You are on page 1of 13

MEDIA TIMES

PHILIppINE JOURNALISM REVIEW
December 2013

The Ampatuan Massacre Trial

Lost in Court

DISASTER-PRONE PHILIPPINES: MEDIA’S RESPONSIBILITY
MEDIA IN AID OF PUBLIC OUTRAGE

PORK & PLUNDER

‘DIGITAL REVOLUTION’ IN THE PHILIPPINES:
READY FOR TAKE OFF

FACTS AND FIGURES
ON MEDIA AND ADVERTISING

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISM REVIEW

Table of Contents
MEDIA TIMES
PHILIPPINE JOURNALISM REVIEW

Melinda Quintos de Jesus Publisher and Editor in Chief Luis V. Teodoro PJR Reports Editor Kathryn Roja G. Raymundo Managing Editor Melanie Y. Pinlac John Reiner M. Antiquerra Paul Dawnson M. Formaran Penzer R. Baterna Pauline Mie R. Rapanut Staff Writers Lara Q. de Jesus Editorial Assistant Carol M. Paragele Editorial Secretary Lito Ocampo Photographer Borriz Caparuzo | Design Plus Design and Layout

2013

26

PORK AND PLUNDER
Media in Aid of Public Outrage
KATHRYN ROJA G. RAYMUNDO
LITO OCAMPO

Melinda Quintos de Jesus Luis V. Teodoro Maria Isabel G. Ongpin Tina Monzon Palma Vergel O. Santos Carlos H. Conde Lorna Kalaw-Tirol Board of Advisers

Our Cover
MILLION PEOPLE MARCH, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY BY JOHN K. CHUA/ADPHOTO, INC.

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISM REVIEW

Media Times Philippine Journalism Review is published by the

December 2013

All mail should be addressed to: Media Times Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility 2/F Ateneo Professional Schools Salcedo 130 H.V. dela Costa Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City 1227 Philippines Phones: (632) 894-1314/894-1326/840-0903 | (632) 840-0889 (Telefax) Email: staff@cmfr-phil.org | Website: www.cmfr-phil.org Social media: www.facebook.com/CMFR.Philippines | www.twitter.com/cmfr Media Times welcomes feedback and contributions on press and media issues. The publication of this issue is supported by a partnership with the Media Specialists Association of the Philippines and a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Ampatuan Massacre Trial

Lost in Court

DISASTER-PRONE PHILIPPINES: MEDIA’S RESPONSIBILITY
PORK & PLUNDER
MEDIA IN AID OF PUBLIC OUTRAGE

‘DIGITAL REVOLUTION’ IN THE PHILIPPINES:
READY FOR TAKE OFF

FACTS AND FIGURES

Copyright © 2013 Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility. All rights reserved.

ON MEDIA AND ADVERTISING

34 REPORTING THE ZAMBOANGA CRISIS: CONFUSED AND CONFUSING 42 REPORTING SUICIDE: HARDLY PAINLESS 48 ‘MEDIA MOGULRY’ REDUX 52 ‘IN MEDIAS RES’ ON ELECTIONS 56 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY PRESS 68 BY THE NUMBERS: ATTACKS AND THREATS AGAINST THE PRESS 73 MEDIA-RELATED BILLS: LEGISLATORS DIFFER ON THE ROLE OF THE PRESS 76 ‘DIGITAL REVOLUTION’ IN THE PHILIPPINES: READY FOR TAKE OFF 80 MEDIA CONVERGENCE: IT ALL BEGAN ONLINE 84 FROM LOLAS TO APOS: A BRAVE NEW DIGITAL WORLD
ALANAH TORRALBA

