Inside Scoop

By Stephen Lillie
British Ambassador to Manila

This week sees the first "anniversary" of one of the most notorious events in the Philippines' recent history. On 23 November 2009, 58 civilians were abducted and murdered in a brutal political killing in the southern province of Maguindanao. The atrocity was horrific both in its scale and in the brutality of the killing, with many of the victims raped and mutilated first. Thirty-two of the dead were from the media, a fact which earned the Philippines the dubious distinction of being the most dangerous country in the world for journalists last year.

The UK, like other members of the international community, was swift to condemn the massacre, and to call for justice. I told journalists at the time that the world was watching, and waiting to see whether justice would be done and human rights upheld. The Manila Bulletin newspaper took up my quote, with a front-page banner headline "The World is Watching."

One year on, the world is still watching--as the publication last week of a detailed report by Human Rights Watch on killings in the Southern Philippines demonstrates. But justice has yet to be done. There have been no convictions so far, despite some high-profile arrests. Many of those charged in connection with the massacre are still at large. Meanwhile, there are frequent reports about intimidation of witnesses and families of the victims.

In the past week, there has been a debate about whether the trial should be televised in order to demonstrate that justice is being done in the court room. I can hardly take exception to the Supreme Court's opposition to this: British court proceedings are not televised either. What is alarming, however, given the importance of this case, is the glacial pace of the trial, with the court sitting only once a week. This is because the judge has other cases to handle in parallel, a distinctive feature of the Philippine judicial system. Many commentators have voiced doubts as to whether the trial will ever be concluded. The Philippine justice secretary has pledged that the trial will be completed in the term of this administration. But this administration still has close on six years to run.

Meanwhile, serious questions remain about how such a horrific event as this could have occurred in the first place--and whether the conditions remain that would permit a repeat. The scale of the killings was exceptional, but political violence in the Philippines is not. Neither is the maintenance of private armies and militias. It is widely assumed that it was members of such a private army who were responsible for carrying out the Maguindanao massacre.

President Aquino has made clear his determination to see justice for the victims of the massacre. Clearly, there must be due process and no short cuts. But ensuring a timely and credible conclusion to this case remains crucial in order to reassure domestic and international opinion of the Philippine administration's commitment to human rights and the rule of law.

By Senator Francis Pangilinan

I have been in favor of abrogating the VFA for some time now, especially after seeing how lopsided the treaty has become. Here is the statement I issued today to the press on this matter:

After over a decade of the VFA, are we more secure as a nation? Are our armed forces better-equipped and trained to address security issues? Have we benefitted militarily as envisioned by the agreement? Or has it been a lopsided arrangement favoring the Americans, who have been able to stay here indefinitely, enjoying basing arrangements without paying up?

My message is this: Pay up or leave. If they don't put their money where their mouths are then they should pack up and leave. They are enjoying 'first class amenties' yet are paying dirt cheap rates. Umuupa sila ng mansyon pero ang bayad nila pang barung-barong.

If I recall, Pakistan receives billions of dollars in military aid just to allow US troops access to their territory. We get a few used Huey helicopters and one or two C130 airplanes that have seen better days.

Why we allow the US to throw bread crumbs at us while it gives champagne and caviar to others is beyond me.

The world has changed dramatically in the last ten years since the VFA was first entered into. It's about time we correct the onerous arrangement and even up the score.

This is about regaining our self-respect as a nation and we most certainly deserve it.

By Miriam Defensor-Santiago

(Editors' note: This forms part of the transcript of an interview with reporters on 2 August 2010.)

What should we do with the Truth Commission in the light of the criticisms that have been aired against it, particularly by members of my bloc in the Senate including myself?

The obvious answer is that the administration should have the humility to ask Congress by means of a certification of urgent necessity. In other words, the President should certify as urgent a bill to create the Truth Commission because as it stands now it is plainly unconstitutional, and the efforts to explain its constitutionality is very sophomoric--in other words, it is a bunch of amateurs trying to justify what they are doing.

The first basic principle is this: Government is divided into three separate branches, and each branch cannot delegate the powers given to it by the Constitution. So the function of the legislature is not only the right of the legislature, it is a duty of the legislature. We cannot allow legislative functions to be delegated to other officials without our consent. That is the principle known as the doctrine of nondelegation.

In 2001, the Supreme Court said, "the power to create an agency is peculiarly legislative in nature." That is part of the legislative function. The Constitution provides that legislative power is vested in the Congress. What is legislative power? The Constitution no longer defines what it is because everybody knows that legislative power is the power to make laws, and one of the laws that only Congress can do is to create an agency. That is a decided case of our Supreme Court. It was repeated in 2001 in the case of EIIB (Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau) v. Zamora where the SC said that no other entity in government can create an agency except the Congress. Remember the EEIB? It was the office that raised the issue of whether the Office of the President can simply create a new bureau and the SC said "No, wait for Congress to give you that power directly or indirectly."

