Partylist solon and impeachment endorser Neri Colmenares said he is open for an investigation amid reports that he earmarked P25 million worth of projects funded by the Disbursement Acceleration Program as he pushed for the conduct of a lifestyle check for all legislators who endorsed projects funded by the controversial fund.
Colmenares, a critic of the DAP, also demanded that Malacañang should publish the full “undoctored” list of projects under DAP for members of Congress as he reiterated his position that the DAP is “wrong” because it allows President Aquino “sole discretion to choose any project for funding.”
“The fact that he funded projects endorsed by prosecutors like me in the Corona trial does not make it right,” the House Senior Deputy Minority Leader said. The Corona trial refers to the impeachment charge filed against former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona who was impeached by the House of Representatives and eventually removed a Senate decision in December 2011.
“Though I am not an implementor because the projects I endorsed were directly funded by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and even if Malacanang admitted in the Senate hearing that not a single centavo passed through legislators I am also open to be investigated,” he added in the statement.
Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, left, says he is open to an investigation as he calls on fellow solons who got DAP-funded projects to submit themselves to a lifestyle check. This photo was taken last year in Bacolod City | Photo by Julius D. Mariveles
He pointed out that had he known that the project he endorsed would be funded by DAP, he would have not nominated it as he added that he had already withdrew in October 14, 2013 his endorsement for a project worth P10 million when he suspected that it may be funded by DAP.
The Bayan Muna solon, however, said that if Malacañang expects that he will back off from his criticism of DAP and the pork barrel system because of this “attack, they’re wrong.”
The PCIJ has found out that those who got the enormously bigger DAP shares are mostly the bailiwicks or hometowns of legislators and local officials who belong to President Benigno S. Aquino III’s Liberal Party (LP) and political parties allied with the LP-led ruling coalition.
And, while the DAP was supposed to speed up of state monies for high-impact projects that have been badly needed by the people, several government agencies admit to pale to poor performance when it comes to implementing DAP projects.
In a number of cases, the “quick-disbursing” projects approved from October 2011 to July 2013 are now locked in delays, had been realigned or covered by continuing appropriation orders from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), or are scheduled for completion by end of 2014 yet.
Dismayed witnesses, confusion over the tasks of lawyers, and questions about the commitment of the government in the prosecution of the case – these and more are some of the concerns raised by at least 44 families of the Ampatuan Massacre victims as the case drags on to its fifth year, the proceedings still stuck in bail hearings.
And Malacañang is not clueless about them. In fact, President Benigno Aquino III was one of the first to have been informed about it by Maguindanao Governor Esmael Mangudadatu as early as February last year.
Mangudadatu, who lost his wife and several relatives in the massacre, sent the letter to Aquino last February 5, 2013 and this was received in behalf of the president by Interior and Local Government Sec. Manuel Roxas III on the same day, lawyer Prima Quinsayas, one of the private prosecutors, said.
The massacre took place in the village of Masalay in Ampatuan town last November 23, 2009 and was the single deadliest attack on journalists and media workers who comprised 32 of the 58 people who were about to deliver the certificate of candidacy of Mangudadatu who ran against the Ampatuans, a powerful clan in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao.
A copy of the letter furnished the PCIJ showed that Mangudadatu, a member of the ruling Liberal Party, was seeking an audience with Aquino regarding the prosecution of the case after Justice Undersecretary Francisco F. Baraan issued a memorandum on February 1, 2013 that private prosecutors will be in charge of preparing the witnesses from the Mindanao.
“Undersigned respectfully seeks an audience with Your Excellency the soonest possible time to discuss highly urgent matters regarding the prosecution of the 23 November 2009 Ampatuan Massacre case,” Mangudadatu said in his letter as he outlined three of these concerns “needing immediate attention.”
Management and post-trial care of witnesses;
Management of prosecution efforts particularly in harmonizing working relations between and among public and private prosecutors’ and
Ascertainment of the depth of government commitment to prosecute the case in terms of compliance to its mandate as representative of the People of the Philippines, including delineation of tasks and responsibilities of all stakeholders.
As early as last year, the president was also informed by Mangudadatu that “public and private prosecutors are in a highly tension-filled working atmosphere as there is confusion as to the delegation of tasks.”
