Category: Journalist Killings

‘Uncovering Asia’ will gather top investigative journalists in Manila

mcmangahas Leave a comment

Mark your calendars!

Uncovering Asia: The 1st Asian Investigative Journalism Conference, a breakthrough event, will be held in Manila on Nov. 22-24, 2014.

The conference will bring together top investigative reporters, data journalists, and media law and security experts from across Asia and around the world.

It will mark as well two other important occasions: a special reception honoring the 25th anniversary of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, one of the world’s pioneering nonprofit media centers; and the UN-designated International Day to End Impunity on November 23.

Award-winning journalists and experts on data analysis and visualization, business investigations, corruption, crime, and cross-border collaboration will conduct workshops, including:

* Advanced online search techniques by Internet sleuth Paul Myers of the BBC.

* Tracking business across borders with Investigative Dashboard by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

* Uncovering hidden assets with the Offshore Leaks Database of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Among the speakers are:

* Mar Cabra, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

* Ying Chan, University of Hong Kong Media Studies Centre

* Umar Cheema, The News/Center for Investigative Reporting Pakistan

* Reg Chua, Thomson Reuters

* Sheila Coronel, Columbia University School of Journalism

* Kunda Dixit, Nepal Center for Investigative Journalism

* Govindraj Ethiraj, IndiaSpend

* David Kaplan, Global Investigative Journalism Network

* Malou Mangahas, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

* Nils Mulvad, Investigative Reporting Denmark

* Paul Myers, BBC

* Syed Nazakat, The Week, India

* Peter Noorlander, Media Legal Defence Initiative

* Paul Radu, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project

* Giannina Segnini, Columbia University

* Drew Sullivan, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project

* Yoichiro Tateiwa, NHK, Japan

Uncovering Asia is hosted by the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN), the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, with additional support from the Open Society Foundations.

GIJN is composed of nonprofit investigative journalism organizations that produce stories, conduct training, provide resources, and encourage the creation of similar nonprofit groups.

PCIJ is a founding member of GIJN.

GIJN was created in 2003 when more than 300 journalists from around the world gathered for the second Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Since then it has grown to more than 100 member organizations in 45 countries.

Curious decisions, dire implications?

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

By Julius D. Mariveles

Lawyers Nena Santos and Prima Quinsayas are at a loss to describe the decisions made by State prosecutors related to the five-year-old Ampatuan Massacre case. For now, Santos can only use the word “lumilihis (veering off track)” while Quinsayas can only say “I do not understand.”

They do agree that the decisions appear curious. At least for now.

These decisions appear to be “circumstantial” in legal speak but provide nevertheless a chain of events that suggests that there could be “something wrong” with the way the government prosecutors are handling the November 23, 2009 massacre in the town of Ampatuan, Maguindanao province in southern Philippines where 58 people were killed, 32 of them of journalists and media workers.

Santos and Quinsayas are among the private prosecutors in the Ampatuan trial, representing between them 44 families of the massacre victims. They are “directly under the control and supervision” of state prosecutors, which means that they can assist in prosecuting the case against the accused only if they get the approval of the chief state prosecutor.

Since the hearings began in January 5, 2010, Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes has yet to resolve the petition for bail filed by several of the accused. Since the murders, only 101 of out of the 197 accused for the murders have been arrested by authorities.

But these curious decisions could have dire implications in the prosecution of the criminal cases filed against the suspected masterminds – six of them part of the Ampatuan clan, a powerful and influential family in Maguindanao province. During the 2013 elections, 88 candidates running for various positions were surnamed Ampatuan.

Ric Cachuela, chair of an association of families of the Ampatuan Massacre victims, during a news conference in General Santos City on the first year commemoration of the incident | Photo by Julius D. Mariveles

Ric Cachuela, chair of an association of families of the Ampatuan Massacre victims, during a news conference in General Santos City on the first year commemoration of the incident | Photo by Julius D. Mariveles

Recently, Santos and Quinsayas decried the plan of the government prosecution panel to rest its case and terminate its presentation of evidence-in-chief against 28 of the accused. They said that the move could practically close the door for the presentation of more evidence against the 28, among them Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr., Manny Ampauan, Misuari Ampatuan, and former Maguindanao provincial police chief, Chief Insp. Sukarno Dicay.

In simple terms, Quinsayas told PCIJ, this means that new evidence could no longer be submitted by the prosecutors against the 28 accused and this is crucial because the prosecution would have to prove that there was conspiracy among the accused.

“The act of one was the act of many and we have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt,” she said.

