Thoughts of a lawyer’s wife on the latest Ampatuan massacre controversy

By Mylah Reyes Roque

Mylah and Harry Roque

Mylah and Harry Roque

Today, I write about the man I am married to but who I barely talk about or refer to in the social media – not that I actively engage in it in the first place. My friends know of course that my husband is the lawyer and law professor Harry Roque, who is also a private prosecutor in the Ampatuan trial. I don’t mention this in Facebook but I don’t hide it either. He is “public”; I on the other hand am happy to keep and remain with my small circle of friends. He maintains a blog, is active on Twitter and has two Facebook accounts, one active and one “unable to accept any more friends.” My Facebook, on the other hand, has just slightly over 500 friends and I use twitter only to check on #mmda and #walangpasok.

So for the first time I break my quiet as regards Harry.

Harry, or a person identified with a cell phone number corresponding to his, is being accused of accepting P10 million and a car from the Ampatuans to sell out his clients in the Ampatuan trial. The accusation comes from an alleged informant of another private prosecutor. The information is based on handwritten entries in somebody’s notebook. This prosecutor refuses to fully identify the informant but she made a public announcement anyway. The alleged informant also accuses some of Harry’s clients of accepting payment from the Ampatuans. These stories about payoffs to the victims are an old hat. Yesterday, the demolition job was on the fiscals and justice undersecretary. Today Harry is the one accused of being on the take. One can keep trying to throw mud but it won’t always stick.

By the way, that cell phone number is familiar to everyone who has ever received a press statement from Harry or Centerlaw because it is the number always indicated as reference. It is also a number that is published in his blog. Further, I am sure the car distributor Autohaus Libis knows how Harry paid for his car, how much it was, and which bank facilitated the purchase.

Harry and his partners in the organization Centerlaw, represent families of the 13 journalists and media workers, as well as two other non-media victims, who are among the 58 brazenly killed in Maguindanao on November 23, 2009.

I like to think that Harry takes the cudgels for journalists because I used to work as a full time broadcast journalist. When we met he saw the kind of conditions I worked in: low pay, long hours, and exposure to hazardous environment. I have stopped working full time a long time ago but he has since made more friends in the media both in Metro Manila and other regions. He is fascinated with journalists. Aside from the victims in the Ampatuan trial, Centerlaw handles libel and freedom of information cases and advocacy campaigns. He even brought the fight of a Davao-City based journalist, who was in prison while being tried for libel, all the way to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) where he won a favorable ruling.

P10 million (and a car) is a big amount of money but it is also an amount that is very insulting. I believe people think Harry is poor and we as a family have done nothing to contradict that. We are not poor, we are not rich but I like to think we are comfortable. I also like to think we live simply – with travel perhaps our only extravagance. Harry went to college in Michigan and returned to the University of the Philippines to take up law. He then took his postgraduate degree in law in London. On all occasions, he was a paying student, not a scholar.

Sometime last year, my son’s classmate asked him if he was on scholarship. He isn’t. When my son told me about it, he also said that he understood the question that was really being asked. He goes to a private school for boys and perhaps the parents of his classmates thought we could not afford the tuition. We talked about it and I told him there is no shame in being a scholar (he isn’t).

One of the questions people often ask me is if Harry gets paid as a lawyer in the Ampatuan trial. The answer is no. Harry has taken in his 15 Ampatuan-victim-clients pro bono and has not received payment from them, save for the fruits, pastries and rice cakes they bring when they visit his office. Harry and his partners (all of 10 lawyers) have a thriving private practice taking up commercial cases and even international law cases as their bread and butter, and this private practice allows Harry to engage in public interest cases through their Centerlaw non-profit organization. It also helps that he has very, very capable partners and associates.
Centerlaw’s clients are also being accused of accepting money from the Ampatuans to drop the case. I personally know most of these widows and mothers; it is the height of cruelty to use their poverty and vulnerability against them. The bribe attempts are true. Many of them have told me stories of how they were “invited” to dialogues and offered money in exchange for signing documents to drop the case.