UNTRUSTING WITNESSES
Mangudadatu also informed the Chief Executive that the issue concerning witnesses has “reached a critical level” that it has been difficult for them to testify or be placed under the Witness Protection Security and Benefit Program of the Department of Justice.
“Witnesses have expressed distrust and discontent with the way they perceive the program of the DOJ to have handled them, especially regarding welfare and security of their families and themselves; insensitivity to our cultural and religious sensibilities has also been raised,” he pointed out.
When the letter was sent to the President, then Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan had already filed a petition for bail before the court and “thus, an audience soonest with Your Excellency is of utmost importance,” Mangudadatu said.
Until now, there has been no answer from Malacañang, Quinsayas told the PCIJ.
Mangudadatu, in a news conference Wednesday with some of the families of the victims in Manila, said the president is still supporting them.
‘WE WERE PATIENT’
Quinsayas said she and lawyer Nena Santos, another private prosecutor and lawyer for Mangudadatu, have been “patient” with the government prosecution panel. “We have exhausted all means before going public with our complaints, hindi totoo na nag-ingay kami kaagad (it is not true that we immediately made noise about it),” she said.
The letter of Mangudadatu came after a series of decisions of Justice Undersecretary Francisco A. Baraan III, who supervises the government prosecution panel. Quinsayas said this started January 2013 when public prosecutors failed to arrive in Mindanao to prepare the witnesses.
This was followed by a February 1 letter of Baraan addressed to Santos who was told that the private prosecutors will, starting on that date, be responsible for vetting the witnesses.
Baraan also said in the letter that the government panel has encountered “difficulty in securing the appearance of witnesses to testify in court, on account of the fact that most of these witnesses, including those covered under the (WPP), are in the custody of Gov. Esmael Mangudadatu of Mindanao.”
SEVERAL FAMILIES of victims of the Maguindanao Massacre are demanding the replacement of Justice Undersecretary Francisco Baraan III as head of the Maguindanao prosecution team, saying they have lost confidence in the way Baraan has been handling the case.
The families made the appeal even as they disclosed alleged offers for money by people claiming to represent the Ampatuan clan in exchange for their withdrawal from the Ampatuan massacre case. The offers allegedly range from six million pesos to twenty million, with a more recent offer being made as late as March this year.
At least ten families of victims of the massacre flew from Mindanao to Manila Wednesday morning to decry the Department of Justice’s handling of the case. The ten families are part of a group of 44 families that are protesting the Justice Department’s decision to rest its presentation of evidence against members of the Ampatuan family for the 2009 Maguindanao massacre where 58 people were murdered.
Relatives of victims of the Ampatuan Massacre during a news conference yesterday in Manila, Philippines.
Maguindanao Governor Esmael Mangudadatu, who lost his wife and three other relatives in the massacre, said majority of the families of the victims have lost faith in Baraan, who oversees the prosecution panel, especially after he held at least two private meetings with Atty. Sigfrid Fortun, lead counsel of the Ampatuans. Mangudadatu said the meeting was improper because Baraan is in charge of the panel prosecuting the Ampatuan family for the Maguindanao massacre.
“Ang pagbisita, sana hindi na pinahintulutan ni Undersecretary Baraan,” Mangudadatu said. “May secretary naman siya, he should have said huwag na papuntahin siya dahil ako ang abogado ng mga biktima ng Ampatuan massacre.”
(Undersecretary Baraan should not have allowed that visit. He has a secretary, he could have just said do not let Fortun come here because I am the lawyer of the Ampatuan massacre victims.)
“Maghanap na si (Justice) Secretary Leila de Lima ngmaghahandle ng kasong ito,” Mangudadatu said after a presscon held by the families of the victims. “Kaming mga kliyente niya, kliyente ng gobnerno, at kliyente ng DOJ ay nawalan na ng trust kay Undersecretary Baraan.”
(Justice Sec. Leila de Lima should find someone else to handle this case. We are (Baraan’s) clients, clients of the government, clients of the DOJ, and we have lost trust in Undersecretary Baraan.)
Private prosecutors Nena Santos and Prima Quinsayas revealed the meeting between Baraan and Fortun earlier last week, as they raised the alarm over what they called questionable decisions being made by government prosecutors handling the case. Both Baraan and Fortun have since confirmed the meetings, saying Fortun was just consulting Baraan on a land dispute case his family had in Cavite province.
