Category: In the News

One person displaced in Mindanao every 20 seconds – HR group

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

EVERY TWENTY SECONDS, a person is displaced or forced to leave his home somewhere in Mindanao.

For the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the figure is smaller, though not necessarily less alarming – around one displaced person every two minutes.

This is according to the Bangsamoro Human Rights Network, a network of over 40 agencies and individuals that have banded together to address the human rights situation in Mindanao. The BHRN was formed by the Regional Human Rights Commission, and is composed of civil society organizations, international agencies, and government agencies.

Statistics culled by the network in the last one year and a half since the network began collating data on forcible displacement paint an alarming picture of tragedy, wastage, and alienation. If anything, the data gathered by the group shows just how difficult it is for Mindanaoans to live normal progressive lives when the possibility of forced displacement hangs constantly over the heads of many communities.

Consider these numbers from the last year and a half:

  • 4,688 persons are forcibly displaced every day in Mindanao, or an average of a person every 20 seconds
  • Over 2.5 million persons were displaced across Mindanao since January 2012. Of these, 35 percent are still displaced until today
  • P9.2 billion in estimated direct income lost by communities that were forcibly displaced (assuming 20 percent of the population earned a daily wage of P 255)
  • 63 million – cumulative number of school days lost by children who were forcibly displaced in Mindanao.

For the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the following figures were recorded:

  • 27 persons per hour were displaced in the ARMM since January 2012, or 647 persons per day
  • P258.5 million in estimated direct income lost because of forcible displacement.
  • 1.9 million in cumulative schooldays lost by children who were displaced.

Interestingly, the primary reason for the greatest displacement of Mindanaoans is not the conflict between the government and the Moro rebels, or the government and the New People’s Army, or not even the rampant ridos or blood feuds that afflict the region.

The network reports that the greatest number of displaced people was caused by natural disasters, in the form of floods and storms that ravaged the island in the last two years.

Also, while armed conflict is the second biggest reason for displacements of people in Mindanao, most of the displacements were caused by fighting between the government and the communist rebels in the eastern part of the island. “The conflict between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, contrary to popular belief, has not caused significant displacement during this period,” the network reported. “In other words, forced displacment is largely caused for reasons not address in the Framework Agreement for the Bangsamoro but the cases of displacement will have a significant impact on its implementation.”

The third biggest cause of displacement in Mindanao is because of the ridos or blood feuds between and within the powerful and influential clans in Mindanao.

The most number of people affected by multiple displacements in Mindanao are from Region XI, or the Davao region, with 115,433 cases, followed by the ARMM with 54,745.

For the ARMM itself, the network says the highest number of people affected by displacements are in Maguindanao with 265,898 people, followed by Lanao Sur with 67,144 people, and Basilan with 20,248. Again, as in the whole of Mindanao, the primary cause of displacement was natural disasters affecting 199,979 people, followed by armed conflict affecting 70,989 people.

The Bangsamoro Human Rights Network and the Regional Human Rights Commission started collating data on internal displacements in January 2012 in order to paint a bigger and broader picture of the continued plight of the bakwits, or people forced to evacuate their homes for various reasons.

Media groups ‘disturbed’ by delays in Ampatuan trial

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS expressed dismay and distress over another ruling by the Quezon City court trying the Maguindanao Massacre case that they say would further delay the trial.

The Quezon City Regional Trail Court Branch 22 under Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes had deferred for the third time the arraignment of two more principal accused in the Maguindanao Massacre, after defense lawyers argued that they have pending petitions with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

Sajid Islam and Akmad “Tato” Ampatuan are charged with 58 counts of murder for the deaths of members of a party of Esmael Mangudadatu that was on the way to the provincial capitol to file his election papers in 2009. Sajid Islam is the son of Ampatuan patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr., while Akmad “Tato” is the son-in-law of Andal Sr.

The two were supposed to have been arraigned on June 26, but the arraignment was deferred to July 3. The court later reset the arraignment to August 7.

The Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, a network of media organizations working for the protection of Filipino journalists, released a statement expressing dismay over the court deferment.

The group says the court has issued several other rulings that have further delayed the trial. This, the group says, is a clear indication that the court does not appreciate the importance of the trial.

“We are distrubed by the trial court’s decision, as we have been distressed by its and other courts’ past rulings that have delayed the trial,” the group said in a statement released to the media. “They are indications that the judicial system has not fully appreciated the significance of the massacre trial to the press, to democracy, and to the rest of the Filipino people.”

