How many more media deaths to move the government?

Nilo Baculio Sr. with Atty Romel Bagares of CenterLaw and NUJP's Sonny Fernandez.

Nilo Baculio Sr. with Atty Romel Bagares of CenterLaw and NUJP’s Sonny Fernandez.

The death of Mindoro broadcast journalist Nilo Baculio Sr. should bear not only on the conscience of the Court of Appeals judge who dismissed his petition for protection as “unsubstantiated” but also on this government especially President Aquino by being cavalier about media killings in the country.

Last Monday, June 9, 2014, the 67-year old Baculio, who hosted the program “Isumbong Mo kay Ka Nilo” over radio station dwIM in Calapan City, was gunned down by two unidentified men riding in a motorcycle.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, who monitors the state of media in the country including media killings said: “Baculio was the 165th journalist murdered in the country, the 33rd under the watch of President Benigno Aquino III and the fourth this year.”

Lawyer Harry Roque, who represented Baculio in procuring from the Supreme Court the first ever Writ of Amparo in favor of a journalist in 2008 but was refused by the CA ,said “There is blood in the hands of the CA Justices who refused Nilo Baculio protection.”

Roque said the killing of Baculio is a grim example of “what happens when the Court errs in their appreciation of evidence.”

Roque recalled: “Nilo in his application for protection order stated under oath that locally elected officials engaged in the illegal drug trade are out to kill him. The CA said this was not supported by evidence beyond the say so of Nilo. Granted that the CA’s decision was prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Manado brothers case where the Court said that Amparo is proper in order to release a petitioner form the threat of fear form his life, the CA, in Baculios case, wanted evidence which oftentimes cannot be provided given the nature of threats against anyone: their verification is almost difficult if not possible.”

Baculio is dead. His comment that “Our justice system is rotten. You have to die first before you can prove” that a threat does exist became prophetic.

Appeal from members of media .

Appeal from members of media .

Roque said the death of Baculio should prompt our courts to be more circumspect in dismissing applications for protection orders.”While a wrongfully issued writ will not hurt anyone, a person denied of the same could result in the death of the petitioner.”

The NUJP attributes the impunity in the killing of journalists to the environment encouraged by the government. To be sure, it’s not only the Aquino government. Previous governments just paid lip service to the country’s notoriety as one of the most dangerous places for journalists and always cites the vibrant state of media freedom in the Philippines as if it’s their gift to media.

NUJP said:”Between a president who dismisses media killings because, to him, most victims are targeted “not because of professional activities, but, shall we say, other issues,” courts that, as Baculio sadly foretold, will believe lives are in danger only when those lives are actually lost, and security forces that, as a recent Human Rights Watch report and a number of other investigations into journalists’ murders have noted, are most likely involved, demanding, even hoping for, justice may seem to be an exercise in futility.”

NUJP further said “We will never tire of pointing out that the State’s failure to protect its own citizens makes it accountable for each and every extrajudicial murder that makes a mockery of all claims to our being a democracy.”

In President Aquino’s Independence Day speech yesterday, he recalled his fatehr’s words:“In a true democracy, every person is required not merely to protect the right of those they agree with, but to defend even the rights of those with whom they disagree. If the rights of any one is disregarded, there will come a time when your own rights will be disregarded.”

He could give substance to those words by sincerely appreciating the role of media plays in a democracy.

How many more media deaths to move the government?

Nilo Baculio Sr. with Atty Romel Bagares of CenterLaw and NUJP's Sonny Fernandez.

Nilo Baculio Sr. with Atty Romel Bagares of CenterLaw and NUJP’s Sonny Fernandez.

The death of Mindoro broadcast journalist Nilo Baculio Sr. should bear not only on the conscience of the Court of Appeals judge who dismissed his petition for protection as “unsubstantiated” but also on this government especially President Aquino by being cavalier about media killings in the country.

Last Monday, June 9, 2014, the 67-year old Baculio, who hosted the program “Isumbong Mo kay Ka Nilo” over radio station dwIM in Calapan City, was gunned down by two unidentified men riding in a motorcycle.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, who monitors the state of media in the country including media killings said: “Baculio was the 165th journalist murdered in the country, the 33rd under the watch of President Benigno Aquino III and the fourth this year.”

Lawyer Harry Roque, who represented Baculio in procuring from the Supreme Court the first ever Writ of Amparo in favor of a journalist in 2008 but was refused by the CA ,said “There is blood in the hands of the CA Justices who refused Nilo Baculio protection.”

Roque said the killing of Baculio is a grim example of “what happens when the Court errs in their appreciation of evidence.”