“Ang laki ng tiwala at respeto namin sa Malacanang at kay Secretary de Lima, pero hindi ko masasabi iyan kay Undersecretary Baraan,” added Atty. Gemma Oquendo, a private prosecutor who lost her father and sister in the massacre.
Oquendo said it was also curious that Fortun could easily get an appointment with Baraan, whereas families of the victims have a hard time setting meetings with him. “Kami hindi pwede, pero si Fortun, pwede.”
(We have a lot of respect for Malacanang and Secretary de Lima, but I cannot say the same for Undersecretary Baraan. We cannot meet with him, but Fortun can meet with him.)
“Nandito kami para magpahayag ng pagtutol sa mga kaganapan sa prosekusyon,” Oquendo said. “Dapat pakinggan ang hinaing ng kanilang mga kliyente.”
(We are here to register our objection to what is happening with the prosecution. They should listen to the cries of their clients.)
Baraan could not be reached as of presstime. His secretary said he was busy in several meetings. Text messages to his mobile phone have been left unanswered.
The families that faced the media Wednesday morning also revealed continuing efforts to entice them to withdraw from the case in exchange for money. In at least one case, people claiming to represent the Ampatuan clan even demanded a commission or a cut from the compromise settlement, they said.
Karen Araneta, widow of DZRH reporter Henry Araneta, said she attended at least five meetings in Mindanao last year where at least ten families of victims were being enticed by people claiming to represent the Ampatuans to sign a compromise deal. Araneta said the families were told by these middlemen to name their price, on the condition that they give a commission to the middlemen.
Araneta said the other condition was for the families to pin the blame for the massacre on Mangudadatu. Araneta said she refused to sign on to the compromise deal, and is not aware if any of the other families have done so.
“Pag bayad, may komisyon raw sila,” Araneta said. “Hindi specific kung magkano (ang settlement), kahit malaki raw, magbigkas lang kami.”
(Once you are paid, you give them a commission. There was no specifics on how much the settlement would be. You just tell them how much you want, even if it is huge.)
Araneta also called on other families of victims to come out in the open and reveal the offers they have gotten. “Kung sino man yung inaalok na nagpapabayad, lumantad din kayo para hindi lang ako magisa ang lumantad,” she said in the press conference. (Whoever else was offered payment, please come out so that I am not alone in disclosing this.)
Atty. Oquendo also furnished reporters copies of a draft affidavit of desistance that she said had been given to some families of the victims to fill out. In the quitclaim, families of the victims are asked to release Andal Ampatuan Sr. and his son Andal Jr. of all criminal and civil liabilities as a result of the Ampatuan massacre. In exchange, the family is to be given six million pesos.
The document Oquendo furnished reporters was filled out, but the names and addresses of the family were blacked out for security reasons. The affidavit of desistance was dated March 2014, or just four months ago. It had not yet been signed and notarized. It was also not clear if the family named in the document eventually accepted the settlement.
A COPY of the affidavit of desistance presented to reporters yesterday. Family members who agree to the offer of settlements will be made to sign this document that will absolve two of the principal suspects in the murder case.
“For and in consideration of the full settlement, all of which are acknowledged to our complete satisfaction, and in grateful appreciation thereof, we, together with the imemdiately (sic) members of our family, do hereby release and forever discharge all the accused, particularly Datu Andal Ampatuan Sr. and Datu Andal Unsay Ampatuan Jr. in criminal case nos. Q-09-162148 to 162172, Q-09-162216 to 162231, Q-10-162652 to 162666 and Q-10-163766,” the affidavit states.
Interestingly, the affidavit of desistance refers to the Maguindanao massacre only as an accident. The document further states that the affidavit is not to be construed as an admission of guilt or liability.
“This affidavit of desistance and release shall be pleaded as a bar to any suit or proceedings which may be taken or have taken in connection with the aforementioned accident, and the payment for compromise moreover, is not, and shall never be construed as an admission of liability but merely a final compromise ,” the affidavit states.
Ampatuan lead lawyer Sigfrid Fortun for his part denied knowledge of any compromise deal from the side of the Ampautan family. Fortun said he is only one of several lawyers hired by the clan, and that he was not aware of any offers being made by other lawyers.