“It is part of a pattern that since 2010 has delayed the trial and is threatening to prolong it beyond the bounds of human endurance,” the group said.

For example, the group pointed out that former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao governor Zaldy Ampatuan was only arraigned in December 2012, or three years after he was ordered arrested. “As in the case of his other accused kin, the delay was due to the argument that he had pending petitions before the CA and the SC.”

“Of the eight members of the Ampatuan clan among the principal accused, only four have been arraigned,” the group added. “No date has been set for the arraignment of Anwar Jr. and Anwar Sajid, the grandsons of Andal Ampatuan Sr.”

FFFJ: ONE MORE DELAY IN A LONG LIST OF DELAYS

The deferment of the arraignment of two of the principal accused in the November 23, 2009 Ampatuan town massacre adds to the already long list of delays in the judicial process that for four years have thrown one obstacle after another in the path of credibly concluding the trial of those accused. Justice for the victims is the only sign that would demonstrate to the killers of journalists and other citizens of this country that they cannot keep killing with impunity.

Sajid Islam and Akmad “Tato” of the Ampatuan clan are charged with 58 counts of murder. Sajid Islam is the son of Ampatuan patriarch Andal Sr. and was the Officer-in-Charge of the province of Maguindanao at the time of the massacre. Akmad “Tato” is the son-in-law of Andal Sr., who is also among the principal accused.

Sajid Islam and Akmad “Tato” were originally scheduled for arraignment on June 26, 2013. This was moved to July 3, 2013 when their defense counsel filed a motion seeking the deferment of their arraignment until their separate petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC) are resolved.

On July 2, 2013, the trial court denied the motion on the ground that the pendency of such petitions before the higher courts is not a ground for deferring arraignment.

Despite its own written order denying the motion, the trial court nevertheless granted the oral motion of the defense counsel of the two accused to have their arraignment postponed for another month. Their arraignment has been reset to August 7, 2013.

The defense counsel of Sajid Islam and Akmad “Tato” argued that for the two to be arraigned despite the pendency of their CA and SC petitions would violate their right to due process. He also claimed that the postponement will not damage or injure the People of the Philippines, the plaintiff in the 58 consolidated murder cases.

Sajid Islam and Akmad “Tato” were arrested early December 2009 right after then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo placed Maguindanao under Martial Law. They were indicted on February 2010 for 56 counts of murder. On May 2010, they were also indicted in the 57th murder case, that involving the killing of Victor Nunez, and on June 2012 in the 58th case for the murder of Reynaldo Momay.

Like their fellow accused, both have availed of every possible legal remedy allowed under the law and the Rules of Court. They have repeatedly cited the pendency of their various petitions, motions and appeals to delay their arraignment.

Arraignment marks the completion of a court's jurisdiction over the accused, and is an important stage in the criminal proceedings. It is that part of the judicial process in which charges are read to the accused followed by his plea of guilty or not guilty. The arraignment of the accused would finally, after nearly four years, begin the equally tedious and lengthy process of presenting evidence to establish guilt.

The deferment—for the third time—of the arraignment of Sajid Islam and Akmad “Tato” will continue to delay the trial, despite the urgency of concluding it not only for the sake of justice for the families of the 58 murdered victims, but also for the People of the Philippines, for the press, and for the democracy that supposedly reigns in this land.

It is part of a pattern that since 2010 has delayed the trial and is threatening to prolong it beyond the bounds of human endurance.

Zaldy Ampatuan, for example, was arraigned only in December 2012, three years after his arrest. As in the case of his other accused kin, the delay was due to the argument that he had pending petitions before the CA and the SC.

Of the eight members of the Ampatuan clan among the principal accused, only four have been arraigned. No date has been set for the arraignment of Anwar Jr. and Anwar Sajid, the grandsons of Andal Ampatuan Sr.

Members of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, a network of press freedom advocates, have long argued that the credible conclusion of the Ampatuan Massacre trial is crucial to the dismantling of the culture of impunity, and the pattern of violence in that culture that makes victims not only of journalists, but of other citizens.

For that to happen, everyone involved, most particularly the presiding judge, the prosecution, and the rest of the judicial system, must be focused on concluding the trial before long, as justice demands.

We are disturbed by the trial court’s decision, as we have been distressed by its and other courts’ past rulings that have delayed the trial. They are indications that the judicial system has not fully appreciated the significance of the massacre trial to the press, to democracy, and to the rest of the Filipino people.