Most recently, in the 2008 case of Abakada Partylist v. Secretary Cesar Purisima, the SC said, "You cannot delegate legislative power except when two instances are present.

Number one, the statute or the law must be complete." That means there must be a statute passed by Congress. The essential element of completion means there is a policy stated by Congress in that particular law.

Number two, there should be a sufficiency of standards, meaning to say that Congress in that enabling law should give the limitations or the guidelines so that the delegee or the person to whom the legislative power has been delegated will not run riot in exercising legislative powers.

But in any event, you will see from the jurisprudence of our SC, that one doctrine has remained the same for the years, and that is legislative function cannot be exercised unless it is duly delegated by Congress. Duly delegated means that Congress has passed a law that tells the executive or the judicial branch what is the policy of the law and what are the limitations and the restrictions.

In this case, Malacañang is disingenuous. It is claiming that its power is drawn from the Administrative Code of 1997 passed by President Corazon Aquino. What is that specific provision? The provision there that says "The President shall have power at any time to reorganize his office"? Is the President merely reorganizing his office when he creates the Truth Commission? Come on! You reorganize when something already existed and you change something in that existing office. Here, they are creating something out of nothing. They are not reorganizing, they are creating. They fall squarely under the statement of the SC: "The power to create an agency belongs exclusively to the Congress."

Kaya dapat naman sana meron tayong kaunting humility, na hindi tayo lalaban nang lalaban basta gusto natin. Huwag naman tayong basta magsabi na just because there is a power to reorganize in the Administrative Code, which is in effect a delegation of power to the President, na to reorganize an office is sufficient authority to assume or usurp legislative functions.

Let me say it candidly: EO No. 1 is a usurpation of legislative function, and we in the legislative branch are bound by duty to oppose that kind of usurpation, even if I have to go to the SC, even with my poor physical health, to fight for it. You have to have a law passed by Congress which gives you that power of legislative function either directly or indirectly.

So my challenge to the Palace is this: Show me where in the Constitution is there a general provision that gives the power to create an office to the executive branch of government. If you cannot show a constitutional provision, I shall be equally happy. Show me a law passed by Congress that gives you the power to create agencies without a specific statute passed by Congress to that effect. Kapag wala silang naipakita at ulit-ulitin lang nila, "But we have the power to reorganize," then they are less than being honest to the Filipino people.

If you read EO No. 1, you get the very definite impression that Malacañang is extremely disappointed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Kasi ang gustong mangyari ng Malacañang ay dapat gawain ng Ombudsman. Sa tingin ng presidente at mga assistant niya masyadong mabagal ang Ombudsman o kaya may partiality siya, o kaya incompetent siya, kaya gusto nila palitan siya. Hindi siya mapalitan dahil ayon sa Constitution, she stays there for seven years unless you impeach her.

So what they are doing is setting up a parallel organization to the Ombudsman. Can you do that? Can you take away a function from a constitutional body and give it to a separate body? Notice that in EO No.1, the Truth Commission is described as an independent body. Independent of whom? Independent of the executive branch just like the Ombudsman is an independent body in the Constitution because it is supposed to be, by its functions, under the executive, but the Constitution wants it independent of the executive. So Malacañang wants nothing less than independence for this body. It does not want the Ombudsman to improve the delivery of the basic social service of fighting graft and corruption; it wants to create its own creature.

But it's not allowed; you have to follow a certain procedure. You go to Congress and say, "Will you please give me broad powers to perform a legislative function?" The mere fact that it is fact-finding does not change anything. That's beside the question.

The first question in government is, "Is it Constitutional?" That is the prejudicial question. No questions of wisdom, patriotism, or exigency shall justify any law that does not conform to the Constitution. It is not the question of whether we want to give the administration a chance. We want to give it more than a chance. We want to cooperate with it. We want to give it full support so that all big crooks can be immediately sent to jail or shot on sight if possible.

But we have to do what the Constitution says. And I really, really resent it and am extremely disappointed to the point of ill health that people who are supposed to be running government can present such a weak reason to the Filipino people. Why do we have to go through the rigmarole of saying, "But there is an Administrative Code that gives the President the power to reorganize." Are we reorganizing really? How many agencies can you create in Malacañang simply from the power to reorganize? Payagan natin iyan, wala nang katapusan iyan.

This is very shallow legal preparation for a job that takes expertise. Why don't they ask, for example, retired Justice Isagani Cruz? He's an expert in constitutional law. Why don't they ask Florentino Feliciano, one of the world's acknowledged experts in law? Why don't they ask Merlin Magallona, former dean of the UP College of Law? Why give this basic assumption to someone who knows not his constitutional law? Why are we being besieged of these half-baked opinions of amateurs? Why am I wasting my life reading these sophomoric opinions?