88 MEDIA POWER TODAY

DISASTER-PRONE PHILIPPINES
Media’s Responsibility
LUIS V. TEODORO

90 PHILIPPINE MEDIA FACTS AND FIGURES

10

LOST IN COURT:
Retrieving the Narrative
MELINDA QUINTOS DE JESUS

16

THE AMPATUAN MASSACRE TRIAL

Publisher’s Note

Melinda Quintos de Jesus

T

his current venture into publishing recalls an editorial project in an earlier period in the development of Philippine media. In the late seventies, I found myself editing a new magazine which the publisher called TV Times. He was a fan of TV Guide in the US; and thought a similar weekly could inform Filipino viewers about the programs offered by four privately owned television networks and one owned by government. Ferdinand Marcos had declared martial law in 1972. There was little to set apart the treatment of news in private or in the government stations. The few public affairs talk shows focused mostly on soft and safe subjects. All through that decade, media reported on politics and government according to imposed limits, primarily to avoid trouble but also to please persons in power, the president and his wife, their families, friends and appointed ofϐicials. Television and broadcast owners formed the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas which agreed to police themselves in the observance of ofϐicial, if silent, guidelines. So TV Times did not bother much with the wasteland of news at the time. It turned its critical eye on the use of television for entertainment and recreation. TV Times critics cheered the creative exploration of the TV drama, the musicals showcasing performances; and jeered the dumbing down of the audience with the banal offerings of variety shows at lunch time and other hours through the day. TV Times lamented the failure of the medium to provide more instructional and educational segments,and the lack of quality programs for children. TV Times gained wide following especially among young ones who avidly followed their heartthrobs in both local and international shows. These young readers insisted that their parents buy TV Times weekly. Because there was little point for a popular magazine to criticize anything else, TV Times led the voices raised against the failings of the “idiot box.” In a different age, Media Times now expands as well as deepens the critical review of media power. The Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR) has conducted a monitor of the news coverage since 1990. The Philippine Journalism Review (PJR), and later the PJR Reports, started with newspapers and later added news programs on television, evaluating the performance of the press and quality of journalism. The exercise has been an attempt to set standards, and hopefully, to ground the practice of the press on the values of accuracy, fairness and public service. CMFR has evolved the review format through the last 23 years, from a quarterly and then bimonthly hard edition, sent free to the press community to help them conduct their own post-mortem and to sustain a form of genuine self-regulation. With the growth of technology, CMFR decided to forego the printed edition, publishing its review of media coverage on digital platforms, including social media. CMFR has done the same for all its other activities, including its press freedom protection. The dynamic response of the online community has been encouraging; at times, exhilarating; as on occasion, individuals initiate the critique of media conduct on their own. The free press needs this critical response and we can only hope that the practice becomes widespread as the media grows and evolves even more ways of providing news. The divided audience of news is a complex reality in the Philippines. The digital divide is economic as well as generational. Many may be active on the Internet but limit their use of it to their primary interest, much of which falls under entertainment and lifestyle issues. There are others who although bound to their computer, their tablet or smartphone still seek the tactile experience of a publication. I still think that print holds a reader’s attention in a unique manner and engages mind and heart in immeasurable ways. Do digital media do as much? Perhaps, but in the meantime, it may be unwise to completely let go of our hold of the printed word. Thus, CMFR turns once again to the production of a volume, one that can be carried around, placed on the desk or by the bedside for reading, and on the shelves for easy reference. Media Times reaches out to this multiple public with this annual volume, a review of the year’s events and developments through the prism of news. Recognizing the power of media in our times, the magazine hopes to engage a wider public, forcing readers to make the quality of the press, or the lack of it, their own individual concern. This shared responsibility is necessary for a free press to fulϐill its mandate to provide the kind of news and information that will transform the public into a community of citizens. The engagement of more Filipinos in the development of the news media could help us grow a press that is more conscious of its obligation to provide news, information and commentary so more people can think and form sound and reasonable ideas that are based on facts. Media Times is for Filipinos living in an age of free media and in the midst of proliferating platforms that connect as well as divide us. Media Times hopes to help Filipinos make more critical use of the media, and force the diversity and variety of these platforms to help us think and communicate through time. This endeavor has drawn us into partnership with the Media Specialists Association of the Philippines (MSAP) which deemed the idea worthy of marketing support. We are thankful for the support of MSAP and gratefully acknowledge a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy for helping to make this possible. Welcome then to this bold and new enterprise.