Roque recalled: “Nilo in his application for protection order stated under oath that locally elected officials engaged in the illegal drug trade are out to kill him. The CA said this was not supported by evidence beyond the say so of Nilo. Granted that the CA’s decision was prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Manado brothers case where the Court said that Amparo is proper in order to release a petitioner form the threat of fear form his life, the CA, in Baculios case, wanted evidence which oftentimes cannot be provided given the nature of threats against anyone: their verification is almost difficult if not possible.”

Baculio is dead. His comment that “Our justice system is rotten. You have to die first before you can prove” that a threat does exist became prophetic.

Appeal from members of media .

Appeal from members of media .

Roque said the death of Baculio should prompt our courts to be more circumspect in dismissing applications for protection orders.”While a wrongfully issued writ will not hurt anyone, a person denied of the same could result in the death of the petitioner.”

The NUJP attributes the impunity in the killing of journalists to the environment encouraged by the government. To be sure, it’s not only the Aquino government. Previous governments just paid lip service to the country’s notoriety as one of the most dangerous places for journalists and always cites the vibrant state of media freedom in the Philippines as if it’s their gift to media.

NUJP said:”Between a president who dismisses media killings because, to him, most victims are targeted “not because of professional activities, but, shall we say, other issues,” courts that, as Baculio sadly foretold, will believe lives are in danger only when those lives are actually lost, and security forces that, as a recent Human Rights Watch report and a number of other investigations into journalists’ murders have noted, are most likely involved, demanding, even hoping for, justice may seem to be an exercise in futility.”

NUJP further said “We will never tire of pointing out that the State’s failure to protect its own citizens makes it accountable for each and every extrajudicial murder that makes a mockery of all claims to our being a democracy.”

In President Aquino’s Independence Day speech yesterday, he recalled his fatehr’s words:“In a true democracy, every person is required not merely to protect the right of those they agree with, but to defend even the rights of those with whom they disagree. If the rights of any one is disregarded, there will come a time when your own rights will be disregarded.”

He could give substance to those words by sincerely appreciating the role of media plays in a democracy.

Nakakaduda na ang kilos ng pamahalaan sa kaso ni Napoles

Leila de LimaHindi naman siguro tanga si Justice Secretary Leila de Lima para hindi niya maisip kung bakit pilit na gusto makipagkita sa kanya si Janet Napoles at gusto kumanta.Napoles Philnews

Maraming pagkakataon si Napoles na magsabi ng buong katotohanan tungkol sa panloloko at pagnakaw ng bilyun-bilyon na pera sa taumbayan ngunit hindi niya ginawa. Nang dumalo siya sa hearing ng Senate Blue Ribbon Committtee, wala siyang sinabi. Puro wala siyang alam samantalang nanumpa siya na magsabi na buong katotohanan. “Nothing but the truth,” sabi sa kanyang oath.

Iba na raw ang kuwento ni Napoles nang binisita ni De Lima sa Ospital ng Makati. Nagdawit pa raw siya ng maraming senador at congressman. Merong may nagsabi na 19 na senador daw ang sa kanyang affidavit, meron namang nagsabing 12.

Ngunit hindi raw nila pinag-usapan ang pagiging state witness ni Napoles.

Sinong tanga ang maniniwala na kakanta si Napoles na walang kapalit? Konsyensya daw.

Ginu-goodtime lang tayo nito. Pumayag naman si De Lima sa drama. Halata namang nagta-trial balloon lang sila.

Mabuti naman at umalma ang publiko. Kasi naman kung gawing state witness si Napoles kapalit ng kanyang pagsabi ng katotohanan kuno tungkol sa raket ng PDAF (Priority development Assistance Fund), idi-dimis na lahat na kaso laban sa kanya.

Ang swerte naman niya kung mangyayari yan. Limpak na limpak na salapi na ang kanyang nakuha sa taumbayan. Nakabili na ng maraming ari-arian kasama pa ang isang hotel sa Amerika. Hindi lang siya, pati na rin ang kanyang mga galamay kasama na doon si Ruby Tuason at si Dennis Cunanan, na kumita na rin ng husto.

Magandang raket yan at sigurado marami ang gagayq. Magnakaw ng husto. Dapat malakihan kasi kapag maliit, baka mabulok ka sa kulungan. Isama mo ang mga malalaking tao rin. Kapag nagpalit ng administrasyon at mahuli ka, kumanta ka at libre ka na. Kumita ka ng bilyun-bilyon na walang pagod.

Kaya tama ang sabi ni Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV na kung gusto ng pamahalaang Aquino gawing state witness si Napoles (kahit na tagilid ito sa batas dahil isa siya sa may malaking papel sa anomalya), kailangan ibalik niya ang kanyang ninanakaw. Umabot daw sa P10 bilyun ang nawalang pera na dapat ay napunta sa mahihirap na Pilipino. Dapat ibalik niya yan. Baka P10 milyun lang ang ibabalik niya.

