Ampatuan massacre revisited

WHENEVER the “ber” months start rolling in, I used to look forward to Christmas like a giddy kid. But now, I try to find out whatever happened to the case of the Ampatuan Massacre. On Saturday was the 94th month since Nov. 23, 2009, when 58 people — 32 of whom were media workers — were waylaid in what has become known throughout the world as the Ampatuan Massacre, the worst case of election violence in the country, and the biggest case of violence against journalists in the world.

The incident has caught the country flat-footed, yet it also exposed several long-festering, and in many aspects, long-known yet unaddressed issues. On one hand, the incident served as a grisly wake-up call for both the national government and local and international civil societies on the issues of election violence, clan politics and dynamics, and violence against media. On the other hand, ending impunity became the priority mission of both the Philippine government and civil societies.

In coordination with United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Libertas, a legal policy non-government organization, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) launched in 2013 a research project that dissected the massacre case as a way to understand these issues and offer recommendations for reforms in the country’s judicial system.

I would like to revisit this study because the recommendations it propped up are still as applicable today as it was four years ago especially now that this current administration is broaching authoritarianism by the day.

The research project output is a book entitled “Maguindanao Massacre: Case Study for Breaking Impunity, Increasing Accountability, and Broadening Access to Justice.” It is a compendium of interviews, focus group discussions and dialogues with “family members of the Ampatuan Massacre victims, key informants who are private or public prosecutors, officials from the security sector, relevant government agencies, and representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) and media organizations.”

At the crux of the case study is the fact there is still no clear-cut definition of extrajudicial killing (EJK) especially for state players prosecuting the criminal act. The study posits that a good definition is important to set this specific criminal act apart from the other crimes. It further suggests that this particular crime is called “unexplained killing” and “to let it cover both state and non-state perpetrators.” In this way, the study broadened its scope of coverage to be more inclusive of other similar cases of EJKs, not just in Maguindanao or Mindanao, but all over the country as well.

Red-tagging of this type of crime, or identifying specific cases for special attention, also put “value” since red-tagged cases are more closely monitored by the justice department at the regional level. The label also attracts more public attention, thereby potentially increasing the confidence level of the witnesses. “It is suggested that red-tagging be done at the point of filing information in court and that red-tagged cases no longer be raffled. Aside from special handling by the prosecution, this will also facilitate human rights documentation and monitoring,” the case study reads.

The case study proposes that special courts be designated to hear this type of crime continuously. Study proponents also proposed – by way of citing one of the observation of its key informants — the resumption of peace negotiations between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GPH) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), because “while peace talks are ongoing, extrajudicial killings are seen to slow down and become intermittent.” In order to further speed up the court processes on EJKs and other human rights violation cases, the case study also proposes there be mechanisms in the rules of court to allow the perpetuation of testimonies of witnesses.

According to the case study, key informants from both the government and civil societies agree that there should be an enabling law on command responsibility to exact criminal liability and for command responsibility to be applicable to all criminal offenses under the country’s Revised Penal Code. The case study also recommended that there should be “transparency in the conduct of internal investigations and in the military justice system.”

Presently, the rules on command responsibility in the Philippines cover only as high as two degrees. However, a respondent from the Philippine Army conceded that — with respect to civilian supremacy over state security forces — court-martial will surrender the “subject and the case even if there is a separate crime or administrative case arising under the Articles of War,” provided that there will be clear parameters.

On Aug 30, 2011, the Senate gave its concurrence to the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute, among others, defines the coverage of the doctrine of command responsibility to all state signatories of the international.

Other recommendations put forward by the study include:

• requiring a human rights clearance process for personnel in all law enforcement agencies;
• enhancing and increasing coverage of the Witness Protection Program (WPP);
• training of paralegals on the investigation and legal support in the prosecution of cases;
• more inter-agency cooperation and evidence-sharing among agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution of the cases;
• initiation of administrative cases involving human rights violations by government agencies despite the absence of private complainants;
• more effective firearms control through improved logistics management system by the Armed Forces of the Philippines;
• more concrete measures to depoliticize the local police force; and
• engagement of the Anti-Money Laundering Council in cases involving human rights violations.