I see this trial, as well as its coverage, from the points of view of two sides: of one who used to cover news events, and one who now sympathizes and knows some of the victims. I do not like today’s glimpse.

This trial, messy to begin with, is becoming messier. If you are interested, I suggest that you watch the trial, held some days at the Quezon City RTC and some days at Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan, Taguig City. These accusations of being on the take are all manufactured accusations, meant to cause trouble for the prosecution. It also coincides with the fact that the prosecution rests and the defense will soon be presenting its evidence. The trial will become more colorful. This is a trial that should be made public, period. Sunlight is the best antiseptic and the best tool to show who is selling who; who is capable and who is not.

(This piece, which is being reprinted here with Ms. Reyes permission, was first published in her Facebook wall.)

(Disclosure:Harry Roque was my counsel in my libel case filed by Mike Arroyo in 2003 and in the case we filed against officials of Gloria Arroyo involved in our arrest after the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege. Also, The Roque and Butuyan Law Office is the lawyer of VERA Files, where I am one of the trustees.)

FFFJ counsel Quinsayas: About Harry

WHAT FOLLOWS is the full text of a letter from Atty Prima Quinsayas, legal counsel of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) on a number of issued that had been raised recently by Atty. Harry Roque, her fellow private prosecutor in the Ampatuan Massacre Trial:

“I was informed about Atty. Harry Roque’s reaction to the matter regarding the plan of the Department of Justice (DOJ) panel of prosecutors to rest in evidence-in-chief against some accused, including accused who have petitions for bail and have manifested that they will be presenting rebuttal evidence in support of their bail petitions.

I respect Atty. Roque as a more experienced lawyer. I have made no comment on how he feels he should defend the interest of his 14 or 15 clients in the massacre case. In fact, I personally assisted the late Senior State Prosecutor Leo Dacera III in compiling the necessary documents for the filing of the 57th case for the murder of Victor Nuñez. I even accompanied the DOJ personnel from the Witness Protection Program in filing said case before the Regional Trial Court Branch 221 of Quezon City. Atty. Roque represents the kin of victim Victor Nuñez.

With all due respect to Atty. Roque, the list of 28 accused against whom the DOJ prosecutors plan to rest in evidence-in-chief does not reflect the “First In, First Out” concept. My understanding of the concept is that the accused first put on trial would be the one whose case would first be resolved. But whether it’s First to be Arraigned, or First to File a Petition for Bail, the list does not reflect any of those. (Please see table.)

