PJR Reports

More than crime: Democracy and the Ampatuan Massacre

Alaysa Tagumpay E. Escandor
Martha A. Teodoro
Words 3, 068

Fortunes are not made in Maguindanao. It is the second poorest province in an already
poor country. There is a war between Moro guerillas and government forces, and the
cycle of conflict has made internal refugees out of thousands. It is troubled turf outside
the ambit of control of the national government, where crime is unpunished, and hard
work unrewarded.

And yet, the Ampatuans, the region’s local bosses, are no strangers to the luxurious life.
The clan’s patriarch, Andal Sr., has assets amounting to P1.3 billion. They have more
than 20 mansions, not just in Maguindanao but nationwide, all of them outside the
purview of the poor and general public, like a great divide between opulence and
common squalor.

But police and military forces were able to catch a glimpse of that opulence recently. The
sheer size and elaborate furnishings of the mansions revealed the extent of the
Ampatuans’ profligacy, as well as how they’ve maintained a stranglehold over the region.
High-powered firearms and ammunition bearing the markings of the Department of
National Defense (DND), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) had been cached in the mansions. Two battalions could well have
been armed by the arsenal, which included assault firearms usually barred from civilian
ownership. More firearms were recovered later from members of the Ampatuans’ private
army.

There is no dispute that a massacre – now known as the Ampatuan Massacre – took place
on Nov. 23. What are problematic are the integrity of the investigation and the
subsequent prosecution of the perpetrators. Of the 57 civilians killed, 32 were journalists
and media workers, making the massacre the deadliest attack on the press in the country
and the world. International bodies, national leaders, and various human rights, press
freedom and media organizations have condemned the massacre. To date, 57 counts of
murder have been filed against Andal Jr., and 196 other alleged conspirators. Seven other
members of the family were also charged with rebellion.

The premeditated butchery of political opponents and journalists proved too well how
infinitely fragile life and democracy are in this country. The massacre has become one
more symbol of the seriousness of the Philippine malaise. And this is why the public and
the media as well as the international community have latched on with vigilance to the
trial of Andal Jr., the prime suspect in the murders.

How did it come to this? Are the PNP, the AFP and our national leaders, especially
President Gloria Arroyo, complicit and responsible? And what can be done? For while
the incident is horrific, the nation’s history of patronage and political violence, which
escalate during transfers of power like elections, makes such incidents virtually
inevitable. The Ampatuan Massacre was a disaster waiting to happen.

PJR Reports monitored the coverage of the Ampatuan Massacre from Nov. 23, 2009 to
Jan. 22, 2010 by three television news programs (TV Patrol World of ABS-CBN 2, 24
Oras of GMA-7, and Teledyaryo of NBN-4), three national dailies (Manila Bulletin,
Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star), and five select online news sites
(Bulatlat, Mindanews, Newsbreak, The Daily PCIJ of the Philippine Center for
Investigative Journalism and Vera Files).

As the details of the massacre unfold day by day, the media need to explain and respond
to the grim and labyrinthine realities of Philippine politics. After all, the stakes in the
resolution of the massacre go well beyond a crime story. On the broader context, the long
struggle and search for justice for the victims is a test of Philippine democracy. How the
murder trial will be pursued will also be a reflection of the state of the political and
justice system in the country.

Initial coverage
Earlier reported as a mass kidnapping, news of the massacre first came out over ABS-
CBN News Channel’s (ANC) On the Scene in a live interview with Buluan Vice-mayor
Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu. The host, Twink Macaraig, was asking for details on the
“kidnapped” group when the latter announced that all had been murdered.

Toto: “[They] were beheaded by armed men believed to be under Andal Ampatuan.”
Macaraig: “Did you say headed by Ampatuan or beheaded by Ampatuan?”
Toto: “Beheaded by Ampatuan.”

The media would later report that the forensic findings were negative for beheading,
though most of the victims were shot repeatedly at close range and traces of semen were
found on the bodies of some of the slain women.