“The Ampatuans have many lawyers. I am but one of them,” Fortun said in a text message. “What they or their other relatives are doing in Maguidnanao is mostly their own without prior consultation or by-your-leave from me. Sorry I have no info about that.”
It is not clear to the families of the 58 massacre victims if any of them have accepted a compromise deal or signed any affidavit of desistance. Some of the relatives of the victims however say that they would never consider a compromise settlement.
“Kahit isang sakong pera pa ang ibagsak sa harap ko, hindi ko talaga tatanggapin iyon (Even if they drop a sack of money in front of me, I would never accept it),” said Mary Grace Morales, who lost a husband and a sister in the massacre.
Supreme Court most trusted, more distrust for House and Senate
By Julius D. Mariveles
THE SUPREME COURT, the Senate, and the House of Representatives have all failed to score majority approval and trust ratings, according to the results of the latest “Ulat ng Bayan” of Pulse Asia Research, a creditable national pollster.
This is the unfortunate result of a nationwide survey on the performance and trust ratings of key government institutions that Pulse Asia conducted from June 24 to July 2, 2014, among a sample of 1,200 representative adults 18 years old and above.
The Supreme Court got a 49 percent performance rating, or higher than the scores of the Senate and House of Representatives of 33 percent and 34 percent, respectively.
The High Court was also the most trusted, with a 42 percent approval rating. In contrast, the House of Representatives was the least trusted with 29 percent, while the Senate got 31 percent.
The nationwide survey, the results of which were released this August, had a margin of error of plus or minus three percent and a confidence level of 95 percent, Pulse Asia said in a news release.
It added that the subnational estimates for each of the geographic areas have a plus or minus six percent margin of error, also at 95 percent confidence level.
The same survey showed that disapproval and distrust are “more pronounced” for the House and the Senate.
In the disapproval ratings, the high court got 13 percent compared to the House’s 21 percent and the Senate’s 23 percent.
The Senate got the highest distrust level at 20 percent compared to the House’s 19 percent and the Supreme Court’s 10 percent (Please see Tables 1 to 2).
Pulse Asia also noted that while the assessment of the Supreme Court’s work and trustworthiness remained unchanged between two survey periods – March 14 and June 14 – the two chambers of Congress “experienced significant changes in their respective ratings – at the national level and across selected survey sub-groupings.”
Between March and June 2014, the Senate experienced a significant drop in its national approval score with minus eight percentage points and an increase in its overall disapproval rating of plus nine percentage points.
There was also a noted decline in the level of appreciation for the Senate’s work in Metro Manila by minus 14 percentage points, in Mindanao by minus 15 percentage points, and in Classes ABC and D by minus nine to minus 19 percentage points (Please see Table 3).
DECLINE IN THE FACE OF PDAF SCAM
Trust ratings in the Senate and the House of Representatives also dropped amidst the controversy over the Priority Development Assistance (PDAF) or pork barrel scam.
The Senate’s ratings dropped by minus 14 percentage points in the Visayas, minus 15 in Mindanao, minus 18 in Metro Manila, and minus 15 to 18 percentage points in Classes ABC and E. Meanwhile, the Lower House’s trust ratings dropped by minus 15 percentage points in Class E and minus 16 percentage points in Metro Manila.
Pulse Asia pointed out that fewer Filipinos expressed trust in the Senate and House of Representatives in June 2014 than six months ago while the distrust in the Supreme Court eased between December 2013 and June 2014 (Please see Table 4).