The recommendations for more effective firearms control and the need to depoliticize the local police forces stood out starkly against the backdrop of the Ampatuan Massacre. The Ampatuan clan, the family accused of masterminding the massacre, has been accused of amassing firearms and ammunition through the help of regional and national patrons. In effect, the Ampatuan clan had been able to build its own legal private army using both government arms and ammunition.

As well, the clan has been accused of using the local police force in Maguindanao in carrying out the massacre. Based on the Local Government Code, the local governments have operational control over the local police forces. In the case of the Ampatuan Massacre, the local police units were said to have been compromised by the clan because the clan had full control over the appointments and perks of the local police officers.

During the course of the case study, it was also recommended that there should be a “community and peer support in the prosecution of criminal cases” and a “rationalized and integrated financial and other support for victims of atrocious crimes, including families of the Maguindanao Massacre victims.” These recommendations stem from the outcome of a series of FGDs with the families of the massacre victims.

“In this respect, a cohesive financial support program with support coming from various sources may be rationalized and administered just by one agency, perhaps the CHRP or the DSWD, so that the families need only coordinate with one agency, Requirements can be streamlined by such agency, so that the families need not undergo repetitive processes for screening, which merely add to the families’ difficulty and frustration,” the case study recommends.

As observed in the prosecution of EJK and other human rights violations cases in the country, testimonial pieces of evidence play a crucial role. When witnesses and families of massacre victims are killed, harassed and often times slapped with trumped up retaliatory charges in court quicker than the respondents of the cases are arrested, then it negates the whole judicial process.

“Hence, there is critical need to secure witnesses. Unfortunately, one common observation is the lack of funds and insufficient of support for witnesses under the Witness Protection Program (WPP),” the case study points out. Thus, the case study also recommends that the justice department’s Witness Protection Program (WPP) be enhanced and its coverage increased.

“Truly, the Maguindanao Massacre was an unspeakable crime. It represents all that is evil in our political system. It shows what is dysfunctional in our legal processes. The only good that can come out of it is that it compels us to train our sights on these infirmities, and galvanizes our resolve as a nation to address it. The above recommendations are made in this light, so that the lost lives of the victims may not be put to naught,” the case study reads in part.

Narcos and corruption

“But it (war on drugs) can’t be won. It’ll never be won. At least not until people see it for what it is. Not until they know the truth.” – DEA agent Javier Peña, Narcos season 3, episode 10

AT the base of any successful illegal trafficking, be it in the flesh or drug trade is a cabal of corrupt elected politicians and bureaucrats. That is what agent Peña realized by the end of season 3. He had been fighting the government’s war on drugs which has long been bought and paid for by the drug cartels in Colombia.

In Narcos 3, the US Drug Enforcement Agency and Colombian government are hot on the trail of the Cali drug cartel led by the Rodriguez-Orjuela brothers. These drug traffickers were different from Pablo Escobar of the Medellin cartel in that they operate with precision like a multinational corporation.

“Another deal. A compromise. A charade. A way for governments who don’t give a s**t about the war they’re supposed to be fighting, to go on pretending they’re winning it,” Peña’s soliloquy at the season ender rued.

In the series, Peña was getting more and more frustrated since he couldn’t seem to pin down the Cali cartel. As it turned out, the cartel “owned” the Office of the President of Colombia.

Ironically, Ernesto Samper won the presidency by campaigning against cocaine trafficking with campaign funds paid for by the Cali cartel. Although Peña and the US Embassy in Colombia had a taped conversation between Miguel Rodriguez Orjuela and Samper and the ledger which proved the existence of offshore shell companies, they were not able to pin down Samper even for charges of collusion to traffic drugs.

My take away lesson on this particular TV series is that no matter how hard and bloody you fight against illegal drugs if the system in government is vulnerable to corruption, the war on drugs will never be won.