Sabi ni Trillanes:”Definitely may conditions, like isosoli mo lahat ng ninakaw mo. Pangalawa, kailangan hindi ka magpipigil. I believe this thing should not be looked solely at the legal perspective kasi merong greater interest of the state na kailangan nating malaman kung sino talaga ‘yung mga kakontsaba niya, mga ka-partners niya in crime. Kasi imagine this, if we would be a stickler to what the law says, sige hindi siya pwedeng candidate for state witness as defined, pero hindi mo na naman nakita kung sino ‘yung mga senador at mga congressman na involved. So they’re still out there. They’re crafting policies. They’re probably committing acts of corruption still. ‘Di ba mas maganda na sigurong mas makita natin ‘yun, na ito siya, pagbigyan na natin.”

Sa “hindi magpapapigil”, ang ibig sabihin ni Trillanes, dapat buong katotohanan sabihin niya. Hindi pwedeng pipiliin lang niya kung sino ang didi-in niya.

Kaya balik tayo sa bakit ba kailangan pa si Napoles para maging state witness. Akala ko ba malakas na ang kaso laban sa tatlong senador – Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla – at iba pang akusado.

Di ba sabi ng Ombudsman may basehan na ang kasong plunder at paglabag ng anti-graft law sa mga testimonya nina Benhur Luy at ng kanyang mga kasamahan? At ano ngayon ang mangyayari sa kaso ni Luy laban kay Napoles na illegal detention?

Ano ba ang nangyayari? Nakakaduda na ha. Mukhang ginugulo na lang. Bakit sumasakay si De Lima?

Fight vs online libel goes to the UNCHR

Lawyer Harry Roque files motion for reconsideration vs Cybercrime law.

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.”

The incredible Dennis Cunanan

Dennis Cunanan

Dennis Cunanan

Dennis Cunanan, the deputy director general of Technology Resource Center (TRC), said of the some P600 million PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) or pork barrel that passed through his office and ended up in the pockets of three senators and Janet Napoles, he didn’t get a single centavo.

Incredible! As incredible as Cunanan, a college undergraduate, getting appointed by Gloria Arroyo as executive director of the Commission on Higher Education.

Thanks Karina Constantino-David for reminding the public of that attempt by Cunanan to put one over the Filipino people.

David, former chair of the Civil Service Commission (she is now a member of the board of directors of the Government Service Insurance System) recalled that CHED officials and the Employees Union were protesting the appointment of Cunanan as executive director because he misrepresented himself as a having graduated from the University of the Philippines.

“We investigated and true enough, he did not graduate from college, a basic requirement for almost all government posts. He was told to leave.”

Cunanan’s lawyer, Odessa Bernabe, has a creative explanation for that foiled fraud, as reported in the Inquirer.

Bernabe said Cunanan was not fired. He resigned. Okay, sige na.

Bernabe said:“He was not kicked out. He was even thankful then because he found out his educational status and started attending to it accordingly.”

He didn’t know that he was not a college graduate? For the position to oversee the country’s higher education!

Bernabe said, instead of UP that he put in his biodata, Cunanan eventually acquired a college diploma from Lacson College in Pasay City.

Cunanan is among those charged for plunder in connection with the multi-billion pork barrel scam operated by Janet Napoles in connivance with senators, congressmen, legislative staff and other government officials.

The inclusion of Cunanan among the respondents was based on the testimony of Benhur Luy, the primary whistleblower in this anomaly that has dragged Senators Juan Ponce-Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla.

Cunanan recently came out and offered to turn state witness. He has been admitted provisionally under the Witness Protection Program.

If admitted in the WPP, Cunanan would be dropped from the plunder charge sheet. What is he giving to the government and to the Filipino people to go unpunished for conniving with those who deprived the people billions of pesos that would have otherwise been spent to build classrooms, health centers, farm-to-market roads and other projects?

De Lima said the information Cunanan is giving them will bolster the testimony of Benhur Luy.

There we go again, just like in the case of Ruby Tuason. Cunanan is not giving anything more than what Luy and his fellow original whistleblowers have given.

But unlike Tuason who offered to give back P40 million of her loot, Cunanan is not giving back anything.

ABS-CBN’s Lynda Jumilla reported that Cunanan is selling his house in White Plains for P40 million. There are also talks of his family leaving for abroad.

Cunanan denies he owns the White Plains house. It’s in the name of his brother. He also said he is willing to open his bank accounts to prove his claim that he didn’t get any commission for the services he gave to Napoles and the three senators.

He really takes us for idiots. That we cannot think that stolen properties are not put under the thief’s name. That one can stash his loot under another person’s name.

But what is puzzling is how he is able to make De Lima believe him.

After Cunanan, I will no longer be surprised if tomorrow De Lima tells us that they have accepted Napoles as state witness.

Why don’t we go all the way and get Enrile, Estrada and Revilla as well. Let’s go for the most incredible.