Ed Lingao | Prepys' Homepage

Now it’s for the love of pork, then it was for a phone call

August 11, 2014August 11, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

By Julius D. Mariveles and Cong B. Corrales

PRESIDENT Benigno S. Aquino III would soon be facing the fourth impeachment complaint against him coming from the Alliance of Concerned Teachers partylist. ACT Rep. Antonio Tinio was quoted to have said that they have strong evidence to prove that Aquino violated the Supreme Court prohibition by perpetuating the Priority Development Assistance Fund, more known as the pork barrel fund.

The first two suits against Aquino were related to the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). The first one was endorsed by Bayan Muna Reps. Carlos Zarate and Neri Colmenares, and Anakpawis Rep. Fernando Hicap, while the second was endorsed by Kabaan party-list Rep. Terry Ridon.

Tinio and Gabriela party-list Rep. Emmi de Jesus filed the third impeachment complaint against Aquino over the Philippine-United States Enhanced Defense Coopertion Agreement (EDCA) that the complainants claimed was a culpable violation of the Constitution and a betrayal of public trust. They said that it violates the ban on the presence of foreign troops and bases and the prohibition on the entry of nuclear weapons sans a treaty concurred in by the Senate.

PRESIDENT AQUINO, right, listens to United States President Barack Obama during Obama’s state visit to the Philippines on April this year | Photo from Presidential Communications Operations Office website

Aquino is not alone in the list of presidents who faced impeachment complaints.

Nine years ago today, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) reported on the impeachment complaints lodged against then President and now Pampanga 2nd District Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo over the controversial “Hello, Garci” tapes ["A mere scrap of paper"].

Arroyo’s legal counsel, Pedro Ferrer had filed a motion to dismiss all the impeachment complaints against the beleaguered President, except for the first one filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano.

In a press conference on August 10, 2005, Ferrer went on the offensive and sought the dismissal of the impeachment complaints on the following grounds:

that they are in violation of the one-year ban for filing an impeachment complaint against the same official;

that the Supreme Court as the presidential electoral tribunal, and not Congress, has no jurisdiction on the matter of electoral fraud; and

that the wiretapped conversations are inadmissible as evidence in court.

HELLO, GARCI? Former President and now Pampanga 2nd District Representative Gloria Macapagal Arroyo | Photo from RTVM

These are the same grounds raised in Arroyo’s reply to the Lozano complaint filed by Ferrer on her behalf on July 18, seven days before Congress opened its second regular session on July 25.

“Its basis is constitutionally and legally untenable,” claimed lawyer Neri Colmenares, then spokesperson of Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL), one of the private complainants in the amended impeachment complaint endorsed by 41 congressmen and party-list representatives. “In the first place, the rules do not allow for the filing of a motion for dismissal.”

Interestingly, Lozano’s reply to Ferrer’s motion maintained that “the very fact that Arroyo answered the complaint means the president is actually admitting to the sufficiency in form and substance, including probable cause, of the the complaint.” In the same press conference, Ferrer had made a mistake in acknowledging that it was former electoral commissioner Virgilio Garcillano whom Arroyo had talked to in the tapes.

Ferrer, however, refused to elaborate after realizing his blunder. “Coupled with the president’s apology and her lawyer’s admission that it was Garcillano with whom the president talked to, the sufficiency in form and substance, including probable cause, has already been established. The impeachment case has to be elevated to the Senate,” Colmenares had said.

The ‘Hello, Garci’ scandal was the basis of the impeachment case filed against Arroyo in 2005. It refers to the recorded conversations between President Arroyo and an official of the Commission on Elections who is believed to be Virgilo Garcillano [See "Virgilio Garcillano: Master Operator"].

The PCIJ also uploaded the audio files on its site ["Downloadables" Section].

However, attempts to impeach Arroyo later that year failed. The following year, another impeachment case was filed against Arroyo but was defeated in the Lower House. Arroyo went on to finish her term as the 14th President of the Philippines.

In case you missed our stories

August 9, 2014August 9, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

THE PCIJ has launched its Storify page where you can have the convenience of browsing the links to our stories last week.

Please click on the photo to be redirected to the Storify page.