The Media Specialists Association of the Philippines is a duly recognized non-stock and non-profit organization engaged in the promotion and protection of its members in conducting their business as media practitioners and in establishing industry standards of performance, ethics and accountability, among others. Incorporated in 2009, the Association’s members hail from various media agencies and individual practitioners. Members: Carat Philippines, Club Media, Dentsu Philippines Inc., Havas Media, M2M, Maxus, MEC, MediaCom, Mediaforce Vizeum, Mindshare, OMD, PHd, StarCom, Touch DDB, Universal McCann, Zenith Optimedia 23rd Flr., Picadilly Star Building, 4th Avenue cor. 27th Street, Fort Bonifacio Global, Taguig City +632622-3468 / +63917-630-7045 / +63905-229-6653 / +63999-977-4790 https://www.facebook.com/msap2013 Based in Washington, D.C., the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, non-profit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world. Each year, NED makes more than 1,000 grants to support the projects of non-governmental groups abroad who are working for democratic goals in more than 90 countries. Since its founding in 1983, the Endowment has remained on the leading edge of democratic struggles everywhere, while evolving into a multifaceted institution that is a hub of activity, resources and intellectual exchange Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility • 2013 MEDIA TIMES | 7 for activists, practitioners and scholars of democracy the world over. http://www.ned.org/

LOST IN COURT
Retrieving the Narrative
BY MELINDA QUINTOS DE JESUS PHOTOS BY LITO OCAMPO
16 | MEDIA TIMES 2013 • Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility

THE KILLING OF 58 PERSONS including 32 journalists on Nov. 23, 2009 is among the most brutal crimes in the country’s shameful history of political violence. The massacre has been described as “the single most bloody strike” against journalists in the world. The case is emblematic of the well-documented attacks and threats against journalists in the Philippines, sustaining the country’s inclusion among the “the most dangerous assignment(s)” listed by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). In 2011, a global campaign selected this date as the “International Day to End Impunity.”
Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility • 2013 MEDIA TIMES | 17

Filipinos were horriϐied by news of the massacre in 2009. But for many, the murders were a feature of the familiar landscape of violence that wracks local politics — the long-running hostilities among rival clans and warlords, the cycles of revenge that run through the generational bloodlines of political clans, the culture of violence that sooner or later invades so many aspects of public life. There are many other stories of killings that never make the news. And this story may have been quite as easily buried and eventually forgotten had there not been so many journalists slain. The massacre was easy enough to understand, the tale simple enough to tell. Apart from the exceptional venality of the murders, the narrative was easy enough to follow. The chronology moved from one action to the next with a precision that could only have ϐlowed from a master plan. Just days before the ϐiling of Certiϐicates of Candidacy (COCs), the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ofϐice in Cotobato ofϐice was closed, forcing all candidates in Maguindanao to ϐile their certiϐicates in an area controlled by the Ampatuans. The diagram of movement traced the distance traveled by the convoy led by Genalyn Mangudadatu, wife of a political candidate in Maguindanao, accompanied by family members, supporters and members of the media, making its way to the satellite ofϐice of the COMELEC in the town of Shariff Aguak so Genalyn could ϐile the COC for her husband. The same diagram dots the check-points the group had passed before their vehicles were forced to a halt, their direction diverted to a deserted hillside, which the bloody deed transformed into a killing ϐield. The ϐirst fact-ϐinding team of reporters saw the still freshly dug mounds of earth, the backhoe, standing evidence of the plot to kill massively, holding its position exactly where it had ceased the digging, the turning of the soil to bury the dead, a mass grave bereft of markers. They saw the scattered shoes, bags, cameras and pieces of clothing. The hasty digging of the shallow graves had left 22 bodies unburied and exposed on the ground. Within days, all the bodies of the dead were counted and identiϐied, except one.*

