Harry Roque | Prepys' Homepage

Centerlaw: Documents belie De Lima’s claim of misinformation

April 8, 2015April 8, 2015 Ellen Leave a comment

Statement of the Prof. Harry L. Roque Jr., chair of the Center for International Law (Centerlaw), an NGO dedicated to the promotion of binding international legal norms in the Philippines and Asia:

Atty. Harry Roque

“We take exception to the veiled threat in the statement made yesterday by Secretary Leila De Lima that the Vera Files special report on a recent Note Verbale given by the Philippines to Malaysia over the Spratlys islands concerned a confidential matter that should have been kept as it is.

“In the first place, our Justice Secretary should be first to know that such a threat is in the nature of prior restraint with a chilling effect on speech, as held by the Supreme Court in the case filed by the late former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez against a predecessor of hers at the DOJ, the late Raul Gonzales.

“A mere press statement of a threat of prosecution coming from a government functionary, according to this 2008 Supreme Court decision, is unconstitutional precisely for that reason.

“As a former head of the Commission on Human Rights, we expect her to understand that Vera Files is simply doing what journalists ought to do well: report on matters of public interest, especially one where the integrity of the national territory of the Philippines is at stake, so that the citizens are properly apprised of the issues involved.

“The documents unearthed by Verafiles in its journalistic sleuthing are clear enough and also belie Secretary De Lima’s claim of disinformation.

“Note Verbale No. 15-1979 sent to Malaysia, the basis of VERA Files’ story, stated that it is offering a review of the Aug. 4, 2009 protest (No. 000819) it filed with the United Nations. The Philippines’ August 2009 protest, contained in two pages, singles out North Borneo or the old name of Sabah.

“In this Protest, the Philippines took issue with an earlier joint submission by Vietnam and Malaysia for the extended continental shelf because it “lays claims on areas that are disputed not only because they overlap with that of the Philippines, but also because of the controversy arising from the territorial claims on some of the islands in the area including North Borneo.

“The 2009 Protest clearly disputed Malaysia’s use of North Borneo (the old name of Sabah subject of the Philippine territorial claim), as reference points for its baselines in determining the reach of its claim to an extended continental shelf.

“Had the Philippines kept silent on this joint submission, it would have meant that the Philippines has implicitly consented to the use of Sabah as a reference point for Malaysia’s extended continental shelf claim, which is another way of saying that we are recognizing Malaysia’s ownership over Sabah.

The Note Verbale offers a Philippine review of its 2009 Protest if Malaysia agrees to two requests related to the South China Sea conflicting territorial claims.

The first request is for Malaysia to “confirm” that its claim of an extended continental shelf is “entirely from the mainland coast of Malaysia, and not from any of the maritime features in the Spratly islands.”

The DFA also requested Malaysia to confirm that it “does not claim entitlement to maritime areas beyond 12 nautical miles from any of the maritime features in the Spratly islands it claims.”

The offer by the Philippines of a review of its 2009 Protest is diplomatese for a quid pro quo arrangement. It appears to intimate that if Malaysia agreed to the proposal, the Philippines will withdraw or at least revise its Protest to the joint submission. In either case, it will clearly amount to a dilution, as Vera Files would put it, of our claim to Sabah.

This is without doubt a matter of the public interest. As the Vera Files story underlines, a matter as important as a big part of the Philippine national territory enshrined in the 1987 Constitution should not be bargained away by a mere Note Verbale without so much as a public discussion on its implications.”

11 facts that render allegations of bribery vs Harry Roque ridiculous

August 11, 2014August 11, 2014 Ellen Leave a comment

Harry Roque with relatives of the victims. Photo by Lito Ocampo, CMFR.

The murderous Ampatuans must be enjoying the spectacle of the prosecutors in the Maguindanao massacre destroying each other.

Atty. Nena Santos, representing 25 of the of the 58 who were killed in a massacre in a secluded hill in Maguindanao on Nov. 23, 2009, has alleged that government and fellow private prosecutor Harry Roque, of having been bribed by the Ampatuans to lose the case.

Santos represents Maguindanao Governor Esmael Mangudadatu, husband of victim Genalyn Mangudadatu and political rival of the Ampatuan family.

It will be recalled that Genalyn, accompanied by family members, political associates and members of media were abducted while on their way to file the candidacy of Mangudadatu for governor against Andal Ampatuan Jr, son of the then incumbent, Andal Ampatuan Sr. They were brought to a secluded hill and killed by Andal Jr and his henchmen. Of the 58 killed, 34 were media workers, earning for the Philippines the reputation of one of the most dangerous places for journalists.

A total of 194 persons are accused led by Andal Ampatuan Sr.; Andar, Jr. ; former ARMM Governor Zaldy Ampatuan. The court has approved the “the first in, first out” policy to speed up the hearings which former Sen. Joker Arroyo could take 200 years.

