The possibility that former Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan will turn state witness in the Ampatuan, Maguindanao, massacre case has been rejected outright by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima. Her scandalized reaction was only natural – but was it right? Did the rejection serve the true ends of justice?
We understand the collective sense of horror that greeted the news that Zaldy, once governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and one of the principal accused in the massacre case, might testify for the prosecution; indeed, we share in that sense. But if we want justice to be served, if we want the true masterminds of the gruesome Nov. 23, 2009 massacre to be meted out the right punishment, if we want the conditions that led to the massacre to be eradicated for good, we have to be willing to set aside our disgust and prejudice and explore what it is the former governor has to say.
We say this with full awareness that Zaldy has seemingly turned against his father Andal, the head of the still-fearsome Ampatuan clan, and his brother Andal Jr., in a transparent attempt to save his own skin; and that the families of the many victims are outraged at the mere thought of sharing the witness stand with the second most powerful member of the Ampatuan clan. But we are also fully aware that criminal cases in the Philippines are often made or broken on the basis of eyewitness testimony, and that under various sorts of pressure such testimony is eminently recantable.
We share the view of many that the massacre, a brutal orgy of bestial men, was inconceivable without the approval of the head of the clan, Andal, the former governor of Maguindanao. But what evidence does the government have that proves that Andal was the true mastermind? As far as we can determine, the evidence against Andal rests on testimony that can be recanted too. This reason alone suggests that the government should not reject Zaldy’s testimony outright. Instead, it should be explored and evaluated for what it can contribute to the strengthening of the evidence.
We realize that, judging by Zaldy’s media interviews, there really isn’t anything new in his version of events. Even his protestations of complete innocence sound old. But he is obviously negotiating, which means he may have something more to say. The government should find a way to get him to continue talking. (Even his disclosure about the election fraud engineered by the Ampatuan clan in Maguindanao in 2007 – something already much discussed in public forums – is part of the negotiation.)
We realize too that, judging from his initial statements, there really isn’t any legal basis for the Department of Justice to accept him as a state witness. By definition, a state witness bears criminal liability but is deemed by prosecutors to be least guilty; Zaldy, however, continues to refuse to admit any participation in the crime. “This goes against the very essence of being a state witness,” De Lima said.
But it is possible that the former ARMM governor is merely staking out his initial negotiating position. Why not explore the rest of what he has to say? If his testimony proves useful, he will not necessarily go scot-free. Nothing prevents the prosecutors from charging him with lesser crimes (a plea bargain, in other words). If his testimony doesn’t add anything to the prosecution’s case, then no deal. Either way, he will not enjoy immunity.
Unfortunately, the political and media environment does not seem to be conducive to exploring any possible offer from Zaldy Ampatuan. In fact, lawyer Harry Roque has raised the temperature in the already intense courtroom, with a blatant and irresponsible attempt to politicize Zaldy’s purported offer. Blaming the so-called Balay faction in the Aquino administration, Roque warned faction members supposedly involved in the bid to have Zaldy’s possible cooperation considered by the DOJ, saying darkly: “We will name all of them in time.” To which the right response is: Preposterous! Roque has obviously lost the argument, and is using dark political hints to color a discussion he does not want to have.
Let’s lower the temperature. Let’s keep things in perspective. Let’s keep an eye on the real objective, which is justice. We do not know whether Zaldy’s testimony is any good. But let’s find out exactly what that testimony is, before we reject it.