NO. NAME OF ACCUSED
DATE/S ARRAIGNED DATE/S BAIL PETITIONS/MOTIONS WERE FILED
DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN, JR. ALIAS “UNSAY” 1/5/2010 (for 41 counts);
2/3/2010 (for 15 counts);
7/28/2010 (for the 57th count);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
12/3/2009;
9/9/2010;
6/19/2013
2 P/Chief Insp. SUKARNO A. DICAY 7/28/2010 (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
11/9/2011;
12/16/2013
3 MOACTAR T. DAUD 10/20/2010 (for 57 counts);
10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)
4/3/2011;
2/12/2014
4 ZACARIA P. AKIL (alias QUAGO PAGALAD AKIL/TINTINGAN) - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
no petition for bail
5 MANNY A. AMPATUAN 4/15/2013 (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
no petition for bail
6 MISUARI SINSUAT AMPATUAN 5/4/2011 (for 57 counts);
10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/6/2011;
12/12/2014
7 PO3 GIBRAEL R. ALANO - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/12/2011:
10/24/2013
8 SPO2 BADAWI P. BAKAL 4/7/2011 (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
no petition for bail
9 PO1 MOHAMMAD K. BALADING (alias Midrael Macarongan Balading) - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/20/2011;
8/16/2013
10 PO3 RICKY D. BALANUECO - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/20/2011;
8/16/2013
11 PO1 MICHAEL MACAPEGES MACARONGON/MACORONGON - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/20/2011;
8/16/2013
12 PO1 SAMAD USMAN MAGUINDARA/Maguindra - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/12/2011;
10/24/2013
13 PO1 ABDULBAYAN U. MUNDAS/Bundas - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/12/2011;
10/24/2013
14 PO1 BADJUN IBAD PANEGAS - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/12/2011;
10/24/2013
15 PO1 AMIR SOLAIMAN - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/20/2011;
8/16/2013
16 PO1 DATU JERRY M. UTTO - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/12/2011;
10/24/2013
17 ARMANDO O. AMBALGAN (alias JAMIL BULATUKAN OMAR KAYANSANG) 12/1/2011 (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
11/24/2011;
7/5/2013
18 MOHADES A. AMPATUAN 10/6/2010 (for the 57 counts);
10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)
4/3/2011;
2/12/2014
19 SALIK S. BANGKULAT - do – (for 57 counts);
10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/19/2011;
2/12/2014
20 MACTON A. BILUNGAN - do – (for 57 counts);
10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)
4/3/2011;
2/12/2014
21 MAOT M. DUMLA (alias NHOT ABDUL) - do – (for 57 counts);
10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)
2/12/2014
22 NASER/Nasser S. ESMAIL/Esmael (alias NASRUDIN ESMAEL) - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/6/2011;
7/5/2013
23 EDRES G. KASAN (alias EDRIS GOGO ALIP) 5/23/2012 (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
no petition for bail
24 NASSER TALIB a.k.a MORALES SISAY AMILAN - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
2/12/2014
25 SALIPAD M. TAMPOGAO (aka Tato Sampogao) 5/11/2011 (for 57 counts);
10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)
5/19/2011;
2/12/2014
26 P/Supt. ABUSAMA MUNDAS MAGUID (AL HAJ) 10/24/2012 (for 57 counts);
9/25/2013 (for the 58th count)
no petition for bail
27 THONG E. GUIMANO (alias IBRAHIM KAMAL TATAK) - do – (for 57 counts);
10/23/2013 (for the 58th count)
2/12/2014
28 RAKIM AMIL (a.k.a. RAMIL KENOG) - do – (for 57 counts);
5/29/2013 (for the 58th count)
no petition for bail

*based on court records as of May 2014
**based on court records as of July 2014

Thus, based on the list of 28 accused, his reason for supporting the partial resting in evidence-in-chief does not hold.

As for the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for the criminal proceedings of the massacre case, the “First In First Out” as a term does not appear in said guidelines. Instead, the guidelines allow separate trials for the accused if so decided by the trial judge based on her discretion. (Please see December 10, 2013 motuproprio Resolution of the Supreme Court.

Atty. Roque also claimed the conflict is just between Atty. Santos and me and everyone else. I was surprised because I did not know I had a conflict with “everyone else” which I guess includes him. I have no issue with Atty. Roque nor with his associates, whom I find very professional especially Atty. Avisado and Atty. Andres.

As for the other private prosecutors, Attys. Mella, Pastores, Principe and Principe, we have had very few opportunities to talk so it is baseless to claim I have a conflict with them.

That leaves Atty. Ma. Gemma Oquendo, who is both a private prosecutor and a private complainant. Her sister Atty. Cynthia Oquendo-Ayon and her father Catalino Oquendo Jr. were among those killed in the November 23, 2009 massacre. We are good friends and, while she has not said her piece in public, I know she believes it is premature to rest in evidence-in-chief against accused with petitions for bail and who have manifested that they will be presenting rebuttal evidence in support of their bail petitions. These accused are Datus Andal Ampatuan Sr., Andal Ampatuan Jr. and Zaldy Ampatuan, who to date are the only accused seeking bail with written manifestation that they intend to present such rebuttal evidence.

