23, 1986,
     at about 700 p.m.,  they, together with militarymen,
     forcibly brought Jose Sumapad to a place where the victim
     was killed by a certain Berting Perpetua.  Berting Perpetua,
     allegedly shot Jose several times and died instantly. 
     Serafin Cortez also confessed that he pulled the trigger of
     his springfield rifle, but it failed to function. 
     Furthermore, the two witnesses, who were at the same time
     part of the group of perpetrators, said that the following
     day, the two of them buried the dead body of the victim.

7.   In a supplementary affidavit, the two witnesses, Serafin
     Cortez and Felipe Amucay gave an additional information on
     the names of the other perpetrators, such as Loloy Agum,
     Berting Perpetua, Francisco Gapul, Jessie Gapul, Moises
     Dumanjog, Levie Dumanjog, Relina Agum, Dedie Banguiao, Acoy
     Agapay, Carlito Morate, Eliezer Cadutdut and one military
     man Verzosa whose first name they do not know.  Furthermore,
     the witnesses said that it was Versoza who ordered them to
     bury the dead body of Jose Sumapad.  They also mentioned
     that they were the ones who later informed Emiliano Sumapad
     about the exact place where the victim's body was buried.

8.   On June 3, 1985, Editha Sumapad, the wife of the victim,
     executed an affidavit-complaint before the 4th Assistant
     Provincial Fiscal Manuel P. Azurin on June 3, 1986,
     subsequently, another supplementary affidavit before
     Provincial Fiscal Pedro S. Jamero dated June 10, 1986
     referring to the disappearance of her husband.  

9.   But on December 11, 1986, Editha Sumapad executed an
     affidavit of desistance saying that she lost interest in the
     filing of a proper complaint against the perpetrators
     because she was left alone to manage her small farm and was
     left by her husband with five children to attend to. 
     Besides, she lacked the vital witness.  Furthermore, she
     said that she was frequently out of the barangay and later,
     decided to reside in the province of Zamboanga del Sur.

10.  In another affidavit, Editha said that she withdrew her
     complaint against Berting Perpetua because the latter
     earlier came to her house at Lapiraian, Tukuran, Zamboanga
     del Sur at around 700 a.m. and forced her to withdraw her
     complaint, otherwise, he would kill her.  From then on, she
     was constrained to offer more information before the Office
     of the Provincial Fiscal.

11.  Thus, the case was dismissed on the basis of the execution
     of the affidavit of desistance by the victim's wife.

12.  On October 12-19, 1995, in an ocular visit by the FIND, in
     which the brother, Jose Sumapad is a member, a discussion on
     the case took place.  After which, the two witnesses,
     Serafin Cortes and Felipe Amucay executed a joint affidavit,
     detailing the account of the incident, from the abduction to
     the burial of Jose Sumapad.  This became the basis for
     conducting the first exhumation attempt.  It was organized
     and led by FIND Western Mindanao Regional Chapter.  The
     participants included the National Search and Documentation
     Committee of FIND and its forensic partners, Prof. Jerome
     Bailen and Ms. Myra Lara, together with the Medical Action
     Group.

     There were some security problems at that time which
     compelled the team to seek for a military escort.  However,
     during the actual exhumation, further investigation led them
     to new information and found out that one of their witnesses
     by the name of Loloy Agum, was actually one of the suspected
     perpetrators and intentionally misled them to a different
     site.

     The site where they conducted diggings was one kilometer
     away from the actual burial site.  This time, another
     witness volunteered to testify when he heard that the team
     already knew the exact site.  However, the team decided not
     to pursue anymore with more diggings in a different location
     due to different factors, including security of the
     participants and families and the limited resources, for
     they had already stayed for almost a week at the area.

13.  One June 17-22, 1996, Emilio Sumapad, brother of the victim,
     sought the support of the local barangay officials of his
     town in facilitating the conduct of another Search Mission. 
     This time, people were more cooperative and supportive.  The
     two witnesses executed a joint affidavit stating the whole
     incident of the victim's disappearance and volunteered to
     lead the exhumation team to the exhumation site.

14.  The remains were exhumed and positively identified.  (Note
     Please see the separate report on the exhumation results.) 
     After which, a reburial of the remains took place wherein
     FIND facilitated the reburial ceremony as part of its
     rehabilitation work.  

     A portion of the remains were kept in the national office of
     FIND for DNA testing in order to further establish the
     credibility of the evidence.)  Blood samples, a portion of
     the bones and a tooth of the victim were sent to Dr. Robert
     Kirscher of the International Forensic Program based in
     Chicago.

15.  Emiliano Sumapad, the brother of the disappeared, with the
     support of Editha Sumapad, the wife of the victim, decided
     to file a case in court.  Originally, the plan was to file
     it again in a Philippine court, but later, decided to file
     the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. 
     After a thorough study on the pros and cons of filing the
     case either in the local or international court, the family,
     with the full support of FIND, decided in favor of filing
     the case in the United Nations Human Rights Committee
     because of the family's and the organization's utter
     mistrust on the judicial system in the Philippines.  It is
     hoped that the political motivation behind the case and the
     Philippine government's  responsibility to the case be
     established if the UN Human Rights Committee decides in
     favor of the complainant.  This case is considered as a test
     case of the organization, although it has to be the
     immediate family of the disappeared who will file the case.

16.  As of the moment, the main problem with regards to the case
     is the fact that the witnesses who executed affidavits
     stating the incident are faced with threats from
     perpetrators, particularly from a certain Boy Documento, who
     is the present Chief of Police of the municipality of
     Tukuran.  Boy Documento was the head of the Philippine
     Constabulary during the time when the incident of the
     killing of Jose Sumapad happened.  Thus, because of these
     threats, the witnesses are in hiding.  The family of Jose
     Sumapad and FIND do not have the exact knowledge on the
     whereabouts of the witnesses.  However, a process of
     negotiation with the witnesses' families is being done in
     order to persuade the latter to inform FIND on the
     whereabouts of the witnesses.

17.  A witness protection program is being conceptualized by
     FIND.  A proposal for assistance vis-a-vis the need for
     witness protection was submitted early in 1997 to the Peace
     Brigades International (PBI), whose international office is
     in London.  The process of decision-making is now being done
     by the PBI's International Council.  The decision will be
     informed to FIND at the latest, in June.  But aside from
     this, other forms of witness protection with the use of
     local resources are being seriously contemplated by the
     organization.  Also, a project proposal in this regard be
     written and submitted for the purpose of soliciting
     financial resources which could be used for the case.

18.  FIND is coordinating with Atty. Douglas Cassel, Executive
     Director of the International Human Rights Law Institute of
     the de Paul University in Chicago in the process of
     preparing for and the actual filing of the case to the
     United Nations Human Rights Committee.

LIST OF AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS FOR SUBMISSION TO THE UNHRC

1.   Summary of the case of the disappearance of Jose Sumapad
2.   Joint Affidavit of two witnesses on the disappearance of                   
      Jose Sumapad and on the exact location where the remains were