Philippine media were quick to report the murders, descending on the city and government agencies of Region XII to track the early investigation of the case. Reports quickly tallied the number of the slain, the identiϐication of the primary suspect, Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan Jr., his arrest and detention. The media reported the inquest, the ϐlight which took the primary suspect to a detention cell in Manila, escorted by no less than the then Presidential Peace Adviser for Mindanao Jesus Dureza, the ϐirst days of trial followed by the arraignment of the accused. The speed with which the wheels of justice moved was unusual and raised high expectations for the case. LOSING THE STORY TO THE COURTS The media lost hold of the narrative, once the story moved to Branch 221 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Reporters who saw both the big and the little picture reϐlected in the mass murder soon had problems following the court’s routine chronology. Reports ϐloundered in reporting the legal proceedings, deϐining the legal terms, and in working through the logic and reasoning of “due process” as expressed in confounding legalese. The process of justice, which is of relevance to every man and woman, keeps the ordinary observer out in the cold. The realm of the courts makes sense only for those who practice law. When they take over, the story loses its clarity. The trial has lagged for all of these years. To date, it has not moved out of the bail hearings of the primary and other suspects. In this country, bail hearings do not focus on the obvious point, the need to grant or deny bail. The motion, one would think, requires a basic assessment of the potential of ϐlight for the accused and the gravity the crime. It is a matter that should be decided quickly. Otherwise, the exercise is futile and without a point, denying bail to the accused and complicating the legal strategy of either side. Lawyers in the Philippines do not seem to mind the long bail hearings because they involve the presentation of the “evidencein-chief” which they would not have to present again in the trial proper. Key witnesses can make an appearance at this stage. As such, it allows motions asking for explanations and clariϐications, for actions to contest court orders (certiorari), each one taking days or weeks to resolve — the kind of time that news deadlines cannot accommodate, time that simply does not exist in the world of news. Thus has the trial gone into the shadows, the strange limbo in public life, the territory of inattention, where even the most ardent advocates ϐind themselves at some point unable to recognize where the trial stands at a given moment. The rules and regulations of the court compose a fugue, what in music can be brilliant layering, sequencing and counter movements of notes. But in the conduct of the court, the legal fugue consists of the slow dogged exchange of motions and “informations” which can at a certain point defy meaning. It dulls the sense of urgency for justice and causes the fugue of amnesia, allowing the memory to let go of the story and to forget horrendous violence. More than three years into the trial, it is time for media and the public to recall the object of the exercise and retrieve the narrative of the story — justice for those who lost their lives, justice for those who lost their loved ones, justice which is the
* Midland Review’s Reynaldo Momay

18 | MEDIA TIMES 2013 • Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility

right of every Filipino, the same justice without which there is no center that will hold society to order. GREAT EXPECTATIONS There was trust in the aftermath of the tragedy that some good would come out of it. The over-arching evil becomes so monstrous as to provoke the kind of force, driving the collective political will to move in concert with purposeful action, a momentum that cannot be stopped. The press, whatever its ϐlaws, is best at this stage of the story. It has, more than others, the close look at breaking news. News of the killings spread swiftly through the communication lines connecting public ofϐicials and private individuals, public agencies and civil society organizations. Here was a case that was so big it could not be ignored, not even in the Philippines, whose ranking in CPJ’s Impunity Index is at the top three, with two worse offenders, Somalia and Iraq. The challenge was obvious for those working on press protection and journalist safety: They had to work together to make sure the perpetrators were identiϐied and taken to court, that witnesses come forward and be protected. That community drew from lawyers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), forensic experts, the ofϐicials of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and of course, the media. The community of NGOs looked to the quiet leadership of the late Leo Dacera III, who at the time was Senior State

Prosecutor and head of the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ. In previous cases, he had shepherded witnesses in the program so they could testify against the accused in cases of journalist killings. He headed the panel who conducted the inquest proceedings of Andal Ampatuan Jr, also called “Unsay,” at the General Santos City airport before he was transported to Manila on Nov. 26, 2009. The speed of action quickly completed the ϐiling of 25 complaints (informations) for multiple murder against Unsay before the Cotabato RTC Branch 15 on the ϐirst of December 2009, one week after the massacre. One week later, the Supreme Court granted the petitions for change of venue ϐiled by the state prosecution panel, the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines. The trial was moved to Branch 221 of the RTC of Quezon City. The transfer to the national capital would help keep the case on the public screen. But the order for the transfer of the trial venue reached the DOJ prosecution panel only on Dec.10, 2009. While the panel of prosecutors working from the ground built up the momentum in the preliminary investigation conducted during the term of then President Gloria Arroyo, then Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera also ordered the creation of another panel based in Manila, the latter focusing on the cases that arose from succeeding events after the massacre. Dacera was also included in the second panel, co-chairing the Manila panel with State Prosecutor Roseanne Balauag.

Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility • 2013 MEDIA TIMES | 19

Meanwhile, another level of investigation involved the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG). The two agencies conducted separate investigations and ϐiled their complaints separately before the DOJ panel in Manila. The panel then held two public hearings, consolidating the two complaints in one preliminary investigation. On Feb. 7, 2010, the panel of prosecutors ϐiled Amended Informations for multiple murder against Unsay and 196 perpetrators, including the clan patriarch, Andal Ampatuan Sr. and other family members. The long list of accused raised eyebrows from both legal and non-legal observers. Charged with “conspiracy to commit . . .” the number of accused would involve a process that signaled a trial of unacceptable length. The charges against all were the same. The charge of conspiracy made the crime of one the crime of all, equalizing blame among all accused. Was there a need to name so many? Private prosecutor Nena Santos recalled that the team working on the ground was readying charges against 30 accused. Unnamed sources described the two DOJ panels in conϐlict over what strategy to follow, whether to charge only those whose conviction would be supported by strongest evidence or to include everyone who was cited in the NBI and CIDG reports as having played a part in the massacre. A review of the NBI case referral reveals a shorter list of persons to be indicted in contrast to the long list of the CIDG. The decision to follow the latter signaled the delays that would come and the arduous process of each case, the most prominent of which was the ϐirst, the complaint against the ϐirst to stand accused. FOR LAWYERS ONLY In simplest terms, a court trial is the assessment of guilt or innocence based on evidence and testimony, a process that discovers the truth from the acts of the accused recalled by witnesses, revealing the sequence of events as they happened, corroborated by documents and other forensic evidence. Due process involves the unfolding of the truth. In many countries, ordinary men and women are included in the process of ϐinding the truth as members of a jury. One has been trained by exposure to novels and television dramas dealing with crime and court trials to expect the logic of argumentation and the reasoning in the script, designed to convince the jury for or against the accused.

The process and proceedings observe rules and regulations, designed to move forward the search for truth. In our courts, the judge rules without a jury — a system which should make things simpler. And yet, there is a danger of the trial’s being held captive by legal rules and regulations. Lawyers do not have to make their case understandable to the public. Due process then moves according to the pace set by litigators, primarily those who defend the powerful accused, those who have mastered the system so it can favor the accused as innocent until proven guilty. The pace changes when the accused has no money, as these cases are taken by public defenders who have nothing to gain from undue delays. Process and proceedings in this case where the accused belongs to a powerful and wealthy political clan are seen by many to have been manipulated to buy time and to delay. Decisions made by the judge can be questioned, not once but several times. Each motion can be followed by yet another motion for reconsideration, and this opens up to yet another avenue of legal remedy, the action of certiorari to the higher courts. Each motion starts up an exchange of written motions which takes at least a week to complete by any party, including the judge. But these, more often than not, can take even more time. SOME MILESTONES The legal brieϐings prepared by FFFJ’s private prosecutor for advocate groups summarize and assess the milestones in the trial (See timeline, page 21): The DOJ ϐiled 57 murder charges against 197 accused. The number of accused now stands at 195. The court has dismissed charges against one individual for lack of probable cause and

20 | MEDIA TIMES 2013 • Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility

INFOGRAPHIC BY MELANIE Y. PINLAC Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility • 2013 MEDIA TIMES | 21

against another who died after allegedly committing suicide while in detention. Two other accused who were at large were reported to have died in separate incidents, one allegedly killed in a police operation and the other in an encounter between alleged Moro Islamic Liberation Front factions. These two deaths have not been conϐirmed due to lack of death certiϐicates. Since the ϐirst hearing on Jan. 5, 2010, defense lawyers have ϐiled a total of nine motions asking the judge to recuse or inhibit herself from hearing the case. Each motion required a written response from the judge. Defense counsel Sigfrid Fortun ϐiled seven of the nine petitions for recusation. In other court systems, such repeated petitions to the judge, questioning judicial independence, is more strictly limited. DOJ records show that only 106 of the 197 perpetrators are currently in custody. Only 98 of the 106 have been arraigned. Only eight of the 17 Ampatuans with “Datu” titles have been arraigned. The Defense has also ϐiled seven petitions in higher courts. Five petitions for certiorari were filed with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Four of these are for