My duty as private prosecutor is simple: protect the interest of the 17 media victims I represent and who are under the assistance of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, and ensure we secure the conviction of those guilty of the Ampatuan, Maguindanao massacre.

I believe it is part of said duty that I oppose the plan to rest in evidence-in-chief against accused who seek bail and have manifested that they will present rebuttal evidence in support of their bail petitions. I am simply making my opposition known. I am not asking the other private prosecutors — I have certainly not asked Atty. Roque — to join me in this opposition.

The burden of proof in a criminal case like murder is always on the prosecution: establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I do not want to take chances without having seen or heard the rebuttal evidence of the accused in support of their petitions for bail. Their defense counsels are not some greenhorn lawyers unschooled in criminal litigation. Should bail be granted, I fear for the lives of the witnesses who testified against these powerful accused. I fear for the well-being of their families as well.

Regardless of what each private prosecutor thinks is the most sound legal strategy in the prosecution of these consolidated cases, I believe we all want convictions. Surely, Atty. Roque has no conflict with me about that.

Ampatuan lawyers’ withdrawal ‘Plan B’ to delay massacre trial?

By Julius D. Mariveles and Cong B. Corrales

A PRIVATE prosecutor in the almost five-year-old Ampatuan Massacre case has tagged the withdrawal of three defense lawyers as part of the alleged masterminds’ “Plan B” that would further delay the court proceedings.

Lawyer Harry Roque, who represents the families of 13 victims, said that the withdrawal of defense counsels Sigfrid Fortun, Andres Manuel, and Paris Real as lawyers for some of the accused – including alleged masterminds Andal Ampatuan Sr., and his son, Andal Jr. – “is obviously part of a delaying strategy.”

Until yesterday, Fortun was lead counsel for Andal Sr., Andal Jr., and former Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao Governor Zaldy Ampatuan.

Fortun was one of the lawyers of former President Joseph Estrada during his impeachment trial.

The victims were killed November 23, 2009 in the town of Ampatuan, Maguindanao province in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao, the single deadliest attack against journalists and media workers who comprised 32 of those murdered.

It's "Plan B" for lawyer Harry Roque | Facebook photo courtesty of Harry Roque

It’s “Plan B” for lawyer Harry Roque | Facebook photo courtesy of Harry Roque

“They will do everything to delay since we have already made a formal offer of evidence against Unsay (Andal, Jr.),” Roque told the PCIJ. He called the withdrawal “Plan B,” with “Plan A being the delaying of the formal offer of evidence.”

Roque added that “it is clear now that there is a confluence of interests” but he did not elaborate when asked whom he was referring to. Two other private prosecutors, Nena Santos and Prima Quinsayas, objected last week to the plan of State prosecutors to rest of their case and the evidence-in-chief for 28 of the 111 suspects who have already been arraigned by the court.

“Formal offer of evidence” is required under the Rules of Court in the Philippines. “The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specific,” Section 34 of the Revised Rules of Evidence posted on lawphil.net says.

But Lawyer Prima Quinsayas, another private prosecutor who represents 17 of the families of the victims, said she is not expecting any delay in the proceedings of the bail hearings even if the Ampatuans would change their lawyers.

PRIVATE PROSECUTOR Prima Quinsayas, left, with lawyer Nena Santos at a news conference last week during which they announced their objections to the plan of public prosecutors to rest the case against 28 suspects in the Ampatuan Massacre case | Photo by Cong. B. Corrales

PRIVATE PROSECUTOR Prima Quinsayas, left, with lawyer Nena Santos at a news conference last week during which they announced their objections to the plan of public state prosecutors to rest the case against 28 suspects in the Ampatuan Massacre case | Photo by Cong. B. Corrales

She pointed out that Andal Sr. and Andal Jr. are supposed to be the first to present their rebuttal evidence and even if their new lawyers would ask for time to review the documents, the court can simply schedule Zaldy to present his rebuttal first.

“It will not necessarily be a delay,” Quinsayas told the PCIJ.