Among the issues according to Pulse Asia that “preoccupied” Filipinos before and during the conduct of the field interviews for the survey were the following:
The filing of charges of plunder and violation and anti-graft laws against some senators and the indictment of Janet Lim Napoles and some members of the legislative staffs of Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla. The surrenders of Revilla and Estrada following the issuance of arrest warrants against them; and the “not guilty” pleas entered by the Sandiganbayan in their behalf;
The Office of the Ombudsman’s denial of the petition for immunity of Napoles and several other government officials;
The petition of the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan for the creation of two special courts to handle cases related to the pork barrel scam;
The decision issued by the Supreme Court declaring several acts under the Disbursement Acceleration Program as unconstitutional;
The statement of support for President Aquino made by House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. and other pro-administration lawmakers in response to calls for the President’s impeachment and the resignation of Budget Sec. Florencio Abad coming from some opposition lawmakers and militant groups;
The creation by the Office of the Ombudsman of a panel that will investigate the realignments in the national budget made by the administration under the DAP;
The Sandiganbayan’s order to suspend former President and incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for 90 days in connection with her alleged involvement in the NBN-ZTE deal;
The continued tension between the Philippines and China over the disputed territories in the West Philippine Sea;
The President’s call for the Philippine National Police to swiftly resolve crime incidents after the recent series of killings involving several high-profile individuals;
The confirmation of the appointments of Justice Sec. Leila De Lima, Social Welfare Sec. Corazon J. Soliman, and Environment Sec. Ramon J.P. Paje after being in office for four years;
The celebration of the 116th Philippine Independence Day on June 12 with President Aquino leading the rites in Naga City;
The controversial decision of President Aquino to reject the nomination of Nora Aunor as National Artist for Film;
The continued failure of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs to meet their collection targets for the month of May 2014;
The decline in power rates charged by the Manila Electric Company in June 2014;
The increase in oil prices due to the continued crisis in Iraq;
The hike in the prices of rice, garlic, and sugar reportedly due to lower supply levels; and
The DBM’s budget proposal totaling P2.06 trillion for the year 2015.
Members of the prosecution panel in the Ampatuan Massacre case might seek the disbarment of one of the private prosecutors after she said that some of them are selling off the case.
“They feel alluded to, they might seek her disbarment,” Justice Undersecretary Francisco Baraan III told PCIJ a day after private prosecutor Nena Santos said over national television that she knew some prosecutors who are receiving bribes.
“That was a very irresponsible statement and uncalled for; I am pleading with her now to produce evidence so we can clean up the panel,” Baraan said.
Santos, however, was unfazed by the threat.
“Let them file it; I will just answer it and I would show the evidence of bribery. I am asking those who have not received money not to take part in the filing; I know who they are, anyway,” Santos said in a text message in Filipino sent to the PCIJ when she was sought out for comment.
Baraan was ordered by Justice Sec. Leila De Lima to answer the allegations against the members of the panel after Santos and another private prosecutor, lawyer Prima Quinsayas, said that the government should not yet rest its case against 28 of the accused.
Heading the panel is Prosecutor Archimedes V. Manabat while the members are Ma. Emilia L. Victorio, Amor L. Robles, Olivia L. Torrevillas, Susan T. Villanueva, Tofel G. Austria, Clarisa V. Kuong, Arthur S. Velasco, Philger Noel B. Innovejas, Arthur S. Velasco, Philger Noel B. Innovejas, Cesar Angelo A. Chavez III, and Benjamin R. Samson.
NORMA MERISCO, mother to a murdered son, weeps as she nears the gravesite where her son, Rey, was buried along with the other victims last November 23, 2009. This photo was taken during the first year commemoration last November 23, 2010 | Photo by Julius D. Mariveles
Baraan said he also found it strange that Santos does not want to name names and produce evidence about the alleged bribery involving members of the panel. “If she really wants the prosecution to succeed then why is she not naming names and showing us the proof so I can do something about it,” he said.
The justice undersecretary supervises the prosecution panel.
“(Lawyer) Harry Roque is correct, there is no rift, if ever there is it’s like what he said: it’s just between Attorneys Quinsaya and Santos and everyone else,” he added.
He also pointed out that he was in fact supposed to sign a letter yesterday granting them a two-week extension to submit the documents requested by the panel.
As for the visit of Ampatuan counsel Sigfrid Fortun to his office, Baraan said the two are “making a mountain of a molehill” and insisted that the “surprise visit” of Fortun was not related to the Ampatuan Massacre case. “I am emotional right now,” Baraan said during the PCIJ interview, “because they are insinuating that I did something wrong in full public view and in my office.”
“Why should I tell them? Do they mean to tell them that I should immediately call them up and tell them ‘Hey, Nena, Atty. Fortun’ came; is that what she really wants?” he added.
Baraan added that they are not jeopardizing the case as he pointed out that the private prosecutors are representing their respective clients on the civil aspect of the case while the public prosecutors are concerned with the criminal aspect of the trial.
“Why should we blow things up? I believe in the quality of evidence that the government prosecution panel has submitted for this case.”
“They don’t have the monopoly of good intentions, we are also thinking about what to do so the case will prosper,” he added.