Subsequent reporting from On the Scene classified the violent incident as election-
related. The Mangudadatu convoy was on its way to the Commission on Elections
(Comelec) satellite office in the capitol of Shariff Aguak to file the certificate of
candidacy (COC) of Toto for the Maguindanao gubernatorial post. The challenge over
the position apparently instigated the attack.

The media did report extensively on the massacre, with the developments occupying not
just the headlines but the bulk of the news for months. In the whole of December 2009,
for instance, TV Patrol, a one-hour program, devoted around 30 minutes to the Ampatuan
massacre. While a single news item is usually given two minutes in television, news
items on the massacre took up to five minutes.

Indeed, the supposedly crime story developed into a more complicated one, segueing
quickly into various issues that made it hard for media to cope with. The developments
were the story of the day. But there were few summaries of what had happened and how
it affects the larger context of the Philippine society. The daily reporting consisted mostly
of details without much interpretation, leaving it to the readers and viewers to figure out,
to connect the dots and decipher on their own.

Accountability
Whether government was accountable and acted swiftly were issues that figured in the
public sphere, in part because media, especially print, asked questions that were on the
spot. For instance, the Bulletin headline on Nov. 25 was, “What now? Massacre single
biggest loss of life for journalists”; and the Inquirer on Nov. 26, “Arroyo asked: Why no
arrests yet?”

While both the Bulletin and the Inquirer pointed that the Ampatuans are “staunch allies”
of the president, the Star was more diffident. On Nov. 25, the Star’s main story,
“Authorities urged to identify perpetrators of Maguindanao massacre”, quoted at length
House Speaker Prospero Nograles, who said that “the investigation should not be based
on speculations but on solid evidence and testimonies.” The Star did not name the prime
suspect behind the massacre or the connection with Arroyo.

In general, accountability, as well as other issues that require context and investigation to
answer appropriately, was more visible in print and online than in television. The
broadcast media tended to be more preoccupied, sometimes indiscriminately, with the
emerging nitty-gritty of the case.

In TV Patrol, a Dec. 9 news item on the surrender of firearms by the Mangudadatu camp
took up almost five minutes. But as to how and why local politicians in Maguindanao
were able to obtain numerous guns, some of them illegally, the news item did not say.
The report was satisfied with this quote from Toto: “Inequip po namin yan kasi wala
pong maisupply na baril ang gobyerno.” (We had to purchase the firearms ourselves
because the government did not have any to spare.)

Other television reports on guns and firearms also failed to probe deeply into the subject.
Contrast these with the PCIJ story, “Why poor Maguindanao is awash with weapons of
war: Ampatuans used public office to amass mostly illegal guns”.
(http://pcij.org/stories/ampatuans-used-public-office-to-amass-mostly-illegal-guns/)

Providing Background
While the incident is unprecedented, it cannot be taken in isolation, as a single event in
Philippine history. There were indications that a show of power in Maguindanao would
break out anytime soon, said Prof. Bobby Tuazon, Policy Study, Publication and
Advocacy director of the non-governmental Center for People Empowerment in
Governance in an interview on Jan. 29.

Tuazon emphasized that while the Ampatuans were already a political dynasty since the
time of Marcos dictatorship, the family became a strong warlord clan only during the
Arroyo presidency.
“When Arroyo ran in 2004, she tapped the Ampatuans. Votes were later revealed to be
part of the dagdag-bawas plans mentioned in the ‘Hello, Garci’ tapes. In 2007,
Ampatuans gave a 12-0 votes to Team Unity,” he said.

In fact, this is not the first time we’ve heard of the connection. Newsbreak’s “Guns,
Fealty, and Money” by Gemma Bagayaua in 2007 and PCIJ’s “Amid the Fighting, a Clan
Rules in Maguindanao” by Jaileen Jimeno in 2008 established this connection.
Bagayaua’s report described the alleged cheating that happened in the 2007 senatorial
elections as controlled by then Maguindanao governor Andal Sr. while Jimeno’s article
discussed briefly the Ampatuans’ provenance as a political dynasty and how its members
managed to grab positions in the government both elective and appointive. Both articles
were reposted on the news sites of PCIJ and Newsbreak at the height of the reporting on
Maguindanao.

Aside from the two news sites, only the Inquirer linked Arroyo and the Ampatuans with
its report titled “Remembering ‘Hello, Garci’” published online on January 7. While
others had mentioned the connection in passing, they did not provide much detail.

Impunity
If there is anything that should properly haunt the news media, it is putting human rights
issues aside. Nov. 23 had been long foreshadowed; the media simply did not pay
attention.

In 2007, United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston explained that the extrajudicial
executions, journalist killings, and other human rights violations were “facilitated by the
sense of impunity that exists.”

Prior to the rapporteur’s visit, human rights did not receive much media attention, despite
the unremitting violence and violations encouraged by the same system of impunity that
made the Ampatuan massacre possible.

The Alston report also drew a connection between human rights violations and the
government’s counterinsurgency program, which allows the creation of paramilitary
groups, among them the civilian volunteer organizations and the civilian armed force
geographical units, both of which are the mainstays of private armies such as that of the
Ampatuans and Mangundadatus.

Except for some, this connection was lost in most of the reporting on the massacre or on
the private armies of the Ampatuans. The media have so far failed to assess the
government’s counterinsurgency plan, which more often than not becomes an excuse for
stifling dissent in favor of local bosses, warlords, and Arroyo herself, said Roland
Simbulan, University of the Philippines centennial professor, in an interview on Jan. 22.

Other details related to the massacre further confirm the systemic culture of impunity, if
only the media had been more pro-active.
The “disturbing role” of the local police and military in the massacre must also be
investigated, especially in relation to impunity. After all, their complicity has made a
mockery of efforts to address crimes, among them human rights violations. Reporting on
the collusion of police and military forces with the Ampatuans should not be confined to
the enumeration of officers that have been removed or under investigation, as TV Patrol
often does.

On Nov. 27, 24 Oras aired a report quoting Dr. Benito Molino, a forensics expert,
tagging the investigation as “kahiya-hiya” (shameful). The way the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) has handled the evidence, specifically the use of a backhoe to
excavate the bodies and the use of banana leaves instead of cadaver bags, only shows that
the agency does not have the proper training and facilities for such investigations.

In another report aired by 24 Oras on Dec. 4, reporter Jiggy Manicad was shown walking
along the excavation site weeks after the incident. He noted that newspapers and the
personal belonging of the victims still littered the area.

Martial Law
Martial law was declared in Maguindanao on Dec. 4. Congress was unable to rule on the
wisdom of the declaration, despite the Constitution’s specific mandate.

Media were divided over Mrs. Arroyo’s declaration of martial law. TV Patrol took it
positively; its hosts claimed that martial law was necessary to solve the massacre and
bring the perpetrators to justice. The Inquirer, on the other hand, was against it.

The embedded journalists in Maguindanao also reported mostly from the perspective of
the military. To be sure, journalists may have been inhibited by the dangers in the area.
But important stories that involve little risk were missing – for example, whatever
happened to the thousands of voters’ IDs and election paraphernalia discovered in one of
the warehouses of the Ampatuans?

Untold Stories
There were some matters of concern that media missed completely. It must be noted that
the Bulletin has not been publishing stories on the hearing of Andal Jr.’s petition for bail.

Meanwhile, around three weeks before Nov. 23, the Comelec satellite office was
transferred from Cotabato City to Maguindanao, thus forcing Toto to file his COC in the
political bailiwick of the Ampatuans, said Tuazon. There was only one report on the
Comelec resolution mandating the transfer.

“The convergence of the political and electoral agenda of President Arroyo and the
Ampatuans is well known both in the national and local levels…The Comelec resolution
transferring its satellite office in Shariff Aguak and the requirement to file the certificates
of candidacy in the ‘capitol’ is not as innocent as it looks,” wrote Jun Mercado of
GMAnews.tv. (http://blogs.gmanews.tv/jun-mercado/archives/61-The-Maguindanao-
Massacre,-Part-1.html)
With the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao, speculations in the news reports also
emerged, among them that martial law in Maguindanao was the government’s way of
testing the waters; that martial law would be extended to a national declaration; that
rebellion will absorb the murder charges filed against Andal Jr. and thus assure his
acquittal.

While these speculations did serve to alert the public on a possible whitewash, among
others, the media did not go deeply into them, in most cases merely leaving it to the
public to keep draw its own conclusions without much information.

There was little chance that the rebellion charge would absorb the murder charges. “The
allegation of facts starts at Nov 27. which is four days after the murder which means they
were also careful not to say that the murder is not part of the rebellion. I say little chances
because we do not know what can happen if there is any hanky panky that will happen at
the top level. If the media had just asked for a copy of the case referrals from the DOJ
panel of prosecutors, they would have seen that for themselves,” said Freedom Fund for
Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) legal counsel Atty. Prima Quinsayas, who went through the
case referrals and affidavits filed by the NBI.

At the same time, during the first days of martial law in Maguindanao, certain legislators
filed a petition to the Supreme Court (SC) to declare the declaration unconstitutional.
With this petition came speculations that if the SC does proclaim the declaration as
unconstitutional, all evidence obtained during that period would be unacceptable in court.

Quinsayas explained that this scenario was possible but clarifications of where the search
warrants came from must be checked, given that some warrants were issued by legitimate
courts. “I do know journalists have a right to inspect those records. They are after all
matters of public interest. It’s just double-checking in terms of paper trail,” she said.

Melodrama in the courtroom

Reporting the families of the victims has been the stuff of drama and the movies. Both 24
Oras and TV Patrol featured the families of the victims either in tears or in rage with
prolonged footage to appeal to the emotions.

And who can forget Ala Paredes who landed in the news columns of the Inquirer, Star,
Bulletin, 24 Oras and TV Patrol on the first day of the hearing. The guest court artist was
not the story and her personality profiles were simply unnecessary. But the media
nevertheless went on a field day interviewing her and providing extended profiles.

“The minute you shift your focus on the witnesses, the crime gets lost somewhere. What
becomes worse is that, the witnesses may become the next victims. I wish we have that
sensitivity that it is not just about reporting, but literally life and death. The right to know,
on which our press freedom is anchored, takes a backseat when a person’s right to live
comes into play,” Quinsayas said.
Since the hearing started, media coverage of the trial has been restricted, with the court
citing “trial by publicity” as justification. “Trial by publicity is the term usually invoked
by accused persons when the issue or issues against them in the courts of law are
discussed in the bar of public opinion. But the discussion of such matters in the bar of
public opinion is part and parcel of democracy. As long as the courts of law remain
impartial and independent – which is required of every court – there is no problem. The
courts and the public have different duties – the courts conducting an impartial and
independent trial to determine guilt or innocence of an accused while the public
discussing such matters for societal purposes and community concerns and not to
determine the guilt or innocence of an accused,” said lawyer Julius Garcia Matibag of the
National Union of People’s Lawyers in an interview last Feb. 10.

Misleading
On Jan. 28, the Inquirer published a news story with the headline “Mangudadatu blames
Palace for failure to stop ‘violent’ Ampatuans” which highlighted part of Mangudadatu’s
testimony that Malacañang officials knew how violent the Ampatuans could get and yet
failed to stop the tension from escalating.

However, the Star, TV Patrol and 24 Oras told the story differently. Mangudadatu, in his
testimony, told the prosecutors that he was actually warned by Malacañang officials,
specifically then Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro, of the Ampatuans’ violent
tendencies.

On Feb. 3, the Bulletin posted online an article quoting Mangudadatu as defending and
stating his support for administration bet Gilbert Teodoro in the midst of the negative
reaction to his testimony last Jan. 27. This is by far one of the very few articles posted
online by the Bulletin.

It is the broader context as revealed by thorough analysis, research, and investigation that
is crucial in exposing the dark and complex truths of Philippine reality. To compromise is
to be an inadvertent accomplice in the persistence of the ills that plague Philippine
society. Media must continue to cover and investigate the Ampatuan massacre,
connecting the incident to the broader context of political violence, partisan politics,
lawlessness and impunity. #