MANILA, Philippines—Quezon City Judge Jocelyn Solis Reyes opens on Wednesday the trial of the November 2009 Maguindanao massacre, with nearly 200 accused and a list of over 500 witnesses.
The trial will determine whether Andal Ampatuan Jr., whose clan was closely associated with then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and 195 others carried out the slaughter of 57 unarmed civilians including at least 30 media workers in Ampatuan, Maguindanao.
Legal luminaries concede that the trial may last for years.
“If you follow the normal, business-as-usual proceedings in the court, five years may be a good ‘guesstimate,’” said University of the East law dean Amado Valdez, a trial lawyer for about 30 years.
“I’ll be a fool if I give you a time frame,” Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon told the Inquirer with a chuckle during the last hearing of the pretrial conference two weeks ago.
Fadullon is leading a battery of lawyers, including private counsels, representing the massacre victims.
Ampatuan Jr. and the other alleged masterminds—prominent members of the clan led by ex-Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr.—are in government custody.
One of the 112 suspects being hunted in connection with the massacre has surrendered to authorities, Senior Supt. Agrimero Cruz, spokesperson of the Philippine National Police, said Tuesday.
Ex-PO1 Narkouk Duloan Mascud turned himself in after learning that a warrant had been issued and a corresponding reward put up for his arrest.
Mascud surrendered because “he wanted to clear his name,” Cruz said.
He said Mascud joined the PNP in 1999 and had since been assigned with the Provincial Mobile Group in Maguindanao.
Mascud has been turned over to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group for “proper disposition,” according to Cruz.
The Department of Interior and Local Government has offered a P28-million reward for information leading to the arrest of the other suspects at large.
‘Private offended parties’
Discussing the possible length of the Maguindanao massacre trial, Fadullon compared it to the coup d’ etat case involving the Magdalo soldiers who mounted the Oakwood mutiny in 2003 and demanded then President Arroyo’s resignation.
Fadullon, who was then also part of the prosecuting panel, pointed out that the Oakwood mutiny case only had 31 accused, yet “it took seven years.” The trial proper was completed only early this year, and the case is up for decision.
Assistant State Prosecutor Juan Navera added that because the Maguindanao massacre case involved “private offended parties,” the trial could take much longer.
“Each of the victims has his own circumstances, which will be discussed during the trial,” he said.
Asked how the case would impact the Philippine criminal justice system, Navera said the termination alone of a case of similar magnitude would be a landscape-changing scenario given the number of victims and accused.
“It would be a victory for the criminal justice system to absorb such logistical difficulties,” he said.
‘Abnormal crime’
Valdez concurred with the observation. Once the lawyers wrap up their arguments during the trial, “an overhaul of our rules of procedure” is in order to provide the expeditious resolution of the case, he said.
“The multiplicity of the victims baffles standing jurisprudence,” Valdez said, pointing out that no other crime in Philippine legal history paralleled the Maguindanao massacre in terms of the number of people involved.
“This crime is abnormal and our judicial system is not built for this purpose,” he said.
At the very least, he added, the case was comparable to the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes proceedings because of the sheer number of victims and the fact that the crime was committed by a group.
Valdez recalled that the Allied forces set up tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo to prosecute Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, respectively, for crimes against humanity committed during World War II.
Because the tribunals were set up by the Allies, Valdez said, the proceedings were designed without bureaucratic hitches to ensure the swift completion of the case.
Lawyer Marlon Pagaduan, who represents a number of accused police officers, agreed that the trial would drag on for years with the number of witnesses that the defense and the prosecution intended to call.
Pagaduan said the prosecution had listed over 200 witnesses, and the defense some 300. “You also have to add the number of lawyers who will cross-examine each witness,” he said.
Judge is key
In saying that the trial was sure to take a long time, Valdez pointed out that the prosecution had to link all the accused in terms of who masterminded the crime, who actually carried out the murders, who “facilitated the herding of the victims” to where they were killed, and who, for example, brought the backhoe that dug the victims’ mass grave.
Valdez said the key to the speedy disposition of the case rested solely on Judge Reyes. “She should be able to control the proceedings” in terms of dealing with the requests filed by both parties and admitting witnesses as well, he said.
State prosecutors are expected to present their first witness at Wednesday’s hearing.
Fadullon did not name the person set to take the stand. He cited security reasons, which Reyes allowed.
The Ampatuan lawyers argued their need to prepare for the witness, but the judge suggested that the defense seek a continuance of the proceeding if the need arose.
“We have to prepare for the cross-examination…They have over 100 witnesses,” lawyer Gregorio Narvasa II told the court.
Fadullon, 48, appeared resigned to the fact that the trial would take some time. “Maybe I’ll retire with the case,” he said.
After the preliminaries ended two weeks ago, Bob Dietz, program coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said he had no idea how long such a case usually took in Philippine courts.
But one thing remains clear to Dietz: “We want…the ones who ordered this [killing] to be brought to justice.”
‘A matter of conscience’
Judge Reyes has junked “for lack of merit” as many as five motions filed by the Ampatuans seeking her inhibition from the case. Two other motions await resolution.
She said that while she “is certainly not infallible,” she “stands pat on the correctness of the rulings” she made during the bail hearings.
She added, citing a Supreme Court ruling: “There is really no hard and fast rule when it comes to the inhibition of judges. The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and good discretion on the part of the judge.”
According to the defense, Reyes has an “alleged bias” against the accused.