If they insist, let's bring it to the Supreme Court. If nobody else wants to bring it, I'll ask for a blood transfusion or something so that I can file the petition to the SC. This is a gross violation of the Constitution. This is what happens when lay people start to make technical interpretations of the Constitution. There are rules for interpreting the Constitution.

By Veronica Uy

"Aba! Mamamatay tao to a!" was allegedly P-Noy's reaction to a name on the list of people that a powerful religious group wanted in his government. He meant the guy who now heads a law enforcement agency. It pays to have some muscle, but his loyalty must be unquestionable.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo was another name on the list. The insider who told the story said Romulo was already out--until that meeting involving a shopping list. So it wasn't the sisters' "Tito Bert" connection.

But Romulo's enemies in the department need not fret too much, the mole said, because he'd only be there to warm the seat for a more worthy P-Noy ally.

By Stephen Lillie
British Ambassador to Manila

While World Cup fever grips most of the globe, the world's 12th largest country is a largely football-free zone. Instead, the sports pages of the Philippine press are dominated by the LA Lakers and Boston Celtics as people tune into the NBA basketball finals in the US.

But the real story of the moment here isn't sports at all. It's the preparations for Senator Benigno Aquino III to be sworn in as the Philippines' next president on 30 June. "Noynoy," as he is popularly known, won by a landslide in the country's first automated elections on 10 May. Overseas Filipino voters in the UK turn out to have been among his strongest supporters, with over 60 percent voting for him.

Expectations of Noynoy are high, especially as he's the son of two towering former figures in Philippine politics. His father Ninoy Aquino led the opposition to martial law before being assassinated in 1983. His mother Cory Aquino restored democracy when she became president in the peaceful People Power Revolution of 1986.

Noynoy has no shortage of tasks to attend to. I met him recently together with the other EU ambassadors in Manila. He set out clearly his priorities: tackling corruption, fixing the budget deficit, and creating new employment opportunities. And he was clear about wanting to end the long-running armed conflict in the southern Philippines. This is an area where the UK is already helping. Since the end of 2008 the British Embassy in Manila has been sharing experiences with the Philippine government and the main rebel group (the MILF) from our experience of peace-building in Northern Ireland.

None of these goals will be easily achieved. But there is undoubtedly a sense of change in the air, and of renewed optimism about the future: the start of a new political era in the Philippines.

By Marie Yuvienco

WHEN 58 men and women were gunned down last November in Maguindanao, some of whom were shot point-blank in the face or in the most intimate parts, the outrage that followed was tempered with a cynicism that the killers would get away with murder, a sentiment that had ceased to become a mere figure of speech.

The suspects were members of the Ampatuan clan, local warlords, and the victims were the family and supporters of a rival political family, the Mangudadatus. The Ampatuans were known allies of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and widely suspected of delivering votes to her during the last presidential elections.

When authorities raided the Ampatuan residence, they found a cache of firearms fit for a private army. The ensuing investigation also cast a light on how the Ampatuans lived--a lifestyle fit for princes had the Constitution allowed the conferment of nobiliary or royal titles.

The legal wrangling that followed the arrest of Ampatuan family members, notably the governor of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao Zaldy Ampatuan, did not allay fears of railroading. Instead, it aroused further suspicion.

First, Malacañang declared that a state of rebellion was ongoing in Maguindanao, and pursuant to that executive finding, charges of rebellion were brought against the Ampatuans. Media wisely suspected that the Palace was finessing the case: Multiple murder--the charge first levied against the Ampatuans--is a non-bailable crime, meaning, the Ampatuans would be put in detention pending trial and not allowed to post bail. Rebellion, on the other hand, is a bailable offense. By declaring a state of rebellion in Maguindanao, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was suspected of laying the groundwork for a rebellion charge to stick. (Recently, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court before which the rebellion case was pending, dismissed the charge.) That was only the opening salvo.

Over the weekend, Justice Secretary Alberto Agra ordered the dropping of murder charges against Zaldy Ampatuan and his cousin Akmad Ampatuan, the former acting vice governor of Maguindanao. Agra instructed state prosecutors to drop the two Ampatuans from the information filed before the sala of Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes on the ground that he had not found any evidence of conspiracy implicating the Ampatuan cousins. Instead, he found more credible the two Ampatuans' claims that they were elsewhere when the massacre happened. Proof of that? Plane tickets and cell phone records on the governor's part, a medical mission someplace for the vice governor.

A few clarifications are in order. First, what is the Department of Justice's role in all this? It is the department's job, through its agents the fiscals and state prosecutors, who determine whether there is probable cause to charge someone in court with a crime.

At the fiscal level, the suspect is called a respondent. If they find the existence of probable cause, they will file the corresponding information with the criminal court; once filed, the respondent becomes the accused. It then becomes the court's duty to determine after trial whether the accused is innocent or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Note that once an information is filed in court, only the judge can decide whether an information should be dismissed or whether to drop someone as an accused.

This much I can say. Alibi, as known--or should be known--to all lawyers, particularly by justice secretaries, is considered the weakest defense in criminal law. It consists of the accused claiming, oh no, I was nowhere near the scene of the crime when it happened. The most easily concocted, it is also the most easily shattered. All it takes to smash through an alibi is positive identification by one witness and that's it.

Moreover, alibi is a defense that is threshed out during trial itself. This is proper because it is only during cross-examination when the truth or falsity of the defense can be established. It is also during trial when witnesses can come forward to definitively establish the presence or absence of the accused at the scene of the crime.

In Zaldy and Akmad Ampatuan's case, the linchpin of their defense is the absence of any conspiracy. This is important because it is criminal law doctrine that when a conspiracy exists, the act of one is the act of all. But then again, there are different kinds of involvement in a crime: a principal, an accomplice, or an accessory. What Zaldy and Akmad are saying is that their alleged absence in the crime scene rules them out as principals by direct participation, that is, they weren't actually there and shot the victims. Their latest tactic is calculated to rule them out, as suspected masterminds, as principals by inducement.

It is difficult to conclude that no conspiracy exists when there just happened to be a back-hoe present at the scene of the murders to bury the evidence. It is difficult to conclude that no conspiracy exists when a battalion of heavily armed men just happened to be there when the Mangudadatu convoy passed by to the Comelec regional office to file a certificate of candidacy for governor. It is difficult to conclude that no conspiracy exists when 58 people happened to just die at the same place and at the same time.

When the trial court itself rules that, indeed, there is no evidence linking Zaldy and Akmad Ampatuan to the grisly massacre, then we will know that something is seriously amiss.

By TJ Besa

The moment our beloved former President Cory Aquino's passing was announced by Noynoy, perhaps by virtue of his being the only son and father figure by default, political capital was created. At that instant, even Noy may not have realized this, but one could already see that this was a "slingshot situation"--a confluence of events which provide undeniable opportunity to propel even inert objects, or persons, to otherwise impossible heights.

By now, we all know who the near-inert beneficiary is.

Heir-apparent to a martyred father and President mother, some would breathlessly declare, the choice is clear. On the heels of economic fallout, numerous national tragedies, and the looming presidential elections, Aquino the Inheritor seemed a promising choice for a nation badly in need of heroes. Note how every other political ad now is about heroes.

By Southeast Asian Press Alliance

Seapa condemns in the strongest possible terms the abduction and massacre of at least 36 Filipinos in the southern Philippine province of Maguindanao. Reports coming out of the Philippines say at least 12 journalists were among the abductees possibly slayed.

It is widely believed that the horrific episode was brought about by a bitter feud among entrenched political clans in Maguindanao. Media and authorities have been quick to tag the massacre as election-related, certainly among the worst that has been seen in the Philippines in decades.

Seapa calls on the Philippine government to do all that it must to halt the violence and bring the murderers to justice.

By the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP)

The NUJP emands justice for our colleagues and all the other victims of the November 23 carnage in Maguindanao province.

The Ampatuan massacre, which the military has confirmed was perpetrated by Shariff Aguak Mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr. and police Senior Inspector Dicay, goes beyond the issue of freedom of the press and of expression and strikes at the very foundations of democracy.

Aside from the wife, relatives and supporters of Ismail Mangudadatu, who were on their way to file his certificate of candidacy to run as governor of Maguindanao, the slaughter also claimed the lives of at least 12 colleagues, according to reports from our chapters in Mindanao.

By Veronica Uy

The colossal fight in the biggest city in the metro has taken an interesting turn. For some months now, Quezon City residents have come to accept the idea that long-time QC public servant Herbert "Bistek" Bautista is going to run for the top QC post.

And for some months too, it is said that uber-rich Congresswoman Annie Susano of the city's second district would also be gunning for Quezon City mayorship. (Once, in one of the President's controversial trips abroad which was criticized for the number of um, "congressional aides," in the entourage, she told reporters asking her about it, "The government did not pay for my trip. I paid for my trip. I can afford it. I can even buy the plane that took me here.")

Naturally, despite his years of service, the former Kaluskos Musmos star was said to be preparing himself mentally for a bruising battle that is sure to cost lots of moolah--something he doesn't have a-plenty. He was said to be relying on his track record, performance, and his showbiz background (for the par-for-the-course glitzy endorsements required in Philippine politics).

But guess who is joining the fray now? Political watchers in the city were all agape when former Presidential go-to guy Michael Defensor allegedly stepped into the QC political ring, carrying a huge, heavy bayong (a big traditional Filipino bag usually used when going to the wet market).