Category: Media

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.

Do men dominate the field of investigative reporting?

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

SHEILA S. CORONEL, founding executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and currently director of the Tony Stabile Center for Investigative Reporting in Columbia University, struck a sensitive chord online in the proverbial battle of the sexes with a March 10 blog post titled: “Is investigative reporting dominated by men?”

“It’s true that more and more women are entering journalism now than ever before… In many countries, the journalism profession is being “feminized.” But women in top editorial positions are still a minority.  And certainly, while there are a number of high-profile women investigative reporters, their numbers do not overwhelm,” Coronel’s blog reads.

Coronel cited the Women’s Media Center report last month that in 2012, women comprise only 37 percent of the staff of newspapers and account for only about one-third of the supervisory jobs. She goes on to say that the ratio of women in leadership positions in U.S. newsrooms has remained unchanged at about 30 percent since 1999. This, despite the fact that a woman is now at the helm of the one of the enduring newspapers in the U.S.–The New York Times.

According to Coronel, “A quick look at the 100 or so nonprofit investigative reporting centers, funds and associations worldwide shows that the face of watchdog journalism is male.”

However, here in the Philippines, investigative reporting takes on a more feminine face, as Coronel points out the experience of Filipino women at the height of then-strongman Ferdinand Marcos’ imposition of Martial Law.

“Many of the male journalists at that time had sold their souls to Marcos and spent the evenings after work drowning their torments at the bar of the press club. They were hardly role models. The women, on the other hand, were irreverent and feisty. They played a cat-and-mouse game with the censors,” Coronel writes in her later blog post, “Ensuring a place for women.”

For more on the latest trends in investigative reporting and insights from Sheila Coronel, check out her blog at http://watchdog-watcher.com/.

Coronel’s blog site also offers tips on investigative reporting and a comprehensive collection of the investigative reporting network of resources. 

Into investigative reporting? PCIJ offers basic IR seminar

Ed Lingao Leave a comment

Basic IR web photo

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) invites mid-career and senior Filipino journalists, citizen media, and bloggers to apply for a three-day training seminar-workshop on Basic Investigative Reporting.

Applicants from print, TV, radio, and online media are welcome.

A series of four three-day seminars will be conducted in Luzon, the Visayas, Mindanao, and Metro Manila from June to September 2013. Fifteen participants will be invited to each of the seminars from across media platforms, gender, province of assignment, and media organization.

Through combined onsite and field learning sessions, the seminar aims to enhance the participants’ investigative reporting skills and practice and offer a framework for analyzing media killings and safety issues in the context of governance, the culture of impunity, and the presence of political clans and private armed groups in many parts of the country.

The seminar also seeks to highlight the role of the police and the Commission on Human Rights as vital sources of journalists. The seminar will feature lecture-discussions and workshops to identify potential risks and practical safety tips when covering dangerous assignments.

A Story Development Workshop will give participants an opportunity to pitch story proposals that the PCIJ may consider for fellowship grants and editorial supervision. Experts from the academe, national media organizations, the police, human rights agencies and organizations, and data repository agencies will lead the discussions.

The seminar graduates will be accorded priority slots in the subsquent Advanced Investigative Reporting Seminars that PCIJ will conduct in 2014.

This seminar series draws support from the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Who Can Apply? Mid-career and senior journalists with at least three years’ experience – freelance reporters, contributors, stringers, researchers, anchors, producers, editors, and news managers of print, TV, radio, and online media may apply. Citizen media and bloggers covering public policy issues are also eligible.

Funding The PCIJ will cover: Round-trip transportation from the participant’s place of work and/or residence to the seminar venue. Board and lodging during the three-day seminar. The PCIJ will also provide a modest fellowship grant for story proposals that will be approved during or immediately after the seminar.

Application Requirements Completed application form with two references (see attached). One or two samples of work discussing public policy, development, human rights, or governance issues.

Deadline for Applications Applications must be received not later than May 10, 2013, Friday.

Selection process Applicants will be selected based on the following criteria:

  • Track record or experience in covering public policy issues.
  • Demonstrated interest in doing in-depth reports on governance, development, and human rights issues.
  • Potential for playing a key leadership role within his/her organization or media community.

Successful applicants will be notified by May 31, 2013. Only successful applicants will be contacted by the PCIJ.

Sending your application: By email: Email address: training@pcij.org

Please state ‘Application to Basic IR Seminar’ on the subject line

Note: We will acknowledge receipt of all submissions. If you do not receive any reply within three working days, please resend your application and move a follow-up email or call (02) 410-4768.

Questions? Please contact the PCIJ Training Desk at (02) 410-4768 or training@pcij.org

Of slabs of pork and bogus NGOs

mcmangahas Leave a comment

IT’S A RACKET that has not been busted from 10 years ago, and lingers on to this day.

A number of congressmen and senators have set up or hand-picked bogus and favored NGOs (nongovernment organizations) to serve as vassals of their pork barrel, or what has been dressed up with the fancy title Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

In the last of a five-part PCIJ report titled “Pigging out on Pork a La Pinoy” published in July 2012, the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) had revealed how pork has lined the bellies of many phantom and fly-by=night NGOs.

As of June 2012, in fact, the DSWD said the total pork funds that had been given to these NGOs via the DSWD central office had reached a whopping P1.4 billion from 2003 up to Dec. 31, 2011.

Of this amount, P388.9 million or nearly 28 percent remain unaccounted for as of June 2012.

Across all the DSWD’s offices, however, the total amount of unaccounted PDAF releases to NGOs by DSWD within the last decade or so today stand at about P770 million.

Eighty percent of that total, or P620 million, went to only 21 NGOs that were the most favored by congressmen and senators alike.

Among other findings, the report revealed that:

* Many NGOs had been purposely set up for only one purpose: “to get the money” or the pork. They would disappear as soon as their PDAF patrons have finished their term in Congress, and with them, the millions they had received from the pork barrel, according to DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman. In their unceremonious exit, they leave a trail of ghost projects.

* For every peso of pork funds that legislators have awarded to NGOs from 2003 to 2011, up to 20 centavos involved fly-by-night or bogus NGOs. Most of the time, these are NGOs that had been created, born, and organized apparently for the purpose of just getting PDAF shares.

* A handful of NGOs and foundations have apparent links to, and are precisely named after the spouses, parents or grandparents of the lawmakers who gave out the pork.

* The DSWD and the Commission on Audit (COA) have laid down rules to control the awarding, monitoring, and accounting of pork releases to NGOs and foundations. But intense pressure and meddling by lawmakers in NGO selection and project implementation, along with loose monitoring and reporting mechanisms within the government, have nevertheless allowed millions of pesos in pork funds to be funneled into bogus NGOs across the country.

Real and potential conflicts of interest and questionable arrangements between NGOs and their PDAF patrons have also gone unchecked.

All these have resulted in a lot of leakage of public funds in organizations that are supposed to augment the gaps in the government’s delivery of much-needed social development projects.

The DSWD figures cover PDAF transferred to NGOs from prior to 2003 until Dec. 31, 2011, or across four Congresses, from the time of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo up to the current administration of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III.

Read Part 5 of the PCIJ report,“Bogus, favored NGOs fail to account for P770-million pork.”

Read the rest of the PCIJ report, Pigging Out on Pork a la P-Noy here:

Part 1, PDAF racket rocks daang matuwid

Part 2, Bailiwicks, not poor towns, grab slabs of House PDAF

Part 3, Senators’ PDAF floods NCR, vote-rich provinces

Part 4, Binay bags P200-M PDAF: Pork train to Malacanang?

Sidebar, LGUs ride piggyback on pork

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.”