AMPATUAN TRIAL UPDATE: Families seek review of “judicial courtesy”

The families of some Ampatuan Massacre victims have asked the Supreme Court to look at the  principle of “judicial courtesy” among the causes of delays in the trial of Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan Jr., his relatives and their accomplices for 57 counts of murder.   Under that principle, the judge of a lower court can choose not to try those with pending petitions before higher courts.

The trial of the 196 accused of planning and carrying out the massacre began in January 2010 but has been delayed by  the numerous  petitions and motions filed by both the defense and  the prosecution. Regional Trial Court Branch 221 judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes cited “judicial courtesy” as her reason for not allowing the presentation of some key witnesses and for the postponement of the arraignment of some accused with pending petitions before higher courts.

The Court  is  currently hearing evidence against  more than 54 bail petitioners .  The prosecution had supposedly finished presenting evidence against the petition for bail of Unsay Ampatuan, but the Court allowed his defense counsels to present  evidence to support  his request for temporary liberty.

“As the tragic incident continues to linger in our hearts and minds, the trial against the Ampatuans and their minions seems to keep in stride with our ordeal; hence, inevitably adding to the suffering of our families.

“Simply put, the trial proceedings are dragging and moving at a very slow pace aggravated by the trial court’s indiscriminate reliance on the concept of judicial courtesy, the filing of multiple motions and the raising to the higher courts of every conceivable issue that has been resolved by the trial courts,”  42 representatives of the victim’s families said in a letter  to the Supreme Court dated 14 May 2012.

The Massacre victims’ families asked   the Supreme Court to issue  guidelines on the principle of “judicial courtesy”, which  they say has been a major cause of delays in the trial.

“Your Honors, is this principle of ‘judicial courtesy’ an absolute rule of law that must be observed by all trial courts notwithstanding that it would be detrimental to all administration of justice as well as to the rights of the accused,, the State and the private complainants, to a speedy trial? …. Up to how long is the trial judge required to observe ‘judicial courtesy’?”

The families said that the delays in the trial have put the lives of witnesses as well as their families in danger.

“We do not want to wait for our spirits to break down and we certainly should not wait for the witnesses to die or lose their determination to testify because of the protracted proceedings caused by the multiple filing of cases or motions against their presentation and of constant fear for their lives, liberty and property, and even fear for the lives of their loved ones.

“In fact, one of the eyewitnesses (Esmail Amil Enog) has been missing for more than a month and we are afraid he has been killed to forestall further identification of other accused members of CVOs and PNP who have not yet been apprehended.”

Other concerns raised in the letter were:  (1) the  need for a “speedy resolution” of the petitions and cases filed by some accused before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court seeking the reversal of their indictment and (2) the “promulgation of guidelines for the determination of abuse in the use of judicial remedies by filing multiple motions that do not really help in the administration of justice and the period within which to resolve the motions filed by the parties” before RTC Branch 221.

Another petition for review

Meanwhile, another accused policeman has asked the Department of Justice to withdraw the charges against him.

In a petition dated June 1 2012, Police Supt. Abusama Munda Maguid, Al Haj claimed that the charges against him were “merely based on conjectures, presumptions and assumption and not one evidence and there was a sweeping and general statement to include the herein respondent notwithstanding the absence of any evidence linking him to the offenses charged.”

“No clear and direct evidence was adduced during the preliminary investigation of this case that indeed the herein respondent had prior knowledge of the alleged plan to slaughter the victims. It must be emphasized that at no instance that the name of the herein respondent was mentioned about his alleged direct or indirect participation in the commission of the offenses charged.

Maguid claimed that the evidence used to indict him was not part of the evidence submitted to the panel of investigating prosecutors at the time he was asked to submit his counter affidavit.

“In the present case, respondent P/Supt. Maguid was not given the chance to see and examine the alleged statement of Police Inspector Michael Joy Macaraeg before it resolved the instant case, which is tantamount to the denial of his constitutional right to due process,” Maguid said in his petition.