Melinda Quintos de Jesus, executive director of Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), however, also believes that the withdrawal of the three defense lawyers of the Ampatuans is evidently a delaying tactic.

The CMFR is the secretariat of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, a coalition of six media organizations formed in 2003 following numerous attacks against Filipino journalists. Among its members are the PCIJ, the Philippine Press Institute, and the Center for Community Journalism and Development.

“This is a move, clearly, to buy time. They want a little more time,” she said. “I am forced to surmise that this (withdrawal of defense lawyers) has something to do with the bribery allegations made.”

42nd AM memorial 042

NUJP’s Rowena Paraan | Photo by Cong B. Corrales

National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) national chair Rowena Caranza-Paraan raised more questions, however, since she could not understand why the three lawyers submitted their withdrawal of appearance at this point of the bail hearings.

“What’s the point? Bakit sila nag-withdraw sa case (Why did they withdraw from the case?) Is it a delaying tactic,” Paraan asked. She added that it is also confusing since the defense counsels of the Ampatuans are supposed to present their rebuttal of evidence in the bail hearings after the state prosecution panel decided to rest their case on the bail hearings and in the main multiple murder case.

Ampatuan defense counsels Sigrid Fortun, Andres Manuel, and Paris Real submitted their withdrawal of appearance in three separate filings at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 221. The defense lawyers did not state their reasons for resigning as legal counsels for the Ampatuans. Their clients, however, signed their withdrawal of appearance.

ADB-Canada Assures that PH Hotels Ready for Global Market

Philippine hotels and resorts in key island destinations are ready to compete in the global marketplace, according to the initial findings of a team of International Accommodation Assessors (IAAs) who joined the Department of Tourism (DOT) in conducting a national review of accommodation standards last month.

The team of IAAs composed of ten experts from different countries said Philippine hotels and resorts including the small players have ‘very high standards’ in keeping the unique Filipino hospitality, one of the country’s competitive advantages.

The warmth of welcome for guests in all types of accommodation is almost unique among international destinations. There is a real potential for the Philippine tourism industry. Some hotels and resorts need to invest to improve, but the new rating system can help identify where to focus that investment, the initial report noted.

New standards under the Hotel and Resorts Quality Assurance and Accreditation System aim to assist visitors in terms of the quality, service and comfort provided by accommodation businesses of all sizes and types in the Philippines.

The system which was launched last year reviewed 144 hotels and resorts in the country’s main island destinations such as Cebu, Bohol, Davao and Palawan. The DOT tapped international assessors to ensure that the review is based on accepted international standards. The review itself is part of a technical assistance funded by the Government of Canada and administered by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) aimed at improving competitiveness in the tourism sector, in time for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) integration. ASEAN member countries include the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Brunei.

Undersecretary Maria Victoria V. Jasmin, Chairperson of the DOT Project Steering Committee, said the technical assistance is crucial in helping the department to implement Improving Competitiveness in Tourism, a roadmap designed to increase foreign tourist arrivals to ten million by 2016.

Data will be carefully analyzed in order to further strengthen and develop the accommodation standards system and enable us to compete at the highest international levels in the future, said Undersecretary Jasmin.

Undersecretary Jasmin added, these new standards will help guide Philippine hotels and resorts on where they could invest to further improve their businesses. They are shown to be equally effective in identifying excellence, enabling the finest properties and managers to show the way for others. The standards clearly identify examples of best practice for use by all types and levels of accommodation.

Hotel owners and senior managers in all the properties visited welcomed the new set of standards as they see it as a significant improvement on the old standards introduced in 1992. Owners and managers welcomed the introduction of the internationally understood one to five star grading approach. They understood that not everyone can be, or should be, five stars and that some of the most successful hotels and brands internationally hold two or three stars, Undersecretary Jasmin said.

Final results of the assessment will be released in September 2014.



© Enrico Dee for BYAHILO, 2014. | Permalink | Be the First to comment! | Add to del.icio.us