FFFJ counsel Quinsayas: About Harry

August 8, 2014August 8, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

WHAT FOLLOWS is the full text of a letter from Atty Prima Quinsayas, legal counsel of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) on a number of issued that had been raised recently by Atty. Harry Roque, her fellow private prosecutor in the Ampatuan Massacre Trial:

“I was informed about Atty. Harry Roque’s reaction to the matter regarding the plan of the Department of Justice (DOJ) panel of prosecutors to rest in evidence-in-chief against some accused, including accused who have petitions for bail and have manifested that they will be presenting rebuttal evidence in support of their bail petitions.

I respect Atty. Roque as a more experienced lawyer. I have made no comment on how he feels he should defend the interest of his 14 or 15 clients in the massacre case. In fact, I personally assisted the late Senior State Prosecutor Leo Dacera III in compiling the necessary documents for the filing of the 57th case for the murder of Victor Nuñez. I even accompanied the DOJ personnel from the Witness Protection Program in filing said case before the Regional Trial Court Branch 221 of Quezon City. Atty. Roque represents the kin of victim Victor Nuñez.

With all due respect to Atty. Roque, the list of 28 accused against whom the DOJ prosecutors plan to rest in evidence-in-chief does not reflect the “First In, First Out” concept. My understanding of the concept is that the accused first put on trial would be the one whose case would first be resolved. But whether it’s First to be Arraigned, or First to File a Petition for Bail, the list does not reflect any of those. (Please see table.)

NO.	NAME OF ACCUSED	DATE/S ARRAIGNED	DATE/S BAIL PETITIONS/MOTIONS WERE FILED
	DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN, JR. ALIAS “UNSAY”	1/5/2010 (for 41 counts); 2/3/2010 (for 15 counts); 7/28/2010 (for the 57th count); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	12/3/2009; 9/9/2010; 6/19/2013
2	P/Chief Insp. SUKARNO A. DICAY	7/28/2010 (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	11/9/2011; 12/16/2013
3	MOACTAR T. DAUD	10/20/2010 (for 57 counts); 10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)	4/3/2011; 2/12/2014
4	ZACARIA P. AKIL (alias QUAGO PAGALAD AKIL/TINTINGAN)	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	no petition for bail
5	MANNY A. AMPATUAN	4/15/2013 (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	no petition for bail
6	MISUARI SINSUAT AMPATUAN	5/4/2011 (for 57 counts); 10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/6/2011; 12/12/2014
7	PO3 GIBRAEL R. ALANO	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/12/2011: 10/24/2013
8	SPO2 BADAWI P. BAKAL	4/7/2011 (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	no petition for bail
9	PO1 MOHAMMAD K. BALADING (alias Midrael Macarongan Balading)	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/20/2011; 8/16/2013
10	PO3 RICKY D. BALANUECO	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/20/2011; 8/16/2013
11	PO1 MICHAEL MACAPEGES MACARONGON/MACORONGON	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/20/2011; 8/16/2013
12	PO1 SAMAD USMAN MAGUINDARA/Maguindra	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/12/2011; 10/24/2013
13	PO1 ABDULBAYAN U. MUNDAS/Bundas	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/12/2011; 10/24/2013
14	PO1 BADJUN IBAD PANEGAS	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/12/2011; 10/24/2013
15	PO1 AMIR SOLAIMAN	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/20/2011; 8/16/2013
16	PO1 DATU JERRY M. UTTO	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/12/2011; 10/24/2013
17	ARMANDO O. AMBALGAN (alias JAMIL BULATUKAN OMAR KAYANSANG)	12/1/2011 (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	11/24/2011; 7/5/2013
18	MOHADES A. AMPATUAN	10/6/2010 (for the 57 counts); 10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)	4/3/2011; 2/12/2014
19	SALIK S. BANGKULAT	- do – (for 57 counts); 10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/19/2011; 2/12/2014
20	MACTON A. BILUNGAN	- do – (for 57 counts); 10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)	4/3/2011; 2/12/2014
21	MAOT M. DUMLA (alias NHOT ABDUL)	- do – (for 57 counts); 10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)	2/12/2014
22	NASER/Nasser S. ESMAIL/Esmael (alias NASRUDIN ESMAEL)	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/6/2011; 7/5/2013
23	EDRES G. KASAN (alias EDRIS GOGO ALIP)	5/23/2012 (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	no petition for bail
24	NASSER TALIB a.k.a MORALES SISAY AMILAN	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	2/12/2014
25	SALIPAD M. TAMPOGAO (aka Tato Sampogao)	5/11/2011 (for 57 counts); 10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)	5/19/2011; 2/12/2014
26	P/Supt. ABUSAMA MUNDAS MAGUID (AL HAJ)	10/24/2012 (for 57 counts); 9/25/2013 (for the 58th count)	no petition for bail
27	THONG E. GUIMANO (alias IBRAHIM KAMAL TATAK)	- do – (for 57 counts); 10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)	2/12/2014
28	RAKIM AMIL (a.k.a. RAMIL KENOG)	- do – (for 57 counts); 5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)	no petition for bail

