Category: Journalist Killings

Maguindanao’s misery in excelsis: ‘Capitol on wheels’, absentee execs

mcmangahas Leave a comment

OVER THE LAST forty years, the seat of power in the province of Maguindanao has moved location six times, or just about anywhere its governor wishes o hold office. It has been a virtual “capitol on wheels.”

“The problem we have observed in Maguindanao is the new Governor always transfers the provincial capitol,” says Bobby Taguntong, Maguindanao spokesman for the Citizens Coalition for ARMM Electoral Reform or CCARE, a civil society group pushing for reforms in the election process in Mindanao. “Maybe we can suggest to the national government to make the provincial capitol mobile, perhaps even install tires.”

It is far more than an issue of confusion and inconvenience for those who need to conduct business in the capitol, wherever it may be relocated to next. Rather, the tale of the moving capitol symbolizes a bigger problem seen in places where governance is more personal than political, where families overrule political parties, and where blood trumps ideas and ideologies.

But the misery of inefficient and poor governance that is Maguindanao does not end there. Far too many candidates from a dozen political clans are running yet again in May 2013. This is amid the picture of absentee local executives that repeats in many of the 36 towns of the province. These candidates seem so excited to claim and grab the perks of office, but not to serve and work, when elected.

Just as worrisome, many voters seem to have scaled down their expectations of their leaders, according to Mindanao analysts. No public demand for good roads, more schools, better health care, more jobs; nor is there public rage over the severe lack of these services. The voters, analysts say, have just a few simple wishes of their leaders — don’t grab or buy off our land, leave us in peace, don’t harass, torture, or kill.

Read the PCIJ’s report on “The Clan Politics of Maguindanao” here:

Part 2: Maguindanao’s misery: Absentee officials, absence of rage, poverty

Sidebar 2: Cash for cops and soldiers

Maguindanao was spun off from the greater Cotabato empire province in 1973, the first governor, Simeon Datumanong, held office in Limpongo, in what is now Datu Hoffer town.

His successor, Zacaria Candao, held office on PC Hill in Cotabato City before resigning in 1977.

The replacement governor, Datu Sanggacala Baraguir of Sultan Kudarat town, naturally wanted the capitol in his bailiwick, and had a new capitol built in Sultan Kudarat.

The fourth governor, Sandiale Sambolawan, returned the provincial government to Shariff Aguak.

Then Datu Andal Salibo Ampatuan Sr. was elected governor in May 2001. He built a grand columned capitol almost right beside the municipal hall of Shariff Aguak, where he used to hold office as mayor.

A few years later, Andal Sr. would build a new and even more opulent provincial capitol, complete with a driveway that rivals a small EDSA flyover and a private toilet that houses a Jacuzzi, a stone’s throw away from the old capitol, on land that is rumored to be his own.

After the 2010 elections, Esmael Mangudadatu, the current governor who succeeded Andal Sr., moved the provincial capitol to his hometown of Buluan, accessible from Maguindanao only if one passes through Sultan Kudarat province first.

At first, Mangudadatu referred to the new capitol as the Satellite Office of the Provincial Government. Later, to avoid complications and questions, he renamed the place as the Maguindanao Peace Center.

Burgos family: New evidence shows military role in Jonas’ abduction

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

jonas burgos picture
Photo of Jonas released by Burgos family, allegedly taken while in military custody

THE FAMILY of Jonas Burgos on Monday submitted to the Supreme Court what it says is new evidence to prove the military’s role in the 2007 kidnapping of the activist, and asked the tribunal to order a new probe by the Court of Appeals.

Edita Burgos, mother of Jonas and widow of press freedom icon Jose Burgos, filed an urgent ex parte motion with the Supreme Court asking the tribunal “to refer back the cases to the same division of the Court of Appeals for further hearing on the newly discovered evidence.”

The documents, Mrs. Burgos said, include a photograph of Jonas Burgos, as well as an “after apprehension report,” a “psycho social processing report,” and an “autobiography” of the missing activist. She said the photograph of Jonas Burgos was apparently taken when he was already in military custody. The after apprehension report and psycho social processing report, in turn, were allegedly prepared by Jonas’ captors for the benefit of their superiors.

Mrs. Burgos said the documents were handed to the family by a source who had links to the military. She refused to release copies of the documents to the media, saying these were instead sealed in an envelope and submitted to the Supreme Court for the tribunal’s perusal.

