Press freedom in Aquino’s first year: Unfulfilled promises and fading hopes
According to them
In a letter to CMFR dated May 30 responding to the open letter, Presidential Communications Operations Office Sec. Sonny Coloma enumerated what the executive department had done to stop the killing of journalists. “The Aquino Administration is determined to put a closure on the quest for justice of the families of the victims of the extrajudicial killings perpetrated in the past regimes,” said Coloma.
On the strengthening of the DOJ’s WPP, Coloma said: “(Aquino) has included in his priority legislation House Bill (HB) No. 15 known as the ‘Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act’ and Senate Bill (SB) No. 1063 otherwise known as ‘An Act Providing for Protection, Security and Benefits of Whistleblowers and for other purposes’.” Checking the legislative websites (http://www.congress.gov.ph & http://www.senate.gov.ph), HB No. 15 is still “Pending with the Committee on Justice since 2010-07-27”. Meanwhile, SB No. 1063 was replaced by SB No. 2860. As of Aug. 10, it was pending for second reading.
Coloma also stated in his letter that: “The incidents are significantly lower compared to the number of killings that occurred during the incumbency of the former president. In 2006, there were six cases of media personalities killed, one in 2007, five in 2008, five in 2009, and two in 2010 and one this year”, a claim based on the statistics of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Task Force (TF) Usig. The problem with TF Usig’s statistics, which media groups have pointed out since its formation in 2005, is that it considers a case “solved” once the alleged perpetrators have been identified.
The Aquino administration also seems to be keen only in claiming solutions to cases that happened after his June 30, 2010 inauguration. The only exception is its interest in the Ampatuan Massacre.
The Ampatuan Massacre
During the 2010 campaign, then Sen. Aquino met with some of the widows and relatives of victims of the Ampatuan, Maguindanao massacre to express his commitment to the prosecution of the alleged masterminds and perpetrators once he is in power. But in a statement he has since repeated in several interviews, he said his power in helping speed up the Ampatuan Massacre trial was limited as the Constitution provides for the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
On Nov. 23, 2009, 58 persons including 32 journalists and media workers were murdered in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao province.
As of this writing, the Ampatuan Massacre trial is back to hearing the bail petitions filed by more than 30 of the 196 persons accused of conspiracy and participation in the massacre. Although the witnesses and evidence presented in court during the bail hearings will be part of the prosecution’s “evidence-in-chief” during the trial, the trial continues to be disrupted by technicalities like certiorari petitions and lack of interpreters.
Meanwhile, in July, confusion over Malacañang’s dealings with Zaldy Ampatuan had landed in the newspapers. The suspended Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) governor was quoted by the two biggest television networks as saying that he was willing to testify against anyone “just to get the truth out”. The “desire to testify”, based on presidential press conferences and interviews with Cabinet members, was communicated through Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Sec. Jesse Robredo and Department of Justice (DOJ) Sec. Leila de Lima.
Public misunderstanding over whether Malacañang and the justice department would allow Zaldy—who had not said a word about wanting to be one–to be a “state witness” in the Ampatuan Massacre trial resulted in a word war between presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda and one of the private prosecutors in the massacre trial.
In an attempt to clarify what Zaldy had actually asked for, Lacierda said during a July 12 press briefing that: “The situation is that the testimony of Zaldy Ampatuan is insufficient right now that’s why we’re still assessing the testimony, what particular evidence he can offer to us. We understand that there is no deal here. Zaldy Ampatuan is only asking for protection, and as already mentioned by Sec. (Jesse) Robredo, we are providing him protection.”
The private and government prosecutors and Justice Sec. de Lima have been firm in their opinion that Zaldy’s testimony does not offer any new information. They also clearly stated that the suspended governor never formally offered to be a state witness in the Ampatuan Massacre trial, and that he can’t meet the requirements for state witnesses in the rules of court and the witness protection law.
<<Previous || Next>>
[…] Press freedom in Aquino’s first year: Unfulfilled promises and fading hopes by Melanie Pinlac […]