A case in point is the P6.4 billion worth of shabu that breezed through the Bureau of Customs. One can easily be confused with the smokescreens of those who do not want the truth to be out. Guilty people can and have always hidden behind technicalities and legal loopholes. But the fact of the matter is, a butt load of illegal drugs was able to enter the country from the People’s Republic of China.

Like what Peña did, one need only to examine the supply chain and its subsequent flow of grease money to understand that the bigger scourge gripping a country is not the drugs itself but the rampant corruption, the wheeling, and dealing, the compromises, the charades, in the very halls of power.

Until this administration realizes that, we will continue to witness bodies of young and old, mostly poor, pile up.

Shrifts

“Is it so difficult for alleged lawyers to understand that the mandate of CHR is to check state abuses?” – Prof. Luis V. Teodoro, former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication

THERE have been many things that unfolded last week that I have decided to adapt my late father Emilio’s column template — shrifts. Even though the incidents are all political in nature, I cannot weave them into one narrative prose. I do not have the academic smarts to pull that one through. So, here goes.

Change has come indeed.

Now, in the Philippines, when you say “you weep for the youth,” you’ll be branded by the President a pedophile or straight-out homosexual.

“You are so fixated with the death of young males, kaya nagdududa ako na pedophile kang gago ka,”Digong Dada said of Commission on Human Rights chair Chito Gascon on Saturday as reported by GMA News Online.

Using your (demented) logic, Sir, what does that make you then — somebody who is “fixated” with illegal drugs? Aren’t you also “fixated” on branding people you disagree with as gays?

***

After more than a hundred days of being held captive by Isis-inspired Maute Group, Fr. Teresito “Chito” Suganob was supposedly “rescued” by military forces.

Opapp Secretary Jesus Dureza broke the news on his Facebook wall, without any regard to what might happen to the other hostages left behind. Maybe Dureza didn’t want to be “out-scooped” by other government agencies circling around Marawi City.

Like my former editor at Mindanews, Carolyn Arguillas, I ask: “Escaped? Released? Abandoned? Rescued?” I ask the same questions because these are four vastly different scenarios. So, which is it? One might retort that the most important thing is Fr. Suganob is safe.

An assault ops on the mosque is vastly different from a rescue op for Suganob. Both have different scenario settings and different outcomes.

Still, if he escaped and you insist that you rescued him, that’s a whole different ball game, all together. That’s not information. That’s propaganda.

I could almost see another “rescue” of the rest of the hostages in the future when this administration stumbles upon, yet, another political faux pas.

My last question on this: Sirs, are you hard of herring, the red kind?

***

The Davao City Social Services and Development Office was only implementing a city ordinance that is supposed to curb human trafficking when they caused indigenes to miss their Saturday flight to join other “Lakbayanis” in Manila.

“The implementation of the Children’s Code of Davao is something that we always do (every day) and this is to protect our children from possible incidents of trafficking,” reads the statement of Malu Bermudo of Davao’s CSSDO on the incident.

The last time I checked, the Constitution trumps any city ordinance, all the time. Yes, freedom of movement and travel is guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. More importantly, the children are not residents of Davao City. Why should they be required to secure a permit from CSSDO?

If that’s how it is in Davao City, I’m never flying out from that city whenever I have my kids in tow. Even if, say, I’m from General Santos City or Cotabato City.

And what’s with the problem of Cebu Pacific’s ground crew?

Interaksyon.com reported: “Even ground staff of Cebu Pacific, said Trenilla, ‘took a hostile attitude towards us when they learned we were attending the SOS conference, claiming that the children were only being ‘used’.”

Is it the airlines business now to know what you’re going to do when you reach your destination? Did the pilots of Cebu Pacific Flight 387 tell the passengers what they will do with the plane as it circled its way around Mt. Sumagaya back to Cagayan de Oro?

That’s right. It is none of your business. Your business is to take people where they want to go, period. Focus on that, Davao ground crew of Cebu Pacific, because I’m sure the passengers of flight 387 didn’t want to arrive at their untimely “final destination.”