The government prosecution panel headed by Archimedes V. Manabat had already filed a manifestation before Judge Reyes seeking to rest its case against the following accused:

  1. Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan, Jr.
 15. PO1 Amir Solaiman
  1. Chief Insp. Sukarno Dikay
 16. PO1 Datu Jerry Utto
  1. Moktar Daud
 17. Armando Ambalgan
  1. Zakaria Akil alias Quago Akil
 18. Mohades Ampatuan
  1. Manny Ampatuan
 19. Salik Bangkulat
  1. Misuari Ampatuan
 20. Macton Bilungan
  1. PO3 Gibrael Alano
 21. Maot Dumla
  1. SPO2 Badawi Bakal
 22. Nasser Esmael alias Nassrudin Esmael
  1. Mohamad Balading
 23. Edres Kasan
  1. PO3 Ricky Balanueco
 24. Nasser Talib
  1. PO1 Micahel Macarongon
 25. Salipad Tampogao
  1. SPO1 Samad Maguindara
 26. Supt. Abusama Mundas Maguid
  1. PO1 Abuldbayan Mundas
 27. Ibraham Kamal Tatak@Thong Guiamano
  1. PO1 Badjun Panegas
 28. Rakin Kenog alias Rakim Amil

The prosecutors, in their manifestation filed before the court, said that they have been “time and again…unfairly accused of delaying the proceedings…” as they pointed out that they have “no more witnesses to present against all 104 accused” except for those who are covered by motions pending before the Court of Appeals and before Reyes’ sala.

Aside from the resting of the case, Quinsayas and Santos also told PCIJ that among the curious decisions of the government prosecutors who have practically stopped consulting them are the following:

INCIDENT: The withdrawal of the motion to discharge Bong Andal, operator of the backhoe used in burying the dead victims. Santos said there was already a motion to discharge Andal as one of the accused and to adopt his testimony as one of the evidences against the accused. Andal identified Andal Ampatuan, Sr. as the one who ordered him to take the excavator to the hilltop of Barangay Masalay. He claimed that he saw dead bodies inside the vehicles and had to close his eyes while he was crushing them using the vehicle’s metal arm.

Santos said Andal was the first witness to have established a direct connection between the murder and Andal, Sr. who is accused as one of the masterminds of the massacre. “We already agreed about it but we were not told that they would be withdrawing that motion,” Santos said. “They said they don’t need Andal’s testimony anymore.”

INCIDENT: Public prosecutors seeking permission from higher PNP officials to have former Police Supt. Nilo Berdin as one of the prosecution witnesses. Quinsayas said she found it strange that the prosecutors had to get the clearance of Camp Crame officials for Berdin, then chief of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao during the massacre, for him to give his testimony.

Quinsayas they were able to get other Army and PNP officials as witnesses but the panel did not seek clearance from their higher officials. “What is so special about Berdin?” she asked. Berdin was not able to take the witness stand and was eventually dismissed by the PNP for negligence over the Maguindanao massacre.

Don’t close Ampatuan case yet, private prosecutors tell DOJ

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

PRIVATE PROSECUTORS involved in the Ampatuan massacre case are protesting a decision by the Justice Department to end the presentation of evidence in the multiple murder case, warning that this was premature and driven by political pressure.

Attorneys Prima Quinsayas and Nena Santos, who represent 44 of the massacre victims, said they had more witnesses and evidence to present before the court. The DOJ decision however closes the door to the admission of more evidence from the prosecutors.

“We have so much to lose if they do this,” Quinsayas said.

Quinsayas added that it was unusual for the prosecution panel to end its prosecution of the murder case, when the case was really just in the bail proceedings. The Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221 has been hearing the bail proceedings for the Ampatuan case for more than four years because of repeated delays in the trial. Both prosecution and defense lawyers have however agreed to adopt the evidence from the bail proceedings as evidence in chief, or as evidence for the main murder case.


interview with Justice Ussec. Francisco Baraan III in November 2013

Quinsayas said Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes, the judge in the murder trial, even pointed out that the proper procedure would be to resolve the bail proceedings first before resting on the main murder case. However, the DOJ panel still insisted on filing its manifestation to rest its case on both the bail proceedings and the evidence in chief at the same time.

Quinsayas stressed that this move would be irrevocable.

“Bakit tayo nagmamadali ngayong alam natin na one shot deal lang ang criminal case,” Quinsayas said. “That’s like tying our hands. Kumuha ako ng tali at tinali ko ang sarili kong kamay, and why would I do that?”

(Why are we in a rush when we know that a criminal case is a one-shot deal. This is like tying our hands. We got a rope and tied our own hands, and why would we do that?)

Quinsayas said it appears that the DOJ panel is under pressure to rush the case because President Benigno S. Aquino III has publicly said he wants a conviction in the Ampatuan case before he steps down in 2016.

“If I listen to the President, he says he will ensure conviction by 2016, so possible explanation yan na magmadali para bago matapos ang term mayroon nang conviction,” Quinsayas said. ”

(If I listen to the President, he says he will ensure conviction by 2016, so that is a possible explanation for why they are rushing so there would be a conviction before his term ends.)

“If we rest in the evidence in chief, there is no more second chance to present evidence that would mean whatever evidence was rebutted by the defense,” Quinsayas said.

Santos for her part said that she has additional witnesses that she wants to present in the main murder trial. The DOJ decision effectively closes the door to her witnesses.

“May bala pa ako, at mas matindi pa,” Santos said. (I have more ammunition, and they are more powerful.)

“Marami pa akong witnesses, di pa mapresent dahil iniintay ang ebidensya ng kabila bago mailabas,” Santos said.

(I have more witnesses, and I cannot present them because we want the other side to present their evidence first.)

Quinsayas said that it was also unusual that the government prosecutors would rush to close the case even before the defense lawyers are able to present their rebuttal evidence on the bail proceedings. Quinsayas said the defense was given the chance to present rebuttal evidence on the bail proceedings as early as February. Curiously, defense lawyers have not presented their evidence yet.

Media groups said that while everyone wants a speedier trial, this should not come at the expense of true justice.

“The desire for speed is there, but we will not sacrifice speed if we fail in this advocacy,” said Melinda Quintos de Jesus of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, a media group helping fund the prosecution of the case.

“Speed is not the same as haste,” Quinsayas said. “There is a difference between a speedy trial and a trial done in haste.”

“Our concern is there will still be a lot of evidence that will not be presented if you rest at this point,” de Jesus added. “If the result of the trial is not satisfactory, and the families do not feel that they have won, then it will be an empty achievement of speed.”

 

 

 

 

 

Sulyap: Toxic Sunset

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

WHEN NINE senior journalists banded together to form the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism in 1989, none of them imagined that their baby would ever go beyond the boundaries of print. After all, print media was their common root.

Four years later, the PCIJ would break new ground with the production of a full-length documentary on the legacy of almost a century of American military presence in the Philippines.

The documentary “Toxic Sunset” was produced and released by the PCIJ in 1993, just a year after the last American troops pulled out of Subic and Clark airbase. The documentary details the toxic legacy that the Americans left behind after the abrogation of the US bases treaty. Today’s Sulyap was edited and produced by Julius D. Mariveles of the PCIJ Multimedia Desk.

Don’t rest case yet, media groups warn Maguindanao prosecutors

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

murder-site
Responders gather the remains of the victims of the Maguindanao Massacre

MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS have expressed alarm and dismay over the decision by government prosecutors handling the 2009 Maguindanao Massacre case to rest their case in both the bail proceedings and the multiple murder charges against members of the Ampatuan clan.

The Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, a network of media organizations committed to press freedom and the protection of media workers, said the move by government prosecutors gives the impression that they just want the Ampatuan trial “over and done with,” regardless of how strong the case is in court.

The media groups stressed that the resting of the case in the multiple murder case is premature, and expressed hope that this was not a bid “to boost the chances of the 2016 presidential candidate of the present administration or the talked-about senatorial bid of some cabinet members.”

In a statement released to the public, the FFFJ questioned the panel’s decision to rest its presentation of evidence in both the bail proceedings and the evidence-in-chief against former Maguindanao Governor Andal Ampatuan Sr, his son Andal Jr and Zaldy, and 25 other principally accused.

The Department of Justice prosecution panel had formally told the court that it was no longer presenting any more evidence for both the bail and the massacre case itself. It will now be the turn of the defense to present rebuttal evidence.

The case is still stuck in the bail proceedings for the accused in the Maguindanao Massacre four years after 58 people including 32 media workers were killed on a remote hilltop in Maguindanao province allegedly on orders of the Ampatuan patriarch. The murders are considered the worst case of election related violence in the country, and the worst single incident against journalists in the world.

While the case is still in the bail proceedings, both the defense and the prosecution had earlier agreed to consider all evidence presented in the bail proceedings for the multiple murder case as well.

grabbed-frame-1
Some of the massacre victims were left unburied by their killers

While the FFFJ interposed no objection to the prosecution’s resting its presentation of evidence in the bail proceedings, the network objected to the decision of the prosecutors to rest the case on the evidence-in-chief as well. The prosecutors had also told the court that it is “not inclined” to present additional evidence against the accused.

The FFFJ said this announcement was “premature” because there was still a pending motion to discharge Police Inspector Rex Diongon and Police Officers Rainier Ebus and Mohamad Sangki from the list of accused. Because of this pending motion for their discharge, their testimonies are still excluded from consideration by the court in considering the bail petition of the Ampatuans.

“Resting the presentation of evidence in chief without awaiting the resolution regarding the issue of said discharge seems to show that the DOJ panel is not interested in the outcome of the petition,” the FFFJ said. “Its statement that it is not inclined to present additional evidence also seems to show that the DOJ panel just wants to get the (Ampatuan Maguindanao Massacre Case) trial over and done with.”

The group added that this decision “sends the message that the DOJ panel cares little about the quantum of evidence required to secure a conviction.”

“The promise of President Benigno Aquino III, echoed by Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima, that there will be convictions before his term ends in 2016 is very welcome,” the FFFJ statement says. “It is hoped, however, that that promise will not be delivered by rushing criminal proceedings just to boost the chances of the 2016 presidential candidate of the present administration or the talked-about senatorial bid of some cabinet members.”

The FFFJ is composed of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Center for Community Journalism and Development, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, the Philippine Press Institute, and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

The entire text of the FFFJ statement follows:

 

The Justice We Seek
Last February 28, the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecution panel in the Ampatuan, Maguindanao Massacre consolidated cases (AMMC) filed a manifestation before the Regional Trial Court Branch 221 of Quezon City that it is ready to rest presentation of evidence in the bail proceedings and evidence-in-chief against 28 accused.
The DOJ prosecution panel also stated it is “not inclined” to present additional evidence against those already arraigned at the time of the filing of its manifestation.
The manifestation has elicited relief that an end to the more than four years of presentation of prosecution evidence is in sight, but surprise that the prosecution is also resting its presentation of evidence-in-chief, and dismay that the DOJ panel is “not inclined” to present additional evidence.
There is a difference between evidence presented in opposition to bail and that presented as evidence-in-chief. The former needs to establish strong evidence of guilt in order to convince the trial court to deny the separate petitions for bail filed by the accused. The latter must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt to secure conviction.
In the AMMC, those of the accused with petitions for bail are allowed to present evidence in support of bail. This is considered a rebuttal of prosecution evidence presented in opposition to bail. To date, accused Andal Ampatuan Sr., Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan Jr. and Zaldy Ampatuan, through their counsel, have manifested they shall be presenting such rebuttal evidence.
Under the Rules of Court, bail must first be resolved before criminal proceedings move on to the trial proper. The grant or denial of bail serves as a gauge of the appreciation and weight given to evidence presented so far.
In most criminal proceedings, the prosecution moves on to presentation of evidence-in-chief after the trial court has ruled on the petition for bail. The denial of bail would indicate strong evidence of guilt. The grant of bail would show otherwise. In the latter case, the prosecution knows it must present additional and more compelling evidence during the trial proper in order to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the case of the 28 accused – which includes Ampatuan Jr. and Police Chief Inspector Sukarno Dicay – the DOJ panel wants to rest both in the petitions for bail and the presentation of the evidence-in-chief. This means the panel has no plans to present additional evidence after the petitions for bail of these 28 accused have been resolved by the trial court.
Its manifestation that it is “not inclined” to present additional evidence against all accused already arraigned (more than 70 of them excluding the 28 accused listed in the 28 February 2014 manifestation of the DOJ prosecution panel) further confirms the conclusion that, regardless of whether bail for the 28 accused is denied or granted, the DOJ panel is not presenting additional evidence.
Such “wholesale” resting is premature as the discharge of accused Police Inspector Rex Ariel Diongon, Police Officer 1 Rainier Ebus and Mohamad Sangki is still pending before the higher courts. Because of the pendency of their discharge, their testimonies have been excluded by the trial court in its appreciation of prosecution evidence presented in opposition to the bail petitions filed by accused Police Inspector Michael Joy Macaraeg, Andal Ampatuan Sr., and Zaldy Ampatuan.
Resting the presentation of evidence-in-chief without awaiting the resolution regarding the issue of said discharge seems to show that the DOJ panel is not interested in the outcome of the petition. Its statement that it is “not inclined” to present additional evidence also seems to show the DOJ panel just wants to get the AMMC trial over and done with.
Resting simultaneously in bail and evidence-in-chief, despite the bail petitions’ being still unresolved by the trial court, and the pending discharge of some of the accused, sends the message that the DOJ panel cares little about the quantum of evidence required to secure conviction.
We are six months away from the 5th year of the massacre. We have complained about the slowness of the wheels of justice. We want speedy justice.
The promise of President Benigno Aquino III, echoed by Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima, that there will be convictions before his term ends in 2016 is very welcome.
It is hoped, however, that that promise will not be delivered by rushing criminal proceedings just to boost the chances of the 2016 presidential candidate of the present administration or the talked-about senatorial bid of some cabinet members.
The conviction of all who are guilty of the murder of 58 people – 32 of whom were media workers – is the justice we seek. This is possible only through the conscientious efforts of the government prosecutors to present evidence that would establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Anything less is tantamount to compromising their sworn duty as public servants.
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