SIGNATORIES:

Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists:
Center for Community Journalism and Development
Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility
Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
Philippine Press Institute

Expense reports of 5 new senators, PNoy’s LP, NPC still bad, defective

mcmangahas Leave a comment

IF RULES on campaign finance will be followed, only five winning senatorial candidates will be allowed to assume office on June 30, 2013. That is, until the rest of the candidates and their nominating parties submit a complete Statement of Election Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) by June 29, 2013.

The question is: Should the seven other new senators who have yet, together with the political parties that nominated them, to fully comply with their obligation in law to file true and complete SOCEs be allowed to assume office?

As of June 25, seven winning candidates for senator had actually “fully complied” with the SOCE requirements: Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Francis Joseph ‘Chiz’ G. Escudero, Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares, Cynthia A. Villar, Paolo Benigno ‘Bam’ A. Aquino IV, Gregorio ‘Gringo’ B. Honasan II, and Loren Regina ‘Loren’ B. Legarda.

The Campaign Finance Unit (CFU) of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), however, recommends that Aquino and Legarda not be allowed to assume office until their respective nominating parties, the Liberal Party (LP) led by President Aquino and the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), submit supporting information and documents.

Too, it was only today, June 27, that the opposition United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) led by Vice President Jejomar Binay finally submitted receipts and other documents to correct its SOCE deficiencies.

Republic Act No. 7166 (Synchronized Elections Law) requires every candidate and political party to submit a “full, true and itemized” SOCE within 30 days after Election Day. Failure to do so prohibits a winning candidate from entering office until he/she has filed such statement.

The legal prohibition from assuming office also applies to a winning candidate if the political party that nominated him/her fails to file its SOCE.

The Comelec Law Department and CFU will issue a Certificate of Compliance to candidates, parties, and party-list groups that submitted “complete and compliant campaign finance disclosure reports and statements.” This certificate is required before a candidate is allowed to take oath of office.

Candidates and parties were required to submit the SOCE until June 13, 2013. Comelec, however, gave candidates and parties a grace period lasting until June 29 to fully comply with SOCE requirements.

The grace period was given to encourage candidates and parties to file and complete their submissions. But a running fine of P1,000 per day was to be applied for those found in non-compliance.

Read out full report in www.pcij.org

The ‘air war’ for votes in May 2013: Bets, parties spent P2.2B on TV ads

mcmangahas Leave a comment

ELECTIONS in the Philippines, especially for candidates to national office, are considered to be primarily “air war” affairs.

This was, in fact, what happened again in the May 2013 elections, which saw most of the moneyed candidates for senator, and the administration and opposition political coalitions, splurging on political advertisements like there was no tomorrow.

Our latest report. “The ‘air war’ for votes in May 2013″, is authored by PCIJ Training Director Che de los Reyes.

According to Nielsen data that PCIJ reviewed, the candidates for senator, the political parties, and some party-list groups waged pitched ad battles on television during the last balloting, and at the cost of stupendous sums.

TV ads seemed to have worked wonders for the victors. There were a few others, however, who spent big but lost big, too.

During the 90-day official campaign period, the 12 winning candidates for senator and their political coalitions — administration Team PNoy and the opposition United Nationalist Alliance or UNA — altogether spent an indicative total of P1.18 billion on TV ads alone.

Five other candidates for senator who lost incurred another P466.58 million in TV ad expenses during the period.

Team PNoy and UNA, meanwhile, spent a combined total of P154.32 million on TV ads that featured their candidates.

But that is not the end of the story.

Even before the official campaign period could start, Nielsen data show that the two coalitions and 14 candidates for senator had aired “advocacy ads” from Nov. 11, 2012 to Feb. 11, 2013. Altogether, these ads amounted to another P424.87 million.

Combined, the sums show that the composite spending on TV ads alone of the two coalitions and their senatorial candidates totaled P2.23 billion in six months (November 11, 2012 to May 11, 2013), or an average of P371.11 million a month, or P12.37 million a day

And wait, there’s more.

Nine senatorial candidates and one party-list group would have breached the airtime limit for political ads on TV had it not been for a crucial order from the Supreme Court regarding a new rule being imposed by the Commission on Elections (Comelec). One of those nine candidates would have also surpassed the campaign-spending limit.

Seven of the nine actually won, while the party-list group, Buhay, eventually garnered the most number of votes among party-list groups and is poised to occupy three seats in Congress.