Last March government prosecutors rested their case and it was expected that the defense would now start presenting their evidence.

Santos and two other private lawyers, Maria Gemma J. Oquendo and Prima Quinsayas, opposed the government prosecutors’ move which was supported by Roque.

Now comes the report of ABS-CBN, quoting Santos and an unnamed source, of multimillion peso bribe to government prosecutors and Roque.

The basis of ABS-CBN’s report was an unnamed source who has notebook allegedly containing a list of bribes given by Ampatuans. The list included a cell phone number (which turned out to be Roque’s) followed by a word speedy, the P10 M plus car.

That was all. No other document if there was delivery of money and car or if it was accepted or rejected.

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.

Needless to say I don’t believe the allegations of bribery against Roque.

Joel Butuyan

But let Roque’s associate, Joel Butuyan, give a brief on what they have done on the Ampatuan case which makes the bribery allegations preposterous.

1. A few days after the Ampatuan massacre, Harry Roque personally led an independent investigation in the very scene of the massacre in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao province, bringing with him three of his lawyers, and engaging the services of a South American forensic expert, and a British investigator. The Roque-led group of six joined then CHR Chair Leila De Lima. As a result of this independent investigation made after the police had completed theirs, the dentures of the 58th victim – Reynaldo Momay – were found even if his body has never been recovered to this day. Roque subsequently caused the filing of the 58th charge of murder against the Ampatuans, a move opposed even by Private Prosecutor Nena Santos.

2. Roque represents the heirs of the 15 victims in the massacre trial, and he has rushed to complete — as in fact he has months ago completed — the presentation of the full testimonies of all the family representatives of the 15victims. The testimonies of Roque’s 15 clients pointing accusatory fingers at the Ampatuans can no longer be taken back because they are now part of the case records.

3. While the murder trial was on going, Roque found out that the 62 policemen charged for assisting the Ampatuans in committing the massacre had not been suspended from their positions and were still presumably enjoying the perks of their ranks and offices even if they were already charged in the murder trial. Appalled, Roque initiated the filing of administrative cases against these 62 policemen in the NAPOLCOM to have them all dismissed from service. This was opposed even by Prosecutor Nena Santos. Roque caused the NAPOLCOM trial to be completed after 15 months, and the case now has been awaiting decision from the NAPOLCOM since July 2011.

4. It has been widely believed that the Ampatuans became drunk with power because they were pampered and were made to believe they were untouchable during the reign of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. After Gloria Arroyo stepped down from power, Roque caused the filing of a multi-million damage suit against Arroyo in behalf of the Ampatuan massacre victims.

5. Roque had long demanded that the Anti-Money Laundering Authority freeze the assets of the Ampatuans. When the AMLA refused to take action, Roque filed a criminal complaint against the AMLA officers. The AMLA eventually but belatedly moved to freeze the assets of the Ampatuans.

6. Roque had been very vocal in the media discussing the crimes committedby the Ampatuans. He has been speaking in the local and international media, and even in international conferences. As a result, the Ampatuans and their cohorts have filed at least four criminal cases for contempt and libel against Roque, and all these cases remain pending. Some of these cases were even filed in Maguindanao.

7. When Roque felt that the court cases against the Ampatuans were taking so long and were insufficient to address the liabilities of all those liable, he caused the filing of a complaint before the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Committee on Human Rights. Together with several of his clients, Roque went to Jakarta, Indonesia where he led a rally in front of the ASEAN IGCHR, joined by human rights organizations in Indonesia.

8. Roque felt that even the complaint he filed in the ASEAN Committee on Human Rights was not being given due consideration. Consequently, he caused the filing of a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) with respect to the Ampatuan massacre.

9. Roque believed that the massacre could have been prevented if the military officers in charge of the area had granted the request and pleas of the eventual victims for a military escort. Roque found out that an AFP Major General and a Colonel refused to provide security to the ill-fated convoy notwithstanding advance information of threats to the convoy. As a result, Roque filed a criminal case against the military officers for their dereliction of duty.

10. Private Prosecutor Nena Santos restrictively participates in the trial involving the 57 murder victims. There is even no recollection that she ever personally presented a single witness during the trial. In contrast, and in addition to his participation in the trial of the 57 murder victims, Roque has initiated, sued, and actively participates in more than 20 additional cases/proceedings involving the Ampatuan massacre. These additional cases cost the Ampatuans and/or their co-accused substantial lawyers expenses and expose them to additional liabilities.