But Reyes said: “The presiding judge wishes to remind the accused that she is not obliged to explain her side relative to the issues raised in [their motions], but shall do so if only to enlighten them.” With reports from Dona Z. Pazzibugan and Julie M. Aurelio
The trial will determine whether Andal Ampatuan Jr., whose clan was closely associated with then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and 195 others carried out the slaughter of 57 unarmed civilians including at least 30 media workers in Ampatuan, Maguindanao.
Legal luminaries concede that the trial may last for years.
“If you follow the normal, business-as-usual proceedings in the court, five years may be a good ‘guesstimate,’” said University of the East law dean Amado Valdez, a trial lawyer for about 30 years.
“I’ll be a fool if I give you a time frame,” Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Fadullon told the Inquirer with a chuckle during the last hearing of the pretrial conference two weeks ago.
Fadullon is leading a battery of lawyers, including private counsels, representing the massacre victims.
Ampatuan Jr. and the other alleged masterminds—prominent members of the clan led by ex-Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr.—are in government custody.
One of the 112 suspects being hunted in connection with the massacre has surrendered to authorities, Senior Supt. Agrimero Cruz, spokesperson of the Philippine National Police, said Tuesday.
Ex-PO1 Narkouk Duloan Mascud turned himself in after learning that a warrant had been issued and a corresponding reward put up for his arrest.
Mascud surrendered because “he wanted to clear his name,” Cruz said.
He said Mascud joined the PNP in 1999 and had since been assigned with the Provincial Mobile Group in Maguindanao.
Mascud has been turned over to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group for “proper disposition,” according to Cruz.
The Department of Interior and Local Government has offered a P28-million reward for information leading to the arrest of the other suspects at large.
‘Private offended parties’
Discussing the possible length of the Maguindanao massacre trial, Fadullon compared it to the coup d’ etat case involving the Magdalo soldiers who mounted the Oakwood mutiny in 2003 and demanded then President Arroyo’s resignation.
Fadullon, who was then also part of the prosecuting panel, pointed out that the Oakwood mutiny case only had 31 accused, yet “it took seven years.” The trial proper was completed only early this year, and the case is up for decision.
Assistant State Prosecutor Juan Navera added that because the Maguindanao massacre case involved “private offended parties,” the trial could take much longer.
“Each of the victims has his own circumstances, which will be discussed during the trial,” he said.
Asked how the case would impact the Philippine criminal justice system, Navera said the termination alone of a case of similar magnitude would be a landscape-changing scenario given the number of victims and accused.
“It would be a victory for the criminal justice system to absorb such logistical difficulties,” he said.
‘Abnormal crime’
Valdez concurred with the observation. Once the lawyers wrap up their arguments during the trial, “an overhaul of our rules of procedure” is in order to provide the expeditious resolution of the case, he said.
“The multiplicity of the victims baffles standing jurisprudence,” Valdez said, pointing out that no other crime in Philippine legal history paralleled the Maguindanao massacre in terms of the number of people involved.
“This crime is abnormal and our judicial system is not built for this purpose,” he said.
At the very least, he added, the case was comparable to the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes proceedings because of the sheer number of victims and the fact that the crime was committed by a group.
Valdez recalled that the Allied forces set up tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo to prosecute Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, respectively, for crimes against humanity committed during World War II.
Because the tribunals were set up by the Allies, Valdez said, the proceedings were designed without bureaucratic hitches to ensure the swift completion of the case.
Lawyer Marlon Pagaduan, who represents a number of accused police officers, agreed that the trial would drag on for years with the number of witnesses that the defense and the prosecution intended to call.
Pagaduan said the prosecution had listed over 200 witnesses, and the defense some 300. “You also have to add the number of lawyers who will cross-examine each witness,” he said.
Judge is key
In saying that the trial was sure to take a long time, Valdez pointed out that the prosecution had to link all the accused in terms of who masterminded the crime, who actually carried out the murders, who “facilitated the herding of the victims” to where they were killed, and who, for example, brought the backhoe that dug the victims’ mass grave.
Valdez said the key to the speedy disposition of the case rested solely on Judge Reyes. “She should be able to control the proceedings” in terms of dealing with the requests filed by both parties and admitting witnesses as well, he said.
State prosecutors are expected to present their first witness at Wednesday’s hearing.
Fadullon did not name the person set to take the stand. He cited security reasons, which Reyes allowed.
The Ampatuan lawyers argued their need to prepare for the witness, but the judge suggested that the defense seek a continuance of the proceeding if the need arose.
“We have to prepare for the cross-examination…They have over 100 witnesses,” lawyer Gregorio Narvasa II told the court.
Fadullon, 48, appeared resigned to the fact that the trial would take some time. “Maybe I’ll retire with the case,” he said.
After the preliminaries ended two weeks ago, Bob Dietz, program coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said he had no idea how long such a case usually took in Philippine courts.
But one thing remains clear to Dietz: “We want…the ones who ordered this [killing] to be brought to justice.”
‘A matter of conscience’
Judge Reyes has junked “for lack of merit” as many as five motions filed by the Ampatuans seeking her inhibition from the case. Two other motions await resolution.
She said that while she “is certainly not infallible,” she “stands pat on the correctness of the rulings” she made during the bail hearings.
She added, citing a Supreme Court ruling: “There is really no hard and fast rule when it comes to the inhibition of judges. The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience and good discretion on the part of the judge.”
According to the defense, Reyes has an “alleged bias” against the accused.
But Reyes said: “The presiding judge wishes to remind the accused that she is not obliged to explain her side relative to the issues raised in [their motions], but shall do so if only to enlighten them.” With reports from Dona Z. Pazzibugan and Julie M. Aurelio
No comments:
Post a Comment