Zaldy Ampatuan has offered to testify against his father, former Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr., and his brother, former Datu Unsay Mayor Andal Jr.
The three Ampatuans are the principal accused and among 79 people detained in connection with the massacre of 58 people, including 32 media workers, in Maguindanao on Nov. 23, 2009.
Zaldy, the governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) suspended after the massacre, has indicated that he has more stories to tell.
In unsigned statements that he purportedly released after his offer to turn state witness, Zaldy linked former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to cheating in Maguindanao during the 2004 presidential election and the 2007 senatorial elections. He also accused Arroyo of receiving P200 million in kickbacks from three road projects in the ARMM during her term.
What is Zaldy’s game plan? Harry Roque, a private prosecutor in the Maguindanao massacre case, and Howard Calleja, a lawyer of Zaldy, shed light on what he is up to.
Trojan horse
By Harry Roque
I hate to be KJ (kill joy) after I was branded KSP (kulang sa pansin). But the truth still has to be told. So please bear with me.
Just when almost everyone thought that the door to Malacañang had been shut to Zaldy Ampatuan by P-Noy [President Aquino] no less, with the President’s clear statement that the former will not be accepted as a state witness in the pending massacre case, no less than Justice Secretary Leila de Lima confirmed that Zaldy may still be used as a state witness for other crimes, such as election sabotage.
This could be a classic Trojan horse intended to assure Zaldy impunity for all crimes that he has been accused of committing, including the Maguindanao massacre.
How will the admission of Zaldy, [a suspended governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao], into the Witness Protection Program (WPP) for any other crime result in impunity even in the massacre case?
Too political
The answer is found in the law that created the WPP, criticized by then UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston for being too political since it falls directly under the supervision and control of the justice secretary.
I have had personal experience with the application of this law. The first incident was my unsuccessful attempt to seek the admission into the program of Upham Suwaib, the self-confessed Maguindanao massacre participant who was then known as Jesse when he was interviewed by some TV stations.
Doc Ortega case
The second incident involved one of the witnesses in the murder case of Dr. Gerry Ortega of RMN Palawan. I am representing the family of Ortega in the complaint filed before the Department of Justice.
In Doc Gerry’s case, the star witness, Rodolfo Edrad, also known as “Boomar,” alleged in a sworn statement details of how former Palawan Gov. Joel Reyes retained his services and financed the conspiracy to kill Doc Gerry.
On the basis of this statement, Boomar applied and was admitted into the WPP. Curiously, we found out that he was then indicted as an accused in a separate murder case in the province of Quezon.
Immediately after the indictment, the counsel for Reyes sought to remove Boomar from the WPP and asked that he be immediately transferred to the custody of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon, which had issued a warrant for his arrest.
WPP custody
Even at the risk of incurring contempt of court, the WPP did not surrender Boomar to the custody of the Quezon court. The WPP invoked Section 8 of the law, which vests into the WPP custody over all those admitted into the program.
The provision indicates that witnesses admitted into the program have the right to “a secure housing facility until he has testified or until the threat, intimidation or harassment disappears or is reduced to a manageable or tolerable level.” This right is available not just to the witness himself, but also extends to his spouse and children.
Accordingly, the Quezon RTC has since ruled that Boomar, despite the warrant of arrest against him, can continue to remain in the custody of the WPP.
Secure facility
Applied to Zaldy’s case, the danger with his admission into the WPP for any other crime is precisely this: while he continues to be an accused in the massacre and while he could even be convicted for it, he will remain in the “secure housing facility” provided for him by the WPP.
This could be for the rest of his life as the “threat, intimidation or harassment” emanating from his kin or from GMA [former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo] due to his incriminating testimony is not likely to cease during his lifetime.
Own housing
Conceivably, Zaldy need not spend even a day in Muntinlupa. Due to limitations in government resources, it is possible for Zaldy himself to provide his own housing provided he is secured there by operatives from the WPP.
If he is admitted into the WPP for his testimony on the election sabotage and plunder cases and not necessarily due to what he knows about the massacre in Ampatuan town, Zaldy may end up not staying in jail.
He could retire in one of the many Ampatuan mansions, protected in his lifetime by government agents, and even drawing an allowance from government for the rest of his life.
No one can dispute that many of us want to see GMA investigated, prosecuted and punished for her many sins, all of which were included in three impeachment complaints that we filed against her, with no less than then Rep. Noynoy Aquino as an endorser in the first two. It should, however, not be at the expense of the 58 victims of the Ampatuan massacre.
Beware of the Trojan horse.
(Harry Roque is a private prosecutor representing 15 media workers killed in the Maguindanao massacre.)
Full measure of our laws
By Howard Calleja
Once in a while, we all need to be reminded that we are a government of laws and not of men. Our laws provide for procedure to be followed in the prosecution of a crime.
At the same time, our laws follow the principle of nondiscrimination, equality and due process, and presume the innocence of the accused before they are proven guilty by a competent court.
Basic human rights
As our laws provide for redress of grievances, they also guarantee rights, defense and protection to those against whom redress is sought. These are basic human rights.
Why should we deny due process and equal protection of the laws to persons accused of a crime when our very own Constitution enshrines them?
Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan is not asking for kindness or sympathy.
Like the victims of the massacre, he is after truth and justice not only for himself but also for his family, for the innocent prisoners suffering in jail and those currently hiding to avoid unjust prosecution.
Closure
After all, Governor Zaldy remains a public servant who is accountable to the public and seeking to discharge his duties as a public officer with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, loyalty and efficiency.
What does Zaldy stand to gain from speaking the truth? I want to state for the record that my client has no political ambitions anymore and has decided to come out into the open in order to:
Identify those who are responsible for the massacre and give closure to the case.
Seek justice.
Make accountable those who should be accountable.
Judge fairly those who are accused.
Zaldy is only after the truth and he will go wherever his quest for the truth takes him.
All the negative information coming from Atty. Harry Roque and the connections that the he makes are better checked for veracity and accuracy, and evaluated for fairness as well.
Malicious
Lately, Roque has been actively and violently reacting to speculations that Zaldy might be utilized as state witness.
Unfortunately, Roque’s arguments are not only polluted but malicious as well.
Firstly, the grounds are not legal. Secondly, the allegations have no supporting evidence. Lastly, the intention is only to muddle the case.
According to Roque, presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda and I were classmates at the Ateneo.
Lacierda was neither my classmate nor contemporary in law school. I have never spoken to Lacierda.
Blog
Roque has been maligning me in his blog and articles and advancing allegations unsupported by proof.
As a lawyer, I build my own case and not rely on the weakness of my opponent’s defense.
Facts
I argue based on facts and do not attack either the person of my opponent or my opponent’s counsel.
My foremost duty is to defend with zeal the causes of my client. I believe that this zealous defense is no stranger to Roque.
I also believe that the following rights declared in our 1987 Constitution as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not escape Roque, an international law expert: equality before the law, full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, presumption of innocence until proved guilty “according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.”
Equal protection
Should anyone be in the unfortunate position of either victim or accused, our laws have provided for defense, benefits, rights and protection to mitigate such misfortune.
Neither sympathy nor kindness is necessary. It is sufficient if the full measure of our laws is observed, primarily due process and equal protection.
Open mind
In sum, all that I ask is for Roque and the public to keep an open mind and be willing to suspend judgment until all the pieces of evidence are at hand.
The ultimate goal for truth and justice to prevail should precede whatever might seem to be selfish reasons.
(Howard Calleja is a lawyer of Zaldy Ampatuan.)