11. Roque wanted live TV and radio coverage for the Ampatuan trial because, among others, he believes that the public is entitled to see the conduct, demeanor, and competence of the Presiding Judge, the Prosecutors, the Defense Counsels, the witnesses, the complainants, and the accused during the trials. Accordingly, he filed a Petition with the Supreme Court to allow live media coverage for the Ampatuan trial. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not favor live media coverage.

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

August 8, 2014August 8, 2014 Ellen Leave a comment

By Mylah Reyes 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.)

Fight vs online libel goes to the UNCHR

April 24, 2014April 24, 2014 Ellen Leave a comment

Lawyer Harry Roque files motion for reconsideration vs Cybercrime law.

Last Tuesday, while in Baguio City for their summer session, the Supreme Court denied all the Motions for Reconsideration on Online Libel which it upheld in its Feb. 18, 2014 decision.

It will be recalled that in its Feb. 18 decision, the High Court struck down as illegal the authority given to the Department of Justice) to restrict or block access to any online post which it deemed violating the law without any court order.

But it upheld the constitutionality of the online libel that increased the penalty twelvefold. From a minimum punishment of six months imprisonment under the Revised Penal Code, the Cybercrime Prevention Law increased it to six years. The maximum punishment was doubled from six to twelve years in prison.

In our Motion for Reconsideration last month, we reiterated our position that libel, as a criminal offense, under the Revised Penal Code is unconstitutional.

We also contended that with the Cybercrime Law, the Philippine government violated its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The UNCHR cited this covenant when it declared in the case of Davao journalist Alexander Adonis (who was convicted and imprisoned for libel filed by then Congressman Prospero Nograles) that the libel provisions of the Philippines do not conform with the standards set in Article 19 paragraph three of the ICCPR of which the Philippines is a signatory.

We are dismayed by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of all the motions for reconsideration.

Our lawyer,CenterLaw’s Harry Roque issued this statement:

“ As counsel for journalists Alexander Adonis, Ellen Tordesillas et al., I am of course deeply disappointed with this latest turn of events. In my opinion, the Supreme Court just lost a great opportunity to rectify the inconsistencies in our jurisprudence on freedom of expression. Simply put, while we have adopted the normative value of freedom of expression as the means to ascertain the truth and as the means to form informed public opinion which is indispensable in a democracy, the fact that the Court continues to sanction the imposition of imprisonment for libel contradicts our so-called constitutional commitment to freedom of expression.

“Moreover, I believe that this latest decision is a blatant disregard of the view expressed by the UN Human Rights Committee declaring criminal libel in the Philippines as being contrary to freedom of expression. It is thus a breach of “pacta sundt servanda”, or that treaty obligations must be complied with in good faith.

“ The view expressed by the UN Human Rights Committee in the case of Adonis vs. Philippines that criminal libel in the Philippines violates freedom of expression is as clear as the light of day. Whether or not the Committee actually expressed the view that the Philippines should repeal its criminal libel law is not the issue. What is clear is that with the declaration, we are in breach of our international obligation to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression, the Supreme Court should have ensured: one, that we cease and desist from the breach by declaring criminal libel as being contrary to international law; and two, it should have provided compensation to all those wrongfully sentenced for criminal libel. Certainly, to uphold a law that provides for an even more draconian libel law since it provides for a longer penalty of imprisonment doing away with the possibility of parole is a continuing breach of our international obligation.”

But we are not giving up. Roque said we will go to the UN Human Rights Committee.” The denial of our Motion for Reconsideration now triggers the availability of international remedies against the draconian law. Thank goodness for international law!”

Roque further said, “This latest Supreme Court decision is tantamount to exhaustion of domestic remedies. When we filed our challenge versus cyber libel with Alexander Adonis as petitioner, we were aiming to implement the UN Human Rights Committee view through jurisprudence. Since the highest court of the land has instead put its stamp of approval on the draconian law, the decision is evidence that we have again exhausted all domestic remedies. This will qualify Adonis et al to return to the UN to complaint that instead of implementing its earlier view, the Republic of the Philippines has openly defied it. We will pray for a second declaration that not only does libel under the Revised Penal Code violate Art. 19, but additionally, the Cybercrime Prevention Act equally violates freedom of expression.

“The difference is while the earlier view issued by the UN was against a decision of a Regional Trial Court Judge, this time around, we will ask the Committee to declare a collegial decision of our highest judicial organ as violating international law.”

“If we succeed — and chances are that we will — the Court will be put in an embarrassing situation where proven experts in the field of human rights will find a decision of our 15-man court as being erroneous and violates human rights law. This would be downright embarrassing for the Court. When this happens, we can say that when we filed our motion for reconsideration, we gave our Courts the opportunity to avoid the spectacle of an experts view that its decision is wrong. In the end, the Court will only have itself to blame for the ignominy of a decision, which could be condemned by the international human rights community as a violation of human rights law.”