Last April 16, less than a month before the elections, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the “aggregate time limit” rule imposed by Comelec.

The TRO effectively reverted the counting of advertising minutes to the “per station” basis, just like in the May 2010 presidential polls.

Read our latest report, The ‘air war’ for votes in May 2013:

Main: Without SC TRO, 9 Senate bets, Buhay liable for breaching TV ads airtime limit
Sidebar: Serious, furious
Sidebar: Pre-campaign ad blast

Withdraw online licensing policy, media groups urge Singapore

mcmangahas Leave a comment

FOUR independent media organizations in Asia on Friday urged the government of Singapore to withdraw its newly issued “draconian” licensing policy for online news websites, citing measure’s “potential to curtail the rights to the freedom of expression and information online.”

In a joint statement, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), the Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM), and the Think Centre called the new policy “highly regrettable” in light of already “strict controls” that to this day govern the traditional media in Singapore.

The statement was issued simultaneously from Bangkok, Thailand; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; and Singapore, where the four regional media groups are located.

The licensing regime for online news sites was introduced by the Media Development Authority (MDA), an agency under the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) that regulates all types of media in Singapore.

“It is highly regrettable that the authorities have chosen to tighten its grip on online space in a country where traditional media outlets have been subjected to strict controls like the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and consistently perform poorly in press freedom rankings,” the statement said.

“We question the necessity or merits of the licensing framework at this juncture, especially since the MDA has stated that there are no expected changes to the content standards governing websites,” the groups added.

“We also deplore the seeming haste and secrecy at which the regulations came into force in the absence of any public consultations or debate in Parliament.”

The licensing framework that took effect June 1, 2013 covers news websites that publish one article that reports on Singapore news every week and that draw 50000 unique visitors every month.

The MDA made an announcement about the new policy on May 28, 2013, and the regulation came into force three days later.

The policy requires the covered online news sites to secure “individual licenses, including posting (and forfeiture) of monetary bonds and an annual review of licenses.”

The media groups averred that, “under the new regime, operators of news sites which defy the authorities’ order to apply for a license could face a fine of up to SGD200,000 or a maximum jail term of three years or both.”

While the MDA has clarified that personal blogs are currently exempted from the licensing conditions, the groups lamented that the policy “does not safeguard against the thinly veiled threat” that “if they take on the nature of news sites, we will take a closer look and evaluate them accordingly”.

“The requirement of a SGD50,000 performance bond could still mean that independent websites such as citizen and community-run platforms are compelled to cease operations due to the inability to raise funds,” the statement noted.

The policy also imposes a 24-hour takedown rule for “objectionable”
content on websites, which also applies even to comments made by readers. This, the startement said, “gives the MDA censorship powers over licensed websites.”

In addition, the media groups stated, “we are further alarmed that liability for sanctions extend to similar content carried in mirrors or other websites.”

“Worryingly, there is a conspicuous absence of any mention of oversight or recourse mechanisms against any abuse of the law. Such unfettered discretionary powers grant the authorities broad latitude to suppress free speech online on the vague grounds of public interest, morality, order and security, among others,” the statement said.

According to the media groups, the regulatory measures “undoubtedly create a chilling effect and have the potential to shrink the democratizing potential of popular online platforms Singapore.”

Such attempts are not unprecedented in Singapore, the media groups said.

In 2011, the government gazetted socio-political commentary website The Online Citizen as a “political association”.

This year, bloggers and website owners have variously been threatened with defamation suits, served with takedown notices and made to issue public apologies, the groups reported.

The Minister of Communication has also stated that the Broadcasting Act would be amended next year to include overseas news websites reporting on Singapore as well.

“We would like to assert that the media in general should be kept free from state control, and that self-regulation by the media should be the starting point of any official policy, in order to fully realize the right to freedom of expression and opinion,” the statement added.

“We remind the Singapore government that keeping the internet free is crucial to promoting and protecting the right to the freedom of expression and opinion, which, under international human rights law, includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The media groups called on the government of Singapore to “withdraw the draconian licensing framework for online news sites,” adding that “any mechanism to address alleged objectionable online content must be dealt with on a case-case-to case basis, through a fair and transparent process with judicial oversight instead of extending the discretionary powers of executive or quasi-government bodies.”

Singapore is ranked 153 (Not Free) in Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press 2013 report and 149th out of 179 countries in the 2013 Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders.