A waiting game in year two of the Ampatuan Massacre trial

By Melanie Y. Pinlac
Published in PJR Reports, November-December 2011

Some developments in the trials of the alleged killers of journalists tend to suggest the continuing dominance of the culture of impunity. These have been disturbing enough to be a major concern among press freedom advocates and human rights activists.

Philippine-based media organizations have been discussing possible institutional reforms in the criminal justice system with government officials. But despite former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and President Benigno Aquino III’s successive pledges to speed up the resolution of the Ampatuan Massacre case, the government has so far failed to craft a concrete policy plan on ending impunity.

Minimal progress

The court hearings on the most brutal attack on the Philippine press and democracy in history have been proceeding at a glacial pace. The victims’ relatives, media experts, and press freedom advocates are bristling at the slow progress of the trial of the alleged perpetrators of the Ampatuan Massacre two full years after it occurred on Nov. 23, 2009.

The thrice-a-week hearings on the Ampatuan Massacre case are held more regularly compared with other cases—some are heard only twice a year—but the trial has been hampered for almost two years by the need to give due course to at least 48 bail applications already filed by some of the suspects.

The hearings on suspect Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan Jr.’s bail petition started Jan. 5, 2010. The hearings were supposed to end sometime in January 2011, but his lawyers petitioned for a chance to present rebuttal evidence against the prosecution’s evidence and witnesses. How long the rebuttal will take is everyone’s guess.

The prosecution has already presented about 70 witnesses for the bail proceedings of Unsay and other accused. But it will have to present other witnesses if bail applications are filed by the remaining detained accused persons. (Ninety-six of 196 accused are in custody.)

Delays, delays, delays

Lawyer Josefina Guzman of the Supreme Court Public Information Office said that delays in court proceedings are due to lack of resources and the current procedures and state of the courts. “Existing courts are handling more than their ideal number of cases,” Guzman, who represented Court Administrator Midas Marquez, told members of the press and civil society during a Nov. 15 roundtable discussion on impunity. She pointed out that the judiciary lacks the budget for additional manpower, leading to clogged dockets.

The Nov. 15 roundtable discussion was part of the activities in the run up to the International Day to End Impunity organized by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists. Representatives from the judiciary, the police and the Justice department attended the dialogue and shared information on the institutional reforms their respective agencies have supposedly undertaken in response to the call to end political and media killings in the country.

A solution the Supreme Court has proposed is the creation of new courts. However, the Supreme Court has no power to do so; only the legislative branch has that power. While waiting for Congress to support the creation of additional courts, Guzman said the Supreme Court has appointed what it calls “pairing judges” to “help presiding judges with the resolution of cases.” It is also testing a new court monitoring method to “answer the problem of court decongestion and delays in the resolution of cases,” said Guzman.

Guzman added that the Supreme Court is studying possible reforms in “procedural safeguards” that have caused delays.

Reforms needed

Representatives of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have echoed the need for institutional reforms to end impunity.

Police Chief Supt. Ricardo Marquez of the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management said the government needs to review the system of appointing provincial and city chiefs where local executives (mayors and governors) control who can be appointed.

The PNP also suggested a review of the National Prosecution Service which currently does not allow prosecutors to help in case investigation and build-up. It has also noted the need to strengthen laws on witness protection, gun ownership and even motorcycle acquisition (most of the killings in the Philippines have been committed by motorcycle-riding gunmen).

Marquez also said the PNP also recognizes the weaknesses of police crime investigation methods. He said almost 75 percent of their investigators do not have the expertise and training in evidence-gathering and case build-up. The PNP has put up an in-house training school for its investigators and officers and is in the process of modernizing its crime laboratories.

On the part of the DOJ, said Justice Usec. Leah Armamento, Sec. Leila de Lima has revamped the DOJ’s case assignment system to speed up preliminary investigations. De Lima has delegated to her undersecretaries oversight on the prosecution of political killings and other cases. For example, USec. Francisco Baraan has assumed Task Force 211 duties on extrajudicial and journalists’ killings.

De Lima has also formed a Criminal Code Committee (CCC) to review the Philippines 76-year old Revised Penal Code and to “draft an organic, Filipino and modem criminal code that consolidates and harmonizes the penal laws for the effective, efficient and economical administration of criminal justice.”

Needed: a ‘clearer’ plan

However, journalists and press freedom advocates say that Aquino still needs to devise a concrete plan to combat impunity. The need for a “clearer” action plan was recognized by Presidential Communications Operations Office ASec. for Legal Affairs Lesley Jeanne Cordero during the Nov. 15 roundtable.

“We need to address the disconnect between policies and operations in the field…Until and unless we have a clearer action plan we can’t address the culture of impunity,” said Cordero.