TODAY, 57 months after the Ampatuan Massacre, justice has yet to be had for 58 people who were murdered on a hilltop in the village of Masalay in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao province.
Exactly 57 months ago today, armed men believed to be under orders from some members of the Ampatuan family, brutally killed the victims who were on their way to deliver the certificate of candidacy of Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu who challenged the Ampatuans for the governorship of Maguindanao province.
Thirty-two of the victims were journalists and media workers.
The multiple murder cases against more than 100 accused – including some members of the Ampatuan clan that were identified as the alleged masterminds – have dragged on for years. Lately, private prosecutors made public their disagreement with the decision of public prosecutors to rest the case against 28 of the co-accused. Some families of the victims have also confirmed attempts by the Ampatuan family to pay them millions of pesos in exchange for withdrawing from the case.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has called the Ampatuan Massacre as the single deadliest attack against journalists. The International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) has declared November 23 as the International Day to End Impunity – a day that IFEX has dedicated not only to the victims of the massacre but all those who have been targeted for “exercising their right to freedom of expression, and to shed light on the issue of impunity.”
PCIJ’s Julius D. Mariveles and Cong B. Corrales read their poems in this slideshow of photos taken by Mariveles in 2010 at the massacre site during the first year commemoration.
Mariveles’ poem written in Hiligaynon is titled “Lima Ka Napulo kag Walo,” 58 in the local language, and talks about the slow grind of the wheels of justice. Corrales’ “Ang Pinakamadilim na Tanghali” or “The Darkest Noon describes the Ampatuan Massacre.
Today, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines is leading the commemoration rites at the NCCP Grounds, Quezon Avenue, EDSA. Those who want to attend are requested to wear black.
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)
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.
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 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 silanag-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.
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.
The firm represents two other principal accused, Andal Ampatuan Sr. and his son, Andal Jr.
Fifty-eight people were killed, 32 of them journalists and media workers, on November 23, 2009 in the town of Ampatuan, Maguindanao province in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao. The victims were part of a convoy about to deliver the certificate of a candidacy of then candidate for governor Esmael Mangudadatu.
The incident is now considered the single deadliest attack on journalists.
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.