The Burgos family however released copies of the photograph of Jonas, which the family believes was taken by his military captors in a safehouse. The low-resolution photo shows a dazed-looking Jonas staring at the camera. Behind him is a rough painted wall with what appears to be a window. The family believes that the shirt Jonas was wearing in the photograph was also the same shirt he was wearing when he was abducted on April 28, 2007. The family also believes that the handkerchief tied around his neck was the one used to blindfold Jonas.

“I was stunned. It took me a long time, a few minutes before I could react. And I knew 100 percent that was my son.” Mrs. Burgos said. “My first tendency was to see if he had marks on his face, but I could only see the marks produced by… probably he was blindfolded. And you could see the blindfold draped around his neck”

“We hope this will be the start of something new and the process will be faster,” Mrs. Burgos said.

“The petitioners received from a source who has requested to remain anonymous at this point documentary evidence that would prove that an intelligence unit of the 7th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army and the 56th Infantry Battalion operating together captured Jonas Burgos on April 28, 2007,” the Burgos family said in their petition.

“The newly discovered evidence will prove that the officers and enlisted personnel of the particular unit of the 7th ID and the 56th IB are responsible for the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos,” the petition stated. “And that these units captured and interrogated him and based on the same evidence, could probably continue to detain him or God forbid, had disposed o fhim in the manner that only they could explain.”

Military spokesman Major Emmanuel Garcia said the military cannot comment on documents that it has not seen. In the end, Garcia said, the Burgos family would have to file the appropriate charges in court if it feels the evidence warrants such a move.

“We cannot stop them from seeking legal remedies,” Garcia said. “And that (courts) is available to them.”

The revelations come just days after the Court of Appeals released its findings after a three year probe into the Jonas Burgos case. On March 18, the Court of Appeals declared that the Philippine military was both responsible and accountable for the disappearance of Jonas Burgos. The Court ordered all government agencies, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, and the Commission on Human Rights to exert all efforts to find Jonas Burgos and bring his kidnappers to justice.

 

Prudence in handling media cases, media group cautions DOJ

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

WHILE MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS would want swift government action on media murder cases, government should still exercise prudence and caution, a media group said over the weekend.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said that the recent handling by the Department of Justice of the case of murdered broadcast journalist Gerry Ortega may have actually done more harm than good.

Last week, the Court of Appeals nullified the DOJ’s creation of a second panel of prosecutors to investigate the Gerry Ortega case. The first panel of prosecutors had dropped former Palawan Governor Joel Reyes and his brother Mario from the charge sheet in the Ortega murder case. But after an ensuing outcry, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima immediately created a second prosecution panel that indicted the two. The murder case is now pending before the Puerto Princes Regional Trial Court.

However, the CA ruled that De Lima committed grave procedural lapses in creating the second panel. The CA said that while De Lima had the authority to reverse the first panel’s findings, she should have simply overturned it instead of ignoring it and creating a second panel. In effect, the CA said the first panel’s findings were still hanging and waiting for resolution.

Also left hanging was an appeal filed by Ortega’s wife Patty to reverse the first panel’s findings. The CA said both the first panel’s findings and Ortega’s appeal should have been resolved first.

“We find no legal basis for the second panel of prosecutors to modify the finding of the first panel of prosecutors. It must be remembered that the first panel and second panel of prosecutors are co-equals. As such, both of them are on the same level and one cannot modify the resolution of the other,” the Appellate Court decision reads in part.

The NUJP said Justice officials should take greater care not to trip over legal proceedings that could endanger the case.

“However, instead of taking action on the first panel’s decision and Patty’s petition, De Lima formed a second panel of prosecutors. The DOJ should be more careful not be caught in their own bureaucracy,” said NUJP national vice chairman Alwyn Alburo. Alburo added that lapses like these could weaken Ortega’s quest for justice.

Alburo added that De Lima still faces “the challenge of doing what is right for the case so that justice will be delivered to the Ortegas.”

Alburo also said that the CA ruling does not touch on the merits of the case, but merely on the procedural aspect. Nevertheless, Alburo said greater care should be exercised by the DOJ if the case is to move forward, he said.

“But we stand by the analysis of Atty. Alex Avisado (legal counsel of the Ortegas) when he said that the CA ruling did not absolve the guilt or proved the innocence of the accused,” Alburo said.

TV5′s Interaksyon quoted Avisado saying the High Tribunal’s decision is favorable for their case. “The ruling does not in any way absolve the Reyes brothers. Nor is it final and executory. This is a purely legal issue,” Avisado was quoted by Interaksyon.

Alburo also said the NUJP is “saddened” by the slew of inaccurate news reports and misleading headlines following the decision of the CA.

“We are alarmed with the CA (Court of Appeals) ruling because it has given rise to different interpretations in the media. We are saddened at the news articles that reported the Appellate Court acquitted ex–Palawan governor Joey Reyes—some news organizations even used the term absolved,” he said. Alburo pointed out that many news sites reported that the CA had already cleared the Reyes brothers of the charges against them, when the CA only nullified the second prosecution panel and ordered De Lima to act on the findings of the first. The NUJP said these sites include GMA News Online, Inquirer, Rappler, Manila Times, The Daily Guardian, News Desk Asia, Sunstar, and Net25.

Doc Gerry Ortega—a radio broadcaster in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan—was a staunch environmental advocate and a vocal critic of then Palawan governor Joel Reyes. Ortega had criticized how Reyes handled the funds from the Malampaya Gas Project off the coast of Palawan. Along with his brother Coron mayor Mario, Reyes was tagged as the mastermind behind the shooting of Ortega inside a retail store on January 2011. The alleged gunman Marlon Recamata had confessed in court to shooting Ortega, while Rodolfo Edrad, Jr—a former aide of Joel Reyes—admitted to hiring Recamata.

Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 25 Judge Angelo Arizala has allowed Edrad to turn state witness. Edrad is currently under DOJ’s Witness Protection Program. Other suspects involved in the shooting are Valentin Lecias, Arturo Regalado and Romeo Serratubias. The gun used in the shooting was traced back to Serratubias—who used to serve as Reyes’ provincial administrator.

CA reverses indictment of Reyeses in Gerry Ortega murder case

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

ortega

THE CRIMINAL CASE against the main suspects in the Gerry Ortega murder struck a snag after the Court of Appeals reversed the recommendation of government prosecutors to indict former Palawan governor Joel Reyes and his brother Mario for the crime.

The Court of Appeals Special 10th Division said there were glaring procedural lapses on the part of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.

The CA was acting on a petition filed by Mario Reyes questioning the decision of DOJ prosecutors to indict him and his brother for the Ortega murder. The CA ruling does not touch on the merits of the murder case against the two main suspects.

In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Angelita Gacutan, the CA noted that a special panel of DOJ prosecutors had dismissed the murder complaint against the Reyes brothers on June 8, 2011.

Ortega’s wife Patty immediately filed an appeal to overturn the decision.

Instead of acting on the finding and the appeal, however, Secretary de Lima immediately created a second panel of prosecutors that overturned the first panel’s decision and indicted the two brothers.

The CA said De Lima acted with grave abuse of authority when she immediately created a second panel to reinvestigate the Ortega case. By doing so, De Lima had simply ignored both the first panel’s findings, and even the appeal filed by Ortega’s widow.

The CA said De Lima should have acted on the first panel’s findings; as Secretary of Justice, she had full authority to affirm or reverse the panel’s recommendation anyway. She did not, however, have the authority to ignore it.

Thus, De Lima should now review the first panel’s findings and decide accordingly, the CA said.

“The Secretary of Justice should act on it, and she could either modify, reverse, or affirm the resolution of the first panel of prosecutor when she resolves the said petition for review,” the CA said. “While this court is in accord with the power of the Secretary of Justice to conduct investigation and reinvestigation, this court is also cognizant that in the exercise of such power and task, as mandated by law, there are specific rules of procedures to be adhered to by all concerned.”

In fact, the CA pointed out that since De Lima had not acted on either the first panel’s recommendations or Ortega’s appeal, “it is safe to assume that (they are) still waiting resolution by her office.”

“Since at this precise moment this finding by the said panel of prosecutors has not yet been reversed, affirmed or modified by public respondent Secretary of Justice, such finding is still valid. For all intents and purposes, therefore, (the Reyes brothers) should not have been indicted for the crime of murder,” The CA said.

Media groups lamented the CA decision, saying it sends the wrong message both to journalists and those who would want to harm them. The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines says the decision sends the signal that journalists could be killed with impunity. Lawyers for the Ortega family in turn said the CA ruling does not absolve the Reyes brothers of the murder case; all it does is raise legal and procedural issues that have nothing to do with the merits of the case.
The Reyes brothers were charged with masterminding the murder of Ortega in Puerto Princesa City in January 2011. Ortega was a crusading radio broadcaster and environmentalist who was also a fierce critic of former Palawan governor Joel Reyes and his handling of funds derived from the Malampaya Gas Project off Palawan. The brothers were tagged as the masterminds of the murder by the gunman and his accomplices, who were arrested immediately after the killing.

The case is now pending before the Puerto Princesa Regional Trial Court Branch 52. Arrest warrants were issued against the Reyes brothers last year; however, the brothers were reported to have fled to another country before the warrants could be served.

SC fines media lawyer for indirect contempt

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

ATTY PRIMA QUINSAYAS
THE MEDIA LAWYER who filed a disbarment case against Ampatuan defense counsel Sigfrid Fortun before the Supreme Court was the one instead who was cited for contempt and fined by the tribunal after she allegedly violated the rule on confidentiality in disbarment cases.

The Supreme Court ordered Atty. Prima Jesusa Quinsayas, a lawyer representing media murder victims in several cases including the 2009 Maguindanao Massacre, to pay a fine of P20,000 after the tribunal found her guilty of indirect contempt.

Interestingly, the charge stems from the disbarment case that Quinsayas filed against Fortun, the main defense counsel of the Ampatuan clan that has been accused of masterminding the Maguindanao Massacre.

Quinsayas, who is a lawyer of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ), a network of media organizations that supports the families of media murder victims, filed the disbarment case against Fortun in November 2010, a year after the Maguindanao Massacre. Quinsayas accused Fortun of using and abusing “all legal remedies” in order to delay the proceedings in the Maguindanao Massacre case. The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism is a co-founder and an active member of the FFFJ.

The disbarment case has not yet been resolved more than two years after its filing. The case is still being reviewed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which will then make a recommendation to the high court. Fortun for his part struck back at Quinsayas by filing a petition for contempt against Quinsayas and several media personalities for allegedly violating the confidentiality rule governing all disbarment cases.

Fortun accused Quinsayas of distributing to the media copies of the disbarment complaint that she had filed against Fortun in 2010. Fortun claimed that in doing so, Quinsayas violated Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court that makes all disbarment proceedings confidential until a ruling is finally made by the court.

In addition to Quinsayas, Fortun had asked the SC to also cite for contempt the officers of the FFFJ, media executives and on-camera talents of ABS-CBN and GMA, and several reporters and editors of the Philippine Star and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Fortun said the other accused were also guilty of disseminating information on the disbarment case.

Among those that Fortun asked the court to cite for contempt were members of the Board of Trustees of the FFFJ, including PCIJ executive director Malou Mangahas, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility director Melinda Quintos de Jesus, Center for Community Journalism and Development director Red Batario, and Rey Hulog of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that proceedings against attorneys need to be confidential so that the court may be free from all influence or interference. The confidentiality rule was also intended to ensure the protection of the professional reputations of attorneys and other officers of the court.

“As a general rule, disbarment proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution and the final decision of this court,” the court said.

The court absolved the media organizations, saying they merely reported on a lead that they received on the filing of the disbarment case against Fortun, who is a person of public interest. Members of the Board of the FFFJ were also absolved after Fortun failed to prove that they had a hand in the distribution of the complaint.

However, in the case of Quinsayas, the court said that she remains bound by Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, “both as a complainant in the disbarment case against petitioner and as a lawyer.”

“Instead of preserving its confidentiality, Atty. Quinsayas disseminated copies of the disbarment complaint against petitioner to members of the media which act constitutes contempt of court,” the court ruled.

Sought for comment, Quinsayas said the ruling was “totally unexpected,” and said she may still file a motion for reconsideration.

“I have mixed feelings,” Quinsayas said in a text message to the PCIJ. “Being cited for indirect contempt was totally unexpected. At the same time, there are reasons to be thankful for as the High COurt reaffirmed the importance of press freedom and recognized the significance of the massacre case.”