*based on court records as of May 2014
**based on court records as of July 2014

Thus, based on the list of 28 accused, his reason for supporting the partial resting in evidence-in-chief does not hold.

As for the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for the criminal proceedings of the massacre case, the “First In First Out” as a term does not appear in said guidelines. Instead, the guidelines allow separate trials for the accused if so decided by the trial judge based on her discretion. (Please see December 10, 2013 motuproprio Resolution of the Supreme Court.

Atty. Roque also claimed the conflict is just between Atty. Santos and me and everyone else. I was surprised because I did not know I had a conflict with “everyone else” which I guess includes him. I have no issue with Atty. Roque nor with his associates, whom I find very professional especially Atty. Avisado and Atty. Andres.

As for the other private prosecutors, Attys. Mella, Pastores, Principe and Principe, we have had very few opportunities to talk so it is baseless to claim I have a conflict with them.

That leaves Atty. Ma. Gemma Oquendo, who is both a private prosecutor and a private complainant. Her sister Atty. Cynthia Oquendo-Ayon and her father Catalino Oquendo Jr. were among those killed in the November 23, 2009 massacre. We are good friends and, while she has not said her piece in public, I know she believes it is premature to rest in evidence-in-chief against accused with petitions for bail and who have manifested that they will be presenting rebuttal evidence in support of their bail petitions. These accused are Datus Andal Ampatuan Sr., Andal Ampatuan Jr. and Zaldy Ampatuan, who to date are the only accused seeking bail with written manifestation that they intend to present such rebuttal evidence.

My duty as private prosecutor is simple: protect the interest of the 17 media victims I represent and who are under the assistance of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, and ensure we secure the conviction of those guilty of the Ampatuan, Maguindanao massacre.

I believe it is part of said duty that I oppose the plan to rest in evidence-in-chief against accused who seek bail and have manifested that they will present rebuttal evidence in support of their bail petitions. I am simply making my opposition known. I am not asking the other private prosecutors — I have certainly not asked Atty. Roque — to join me in this opposition.

The burden of proof in a criminal case like murder is always on the prosecution: establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I do not want to take chances without having seen or heard the rebuttal evidence of the accused in support of their petitions for bail. Their defense counsels are not some greenhorn lawyers unschooled in criminal litigation. Should bail be granted, I fear for the lives of the witnesses who testified against these powerful accused. I fear for the well-being of their families as well.

Regardless of what each private prosecutor thinks is the most sound legal strategy in the prosecution of these consolidated cases, I believe we all want convictions. Surely, Atty. Roque has no conflict with me about that.

Ampatuan lawyers’ withdrawal ‘Plan B’ to delay massacre trial?

August 8, 2014August 8, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

By Julius D. Mariveles and Cong B. Corrales

A PRIVATE prosecutor in the almost five-year-old Ampatuan Massacre case has tagged the withdrawal of three defense lawyers as part of the alleged masterminds’ “Plan B” that would further delay the court proceedings.

Lawyer Harry Roque, who represents the families of 13 victims, said that the withdrawal of defense counsels Sigfrid Fortun, Andres Manuel, and Paris Real as lawyers for some of the accused – including alleged masterminds Andal Ampatuan Sr., and his son, Andal Jr. – “is obviously part of a delaying strategy.”

Until yesterday, Fortun was lead counsel for Andal Sr., Andal Jr., and former Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan.

Fortun was one of the lawyers of former President Joseph Estrada during his impeachment trial.

The victims were killed November 23, 2009 in the town of Ampatuan, Maguindanao province in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao, the single deadliest attack against journalists and media workers who comprised 32 of those murdered.

It's "Plan B" for lawyer Harry Roque | Facebook photo courtesty of Harry Roque

It’s “Plan B” for lawyer Harry Roque | Facebook photo courtesy of Harry Roque

“They will do everything to delay since we have already made a formal offer of evidence against Unsay (Andal, Jr.),” Roque told the PCIJ. He called the withdrawal “Plan B,” with “Plan A being the delaying of the formal offer of evidence.”

Roque added that “it is clear now that there is a confluence of interests” but he did not elaborate when asked whom he was referring to. Two other private prosecutors, Nena Santos and Prima Quinsayas, objected last week to the plan of State prosecutors to rest of their case and the evidence-in-chief for 28 of the 111 suspects who have already been arraigned by the court.

“Formal offer of evidence” is required under the Rules of Court in the Philippines. “The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specific,” Section 34 of the Revised Rules of Evidence posted on lawphil.net says.

But Lawyer Prima Quinsayas, another private prosecutor who represents 17 of the families of the victims, said she is not expecting any delay in the proceedings of the bail hearings even if the Ampatuans would change their lawyers.

PRIVATE PROSECUTOR Prima Quinsayas, left, with lawyer Nena Santos at a news conference last week during which they announced their objections to the plan of public state prosecutors to rest the case against 28 suspects in the Ampatuan Massacre case | Photo by Cong. B. Corrales

She pointed out that Andal Sr. and Andal Jr. are supposed to be the first to present their rebuttal evidence and even if their new lawyers would ask for time to review the documents, the court can simply schedule Zaldy to present his rebuttal first.

“It will not necessarily be a delay,” Quinsayas told the PCIJ.

Melinda Quintos de Jesus, executive director of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), however, also believes that the withdrawal of the three defense lawyers of the Ampatuans is evidently a delaying tactic.

The CMFR is the secretariat of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, a coalition of six media organizations formed in 2003 following numerous attacks against Filipino journalists. Among its members are the PCIJ, the Philippine Press Institute, and the Center for Community Journalism and Development.

“This is a move, clearly, to buy time. They want a little more time,” she said. “I am forced to surmise that this (withdrawal of defense lawyers) has something to do with the bribery allegations made.”

NUJP’s Rowena Paraan | Photo by Cong B. Corrales

National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) national chair Rowena Caranza-Paraan raised more questions, however, since she could not understand why the three lawyers submitted their withdrawal of appearance at this point of the bail hearings.

“What’s the point? Bakit sila nag-withdraw sa case (Why did they withdraw from the case?) Is it a delaying tactic,” Paraan asked. She added that it is also confusing since the defense counsels of the Ampatuans are supposed to present their rebuttal of evidence in the bail hearings after the state prosecution panel decided to rest their case on the bail hearings and in the main multiple murder case.

Ampatuan defense counsels Sigrid Fortun, Andres Manuel, and Paris Real submitted their withdrawal of appearance in three separate filings at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221. The defense lawyers did not state their reasons for resigning as legal counsels for the Ampatuans. Their clients, however, signed their withdrawal of appearance.

‘I was conflicted,’ Fortun explains why he quit as Ampatuan counsel

August 8, 2014August 8, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

By Julius D. Mariveles

THE LEAD COUNSEL of several alleged masterminds in the Ampatuan Massacre case said that his withdrawal as one of the defense counsels was caused by what he foresaw as a “potential conflict.”

Lawyer Sigfrid Fortun, however, told the PCIJ that his decision will not in any way delay the proceedings of the case that is nearing its fifth year.

“It is impossible because as we speak there are already new counsels; we will make certain that the transfer of all exhibits and evidence is seamless and we are in fact briefing (the new lawyers) on what to highlight and what to focus on,” he said.

When asked why he decided to withdraw, Fortun said, “I was advised of a situation where one of them would take a position contrary to the position of others and since I represent all of them, I am now conflicted.”

He did not elaborate.

(Watch the 2011 PCIJ interview with Atty. Fortun, excerpt from the documentary “Maguindanao Isang Taon”)

Fortun withdrew as counsel for Zaldy Ampatuan, one of the alleged masterminds of the massacre, last May this year. The Philippine Star reported that the Fortun Narvasa and Salazar law firm to which Fortun belongs filed yesterday a withdrawal of appearance signed by senior partner Gregorio Narvasa II before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221 that is hearing the case.