The list

“There are three kinds of people in this world: 1) People who make lists, 2) people who don’t make lists, and 3) people who carve tiny Nativity scenes out of pecan hulls. I’m sorry, there isn’t really a third category; it’s just that a workable list needs a minimum of three items, I feel.” – Mary Roach, American author

AS promised, my column this week will be about the mystery of Digong Dada’s ever-changing list of narco-politicians or illegal drugs trade matrix or whatever it is now.

Don’t get me wrong. I, too, hoped the list would usher in an honest to goodness change. I thought the way the executive deals with politicians and technocrats who have been wheeling and dealing in the illegal drugs trade was about to change.

I bet everybody was as shocked as I was when Digong Dada started naming generals, judges, and politicians. When the President started bandying the list to the public eye last year, I thought, here’s a President who isn’t afraid to take on the cabals of corrupt bureaucrats.

However, when people started to inquire who helped the President draw up such list, he was suddenly withdrawn, secretive, and most often irked by the mere mention of such inquiry.

It didn’t help either that the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and the National Bureau of Investigation admitted that they were not, in any way, involved in the preparation of such list as reported by GMA news online on Aug. 30 last year.

Then PDEA Director General Isidro Lapeña (now Bureau of Customs top honcho), emphatically told a congressional hearing at the Lower House that they did not give any inputs which form part of the President’s list. NBI lawyer Henry Canapi, on the same congressional inquiry, sang to the same exact tune. Canapi said they did not submit any “subject personalities, politicians or otherwise.”

By the way, Lapeña doubled-down by saying he was unsure whether other agencies have been advising the President on the alleged drug lords in government, including the Philippine National Police.

Let’s fast-forward to the present. The question still remains. If PDEA, NBI, and the PNP didn’t help the President in drawing the list then who are these supposed intelligence consultants who helped draw up that list?

If the President’s list is to be believed, then how come the shady characters behind the P6.4 billion worth of shabu that passed through the Bureau of Customs weren’t on that list? Why is the President suddenly mum on the list?

Last week, he even advised his son to remain silent should the circus show, led by The Dick, summon him to explain the supposed role of the Davao Group in what could very well be the largest drug bust this administration’s war on drugs has ever carried out.

If the President’s list is to be believed, then why is he not helping the Senate committee investigate the butt-load of shabu that inexplicably passed through people who are highly motivated and passionate in ending the drug scourge that has gripped the nation?

As I have said before, anybody can draw up a list. Hell, even our emotionally detached, spectacularly inefficient, and grossly ineffective barangay chair drew up such a list. The bigots at our local church even contributed to the list. The list, I was told, is based on “common knowledge” which I take as a euphemism for grapevine or chismis.

I have a friend who is a member of a local intelligence unit. For obvious reasons, I will not name him. As he told me, he’d have to kill me if he gets “burned.” This friend showed me their list as well.

It is a list of local drug personalities who are under surveillance. It could have been a veritable kill list, he added. But in the wake of the incorrigible murder of 17-year old Kian Loyd delos Santos, he said they have to extend the time frames of their surveillance on these individuals. He said they wanted to be sure that when not if, they do “neutralize” these drug personalities they have more than sufficient evidence to do so. He added they will not base their decision on a Facebook post like what the Caloocan police did.

The list holds some familiar names. It has former city councilors, former mayors, and former house representatives in it. Curiously, the list even has a columnist in it, a very vocal supporter of his Excellency. My friend said they have been on to him for quite some time now.

Whether my friend’s list or that of the President are credible will remain questionable at best for as long as the people behind the drawing of such lists remain shady and unnamed. For as long as the process behind the drawing of those lists remains questionable, these will remain as such.

I repeat anybody can draw up a list. If I were to draw up such a list, I would list first all the people who have wronged me or pose a threat to taking away my power to draw up a list.

Just consider the quote above: Any workable list needs a minimum of three items. It doesn’t need due process, supporting evidence, or any modicum of rule of law. These three items, by the way, is a workable list. A list of things which we direly need in government right now.