March 24, 2013 · Posted in: Civil Society, Free Expression - Asia, Freedom of Information, General, Governance, Human Rights, Journalist Killings, Maguindanao Massacre, Media, Noynoy Watch
Prudence in handling media cases,
media group cautions DOJ
WHILE MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS would want swift government action on media murder cases, government should still exercise prudence and caution, a media group said over the weekend.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said that the recent handling by the Department of Justice of the case of murdered broadcast journalist Gerry Ortega may have actually done more harm than good.
Last week, the Court of Appeals nullified the DOJ’s creation of a second panel of prosecutors to investigate the Gerry Ortega case. The first panel of prosecutors had dropped former Palawan Governor Joel Reyes and his brother Mario from the charge sheet in the Ortega murder case. But after an ensuing outcry, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima immediately created a second prosecution panel that indicted the two. The murder case is now pending before the Puerto Princes Regional Trial Court.
However, the CA ruled that De Lima committed grave procedural lapses in creating the second panel. The CA said that while De Lima had the authority to reverse the first panel’s findings, she should have simply overturned it instead of ignoring it and creating a second panel. In effect, the CA said the first panel’s findings were still hanging and waiting for resolution.
Also left hanging was an appeal filed by Ortega’s wife Patty to reverse the first panel’s findings. The CA said both the first panel’s findings and Ortega’s appeal should have been resolved first.
“We find no legal basis for the second panel of prosecutors to modify the finding of the first panel of prosecutors. It must be remembered that the first panel and second panel of prosecutors are co-equals. As such, both of them are on the same level and one cannot modify the resolution of the other,” the Appellate Court decision reads in part.
The NUJP said Justice officials should take greater care not to trip over legal proceedings that could endanger the case.
“However, instead of taking action on the first panel’s decision and Patty’s petition, De Lima formed a second panel of prosecutors. The DOJ should be more careful not be caught in their own bureaucracy,” said NUJP national vice chairman Alwyn Alburo. Alburo added that lapses like these could weaken Ortega’s quest for justice.
Alburo added that De Lima still faces “the challenge of doing what is right for the case so that justice will be delivered to the Ortegas.”
Alburo also said that the CA ruling does not touch on the merits of the case, but merely on the procedural aspect. Nevertheless, Alburo said greater care should be exercised by the DOJ if the case is to move forward, he said.
“But we stand by the analysis of Atty. Alex Avisado (legal counsel of the Ortegas) when he said that the CA ruling did not absolve the guilt or proved the innocence of the accused,” Alburo said.
TV5’s Interaksyon quoted Avisado saying the High Tribunal’s decision is favorable for their case. “The ruling does not in any way absolve the Reyes brothers. Nor is it final and executory. This is a purely legal issue,” Avisado was quoted by Interaksyon.
Alburo also said the NUJP is “saddened” by the slew of inaccurate news reports and misleading headlines following the decision of the CA.
“We are alarmed with the CA (Court of Appeals) ruling because it has given rise to different interpretations in the media. We are saddened at the news articles that reported the Appellate Court acquitted ex–Palawan governor Joey Reyes—some news organizations even used the term absolved,” he said. Alburo pointed out that many news sites reported that the CA had already cleared the Reyes brothers of the charges against them, when the CA only nullified the second prosecution panel and ordered De Lima to act on the findings of the first. The NUJP said these sites include GMA News Online, Inquirer, Rappler, Manila Times, The Daily Guardian, News Desk Asia, Sunstar, and Net25.
Doc Gerry Ortega—a radio broadcaster in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan—was a staunch environmental advocate and a vocal critic of then Palawan governor Joel Reyes. Ortega had criticized how Reyes handled the funds from the Malampaya Gas Project off the coast of Palawan. Along with his brother Coron mayor Mario, Reyes was tagged as the mastermind behind the shooting of Ortega inside a retail store on January 2011. The alleged gunman Marlon Recamata had confessed in court to shooting Ortega, while Rodolfo Edrad, Jr—a former aide of Joel Reyes—admitted to hiring Recamata.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 25 Judge Angelo Arizala has allowed Edrad to turn state witness. Edrad is currently under DOJ’s Witness Protection Program. Other suspects involved in the shooting are Valentin Lecias, Arturo Regalado and Romeo Serratubias. The gun used in the shooting was traced back to Serratubias—who used to serve as Reyes’ provincial administrator.
4 Responses to Prudence in handling media cases,
media group cautions DOJ
Chrisanto Romero
March 25th, 2013 at 2:22 am
It’s not just prudence that is necessary but rather an unbiased and an untainted resolve in handling the case. From the very beginning, the DoJ already had its eyes on the Reyes’ and rather than looking for evidence and inspecting other angles, De Lima merely built up the case against the Reyes’ to the point of creating a second panel to churn out her desired results.
Another problem is how the case was tried publicly by the media. Even before the verdict or the findings of the case were tried in the court, the Reyes’ were already being crucified. Shouldn’t the media also exercise prudence in the supposedly unbiased reporting? Most of the editorials were already painting the Reyes’ as guilty, and now that the CA has overturned De Lima’s panel’s resolution, the media is now crying out for “unfair treatment”.
Sarah Aquino
March 25th, 2013 at 11:36 am
Talk about irony, this article is so full of it. I have always believed in the fairness of PCIJ in delivering the news to its readers, until now that is. Why only Avisado? Of course he would say these things because he is the lawyer of the Ortegas. Why gang up on the Reyes brothers? Just because that second DOJ panel said they were behind the killing of Ortega does not necessarily mean they did it. And speaking of the second panel, why was it created in the first place? What was De Limas purpose in doing so? And since that panel was voided by a higher court, twice in fact, the findings of the first would stand. Any grade schooler would get the logic behind that. And oh, lets not forget about Ortega, God bless his soul and may he rest in peace. Incidentally, media should just let him rest in peace. Many in Palawan are saying that Ortega was indeed a hard-hiting radio broadcaster and he did hit many people. Politicians, businessmen, environmentalists. And in the process, he made enemies. Hey PCUJ, why not make an investigative report about that? And not just come up with conclusions.
Ben De Leon
March 29th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
“But we stand by the analysis of Atty. Alex Avisado (legal counsel of the Ortegas) when he said that the CA ruling did not absolve the guilt or proved the innocence of the accused” – if the CA nullified the second panel itself, then all findings presented or uncovered by the second panel is nullified therefore the case will no longer involve the Reyes’ and there would be no need for any absolution.
Clearly put, the CA just exempted the Reyes’ from the case when it dissolved the panel that presented the evidence involving them.
De Lima should either broaden her list of suspects or if she is really hell-bent on pursuing the Reyes’, she should present NEW evidence, if any, rather than using her “broad authority” to circumvent procedures.
Crispin Basilio
March 30th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
De Lima does not know the law. All she cares about is the limelight. Instead of following the rules of procedures, she exercised her so-called “broad authoriy” and in the process showing her ignorance of the very rules the DOJ should adhere.
Also, the Reyeses were cleared by the first panel. The CA declared that the 2nd panel was constituted illegally thus its findings means nothing. Therefore, what is the status of the case against the Reyeses when what controls now is resolution of the first panel. By simple logic, the murder case against them should now be quashed by the court.