Culture of Impunity
Presentation by Melinda Quintos de Jesus
Executive Director, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility
Australia-Philippines Policy Forum on Human Rights
Manila, 17 June 2010
Excellencies
Fellow Advocates for Human Rights and Press Freedom
Ladies and Gentlemen
Friends
First of all, I would like to thank the Australian Embassy for this invitation and for the inclusion of press freedom and journalist killings in the discussion of human rights.
Press freedom is acknowledged to be one of the central pillars of democracy. The press enhances the growth of citizens as equals in the eyes of law, as everyone can be a participant in the public forum, especially now that the new media has given ordinary citizens the same kind of access to the news as well as the capacity to be news sources themselves. It is important therefore to appreciate the value of the press to all citizens, not just the members of the press.
How is the press media important to the public? It is the source of news and information. It explains complex issues and problems and helps the ordinary person to form an opinion about policy matters. It assists those who need to complain about their situation, whether it is is personal loss or tragedy resulting from disaster and calamity. It provides images and ideas freely about concerns that matter to all of us: traffic, taxes, as well as trivial matters, like the latest celebrity caper or mischief.
Indeed, what would we do without the press? Obviously, we could not hold a real election without one. We would not know so much wrong-doing in high places. We would not be able to engage one another in continuing conversations about our options not just during elections but in the long period in between.
In the last two days, two radio broadcasters were killed. A block timer in Davao Oriental was shot in front of an audience watching an amateur contest that Desidario Camangyan was hosting. In Laoag City, capital of Ilocos Norte, a radio anchor, Jovelito Agustin, was shot close range by a man riding tandem on a motorcycle. It was nine-thirty in the evening. Both killers escaped.
If found to have been killed in the line of duty, these two slain media men would add to the list journalists killed in the line of duty, since 1986. This includes the 32 media practitioners and journalists who were included in the massacre in Ampatuan in November 23 last year.
These killings have placed the country high on the list of dangerous assignments around the world as well as countries afflicted with the culture of impunity, as identified by the New Yorkbased Committee to Protect Journalists.
The irony and contradiction inherent in the Philippine situation make these killings remarkable and worthy of continuing study and analysis.
First, we have a constitution worded with the same libertarian language of the American Constitution: No law shall be passed abridging freedom of expression and press freedom. We have nine national newspapers published in Metro Manila, not including tabloids. There are over 400 newspapers, mostly weeklies, some monthlies in the provinces. Dailies prosper in most of the urban capitals. As of 2008, 383 AM stations and 297 TV stations were counted by the National Telecommunication Commission. That is a huge presence. All of which are involved in giving news that is in a free-wheeling and in-your face style.
Second, until recent cases, libel charges did not prosper, even during the period of Martial Law. Although, we operate under onerous criminal libel laws, the courts have traditionally favored press freedom with their decision.
Third, journalists and radio and TV broadcasters enjoy an esteemed place in society, and wide popularity that has made several of them quite successful in their search for public office. Vice president is probably the best known example, a media practitioner who had no experience in public office but was chosen to run with then President Arroyo to enhance the popular draw of her campaign in 2007.
So the situation takes some effort to explain.
Allow me then to spend the given time to me to present the overview of the socio-political landscape that has been described in many advocate circles as the “culture of impunity.”
In 1991, international media watchdogs noted the numbers of journalists killed in the country. The presumption then was government was involved. CMFR conducted research into the 32 cases of journalists killed since 1986, to determine a pattern in the motives found in the cases. 22 killed in the line of duty, and a great variance of motives and perpetrators: private armies, hired assassins, rebel groups, para-military groups and those killed in war zones. Business and personal feuds figured in the cases killed in the line of duty.
In many ways, things have changed little to improve these conditions. At the time, CMFR did not find evidence of a pattern involving government officials in these killings.
What we found has been proven more and more the experience in countries moving from authoritarian control to more democratic space which gave rise to the de-monopolization of the instruments of violence. The new government which took over after Marcos saw the unleashing of forces in a conflict-ridden society, where active insurgencies were given more space to operate. And with them, paramilitary forces and private armies.
Post-Marcos, the Aquino government was saddled with a politicized military and police and judicial institutions. Add to this the weaknesses of law enforcement agencies, corruption and lack of capacity for forensic investigation.
The count of killings continued through the different administrations which followed Corazon Aquino’s watch. CMFR noted a remarkable spike in the numbers showed during the incumbency of President Arroyo.
117 cases of journalists killed in line of duty out of 171. 79 out of these work-related cases happened during the Arroyo administration.
The Arroyo administration announced the release of funds to aid the work of the advocates in 2005 and again in 2009. The first fund went to the Department of Justice and the second was released to the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) last year. Official task forces in either the Department of Justice or the Philippine National Police were equipped with little more than the documents of their authorization. There was little neither in budget share nor in programmatic response to indicate serious intent and purpose.
Meanwhile, the advocates have had some limited success. The conviction of assassins of Edgar Damalerio and Marlene Esperat was made possible with assistance to fund the efforts of private prosecutors working with state prosecutorial teams and the facilitation of the transfer of cases to safer courts. In the Marlene Esperat case, the trial revealed testimonial evidence which resulted in the arrest orders for two masterminds. Unfortunately, up to this point, the two, officers of the regional office of the Department of Agriculture, are still at large. Esperat had used her column in the Midland Review published in Sultan Kudarat to report on corruption in the use of fertilizer funds.
We have pushed the limits of the work, along with other member organizations of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists where CMFR is secretariat, involved as we are in legal support for the filing of cases in ten other journalist murders, as well as providing assistance for witnesses and their families.
The Ampatuan massacre last November 23 added 32 cases to the list. And the work that goes both on our humanitarian and legal defense efforts.
We have come to appreciate the work of dedicated state prosecutors who despite the lack of resources have been instrumental in the conviction of the hired killers.
Other aspects of impunity also involve other sectors and conditions such as weak judicial system, gun culture, and weak and corrupt police. Lawyering in this country probably allows greater abuse of the judicial process, sanctioned by the rules of court. Witness, please, the sixth motion of the defense lawyer for the recusation of the judge in the Ampatuan bail proceeding case. The case filed against the masterminds in the Esperat case has moved in courts in three provinces. And I am sure there are others.
Many members in the press community feel that the killings involve only those journalists who look for trouble and succeed. In other cases, which we do not have the time to discuss, press members themselves can be used to pressure their colleagues to apologize and reconcile to appease those charging them in court for libel.
Reform of the systems will take a long time. The changing of culture may not happen in our lifetime. But we are looking to the commitment of the new government of President Benigno Aquino III, whose experience of human rights violations in the past can only make him the best champion of this cause.
We can only hope to help him succeed.