Ampatuan family members. Among the petitions filed before the higher courts, only two have been decided with finality by the Supreme Court. As borne out by court records, the RTC trying the case has postponed the arraignments of accused Ampatuans because of the petitions in the higher courts. The arraignment of Akmad “Tato” and Anwar Sr. Ampatuan, for example, was set three times before charges were ϐinally read to them. Prosecution ϐiled its formal offer of evidence in opposition to Unsay’s bail petition in 2011. The prosecution concluded its presentation of evidence in opposition to Unsay’s bail petition in September 2012. The bail petition has yet to be resolved. Defense lawyer Sigfrid Fortun has not started presenting evidence on the petition for bail. The judge has not yet ruled on the Formal Offer of Evidence of the prosecution, which determines the pieces of evidence to be admitted by the court. There seems to be a logic to all of the above. But the logic evades the ordinary curious mind. What is clear is the simple fact: After over three years of the trial, it certainly feels that we have not moved from the beginning.

DAY IN COURT
The arraignment of two other members of the Ampatuan clan was scheduled on October 2. The small courtroom had been built for the trial on the ground ϐloor of a prison building in the Quezon City Jail Annex in Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig as a secure location when the presence of the accused is required. Its beige walls are still clean, the paint free of marks and stains. Although some ϐluorescent bulbs were burnt out, sunlight breaks through the vertical blinds of the glass windows, brightening the room. Six family members of the victims were present. They sat on one side of the room. Most of the seats on the other side were taken by the accused in detention, mostly the soldiers and police who were on duty at the checkpoints and others who were with the Ampatuans at the scene of the crime. Dressed in the yellow T-shirts given to detainees, they walked in hand-cuffed and wordlessly took their seats to watch, their faces weary but with little expression. The accused, Ipi Ampatuan, was wheeled into the courtroom by another detainee. The other accused, Ulo Ampatuan, took a seat in the room and then walked forward when the charges were read. Hand-cuffed like the rest, they wore the same uniform, yellow T-shirts. They were read the charges against them in Pilipino: “That sometime on November 23, 2009 at Sitio Masalay, Brgy. Salman, Ampatuan, Maguindanao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation, taking advantage of superior strength, treachery, with cruelty, in uninhabited place and by a band, armed with high powered ϐirearms, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and shoot ( ), with the use of said ϐirearms, thereby inϐlicting upon ( ) multiple gunshot wounds, that caused ( ) death to the damage and prejudice of ( ) heirs.” Both entered the same plea, as have 96 others: “Not Guilty.” The same charge was read to all accused upon arraignment. During the hearing, the judge ruled to permit the rebuttal of the defense to the arguments presented by the prosecution in the bail hearing, a ruling which she clariϐied would apply to all other accused, if their lawyers wanted to do so. The ruling was vehemently opposed by the private prosecutor for Mangudadatu, but the judge cut her short. It would seem then to the lay observer that from the beginning, the legal strategy was designed for delay. The inclusion of so many accused opened the process to more opportunities for delay, delay that places both sides in a state of suspended animation.

INFOGRAPHIC BY MELANIE Y. PINLAC Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility • 2013 MEDIA TIMES | 23

SLOW WHEEL OF JUSTICE
No Masterminds Convicted Since 1986
BY MELANIE Y. PINLAC The gunmen in 11 out of 137 cases of journalists killed have been convicted. No mastermind before and after the Nov. 23, 2009 Ampatuan Massacre has been arrested. Eleven suspected masterminds are on trial for the Massacre. The arrest orders for the masterminds in the killing of Marlene Esperat were never served and the suspects are still at large. In 2013 as in past years, the manipulation of court procedures continued to delay the trials. The delays in trials have prolonged the suffering of the survivors of slain journalists. Below is a list of the cases against the killers of journalists and their current status. The cases against the suspects in the Ampatuan Massacre are not included in the list. ONGOING TRIALS
NAME Rolando Ureta Apolinario “Polly” Pobeda Herson Hinolan Fausto “Bert” Sison Martin Roxas Arecio Padrigao Ernesto Rollin Crispin Perez Godofredo Linao Ismael Pasigna Desiderio “Jessie” Camangyan Jovelito Agustin Miguel “Mike” Belen Niel Jimena Aldion Layao DATE OF DEATH January 3, 2001 May 17, 2003 November 15, 2004 June 30, 2008 August 7, 2008 November 17, 2008 February 23, 2009 June 9, 2009 July 27, 2009 December 24, 2009 June 14, 2010 June 16, 2010 July 31, 2010 August 22, 2011 April 8, 2012 NEWS ORGANIZATION dyKR dwTI dyIN - Bombo Radyo dzAT dyVR dxRS - Radyo Natin dxSY dwDO Radyo Natin-Bislig B- 96 FM Sunrise FM dzJC dwEB-FM dyRI dxRP Dennis Cuesta Miguelito "Mike" Rueras Rolando Morales Ricardo Uy Robert Ramos July 3, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 20, 2005 August 9, 2008 June 2, 2013 dxMD dzRS-AM Katapat dxMD dyDD Philip Agustin Arnnel Manalo Gene Boyd Lumawag August 5, 2004 November 12, 2004 May 10, 2005

ARCHIVED CASES
NAME DATE OF DEATH NEWS ORGANIZATION dzRH, Bulgar, Dyaryo Veritas MindaNews Starline Times Recorder TRIAL STATUS Archived Archived: suspects killed Archived (for other suspects) | Case against alleged mastermind dismissed Archived Archived Archived Archived Archived (suspect found dead)

CASE DISMISSED | RESOLVED WITH ACQUITTAL WITH CONVICTION
NAME NAME Dionisio Perpetuo Joaquin Nesino Paulin Toling Alberto Berbon Odilon Mallari DATE OF DEATH April 12, 1987 April 14, 1991 December 15, 1996 February 15, 1998 NEWS ORGANIZATION Olongapo News Panguil Bay Monitor dzMM dxCP TRIAL STATUS With conviction With conviction With conviction With conviction | Archived (for other suspects) With conviction With conviction Candelario “Jhun” Cayona Noel Villarante Elpidio “Ely” Binoya Roger Mariano Fernando "Batman" Lintuan Fernando Batul May 30, 2001 August 19, 2003 June 17, 2004 July 31, 2004 December 24, 2007 May 22, 2006 dxLL The Laguna Score, dzJV dzRH Radyo Natin dzJC dxGO dyPR Ruben Manrique DATE OF DEATH August 12, 1988 NEWS ORGANIZATION Luzon Tribune TRIAL STATUS Dismissed at the trial court Dismissed at the trial court Dismissed at the trial court Dismissed at the trial court Acquittal Acquittal Acquittal

Frank Palma Edgar Damalerio

April 25, 1999 May 13, 2001

dwYB-Bombo Radyo dxKP, Zamboanga Scribe, Mindanao Gold Star The Midland Review

Marlene Esperat

March 24, 2005

With conviction | Archived (case against masterminds) With conviction With conviction With conviction With conviction | Ongoing trial for masterminds and other suspects

CASES FILED BUT SUSPECTS AT-LARGE
NAME Marlina Sumera Edgardo Adajar Bonifacio Loreto Jr. Richard Kho DATE OF DEATH March 24, 2011 January 2, 2013 July 30, 2013 July 30, 2013 NEWS ORGANIZATION dzME HOT FM 101.5 Aksyon Ngayon Aksyon Ngayon

Klein Cantoneros George Benaojan Armando “Rachman” Pace Gerardo "Doc Gerry" Ortega

May 4, 2005 December 1, 2005 July 18, 2006 January 24, 2011

dxAA dyDD dxDS dwAR

24 | MEDIA TIMES 2013 • Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility