By Melanie Y. Pinlac

The continuing murder of Filipino journalists/media practitioners indicates how much the culture of impunity in the Philippines has flourished—one more result of the systemic weaknesses of the country’s justice system. In addition to the government’s lack of political will, inefficient law enforcement, prosecutors burdened with impossible case loads, the primitive state of forensic investigation, and the poorly-funded witness protection program are responsible for the culture of impunity.

The prosecution of criminal cases including media murders in the Philippines relies heavily, sometimes solely, on testimonial evidence rather than forensic evidence, the result of the rudimentary—and sometimes careless—processing and gathering of physical evidence by law enforcement agencies. Investigators, prosecutors and lawyers try to gather extensive and comprehensive testimonial evidence to make up for the lack of physical evidence, and their unreliability if available. The families and colleagues of slain journalists have also been burdened with the task of locating possible witnesses for the prosecution of the suspected killers of their kin.

In the murder case against the alleged killer of Davao-based broadcaster Fernando “Batman” Lintuan, the testimony of the lone witness, described by the court judge as “ridiculous and unbelievable”, contributed most to the dismissal of the case and the acquittal of the suspect last April 22. The prosecution had failed to present additional evidence to corroborate the testimony of its lone witness.

On Christmas eve almost two years ago (Dec. 24, 2007), Lintuan—a radio blocktimer based in Davao City—was shot to death by a lone assassin.

What happened in the Lintuan case was not unusual. Many other media murder cases, like the 2003 killing of another Davao City broadcaster, Juan “Jun” Pala, never even reached the courts because no witness dared to come forward.

Securing witnesses

Convincing witnesses to testify in court—especially in cases involving powerful personalities—is itself as problematic as finding them.

In a country of guns for hire and indifferent law enforcement, witnesses naturally demand assurance that they and their families will be safe from retribution. Many witnesses also worry about their socio-economic situation—the loss of their jobs, their relocation, problems with daily finances, et cetera (especially for those who will be admitted to safe houses).

Many witnesses can’t be blamed if they think twice about going into the tedious trial process. In the Philippines, murder trials last for years. In some cases, witnesses have died without testifying Those who do survive end up totally spent.

All these concerns about the protection of and support for witnesses and their families should have been addressed by Republic Act No. 6981, also known as the “The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act” which was passed in 1991. RA 6981 mandates the creation of the government’s Witness Benefits, Security and Protection Program, commonly known as the Witness Protection Program (WPP).

But in reality, the government witness protection scheme is limited in scope and poorly-funded. WPP director Senior State Prosecutor Leo Dacera III in his report on the weaknesses and limitations of the state-run witness protection program pointed out that support for the prosecution services especially in the field of protecting witnesses has declined over the years despite an increase in the number of murder cases. (The full report was published in CMFR’s 2008 Philippine Press Freedom Report.)

“Although we recognize that in a developing country like ours the Witness Protection Program and the prosecution service will always have to stand in line for scarce resources which must first be devoted for our people’s basic needs, the issue should be properly addressed soonest before we reach the point where the problems become so huge and so many they compromise the capacity of the system where prosecution of the cases of slain journalists becomes nearly impossible,” Dacera said.

Not all witnesses are qualified for the government’s witness protection program. RA 6981 states that “Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial body or before any investigating authority, may be admitted….” provided that he/she passed the criteria laid out by Section 3. The criteria are: (1) the case the witness will testify for is considered a“grave felony” as defined in the Revised Penal Code; (2) his/her testimony “can be substantially corroborated in its material points”; (3) s/he and his/her family are under threat; and (4) s/he is not a law enforcement officer.

The government’s inability to address the needs of witnesses has made some witnesses vulnerable to the influence of the accused. In 2008, two witnesses in the 2004 killing of Aklan-based broadcaster Herson Hinolan recanted. Both witnesses expressed in their affidavit of recantation uncertainty that the alleged gunman-mastermind was the one they saw shooting the broadcaster. One of these witnesses had allegedly been convinced by his relatives to withdraw his testimony in exchange for ”help” from the defendant. (The broadcaster’s widow has since filed an administrative case against the state prosecutor who signed the witnesses’ affidavits of recantation.)

Many also doubt the capacity of the government’s Witness Protection Program to protect them. It does not help that some witnesses have been killed as some cases were progressing. In 2005, a key witness in the murder of Pagadian city-based journalist Edgar Damalerio—Edgar Ongue—went into hiding after Edgar Amoro, another witness in the Damalerio killing, was himself killed. A gunman killed Amoro in February 2005, allegedly for identifying former policeman Guillermo Wapile as the shooter of Damalerio. The Amoro family reported that he had been receiving death threats since May 2002 from Wapile and his accomplices. It took the intervention of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) before the families of Damalerio, Ongue and Amoro could be moved to a secure location. (The Cebu City Regional Trial Court convicted Wapile on Nov. 25, 2005.)

Improving protection of witnesses

The inadequacies of the state-run witness protection program have compelled witnesses in media killings to refuse to testify in court. Media advocates and press groups have realized the importance of witnesses in the prosecution of cases and the urgent need to protect them and their families as well.

The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and the FFFJ regularly consult and talk with witnesses, families, and other relatives of slain journalists to reassure them of continuing support, morally, legally and financially. Established in 2003, the FFFJ is a coalition of six media organizations formed to address the continuing attacks against journalists and media practitioners. CMFR serves as the FFFJ Secretariat.

FFFJ has also expanded the coverage of its legal assistance to include key witnesses in ongoing cases against the killers of journalists/media practitioners. It has also worked closely with the prosecution teams handling media murder cases to address the problem of impunity.

Media organizations have offered monetary assistance for persons who choose to testify in cases involving the killing of their employees.

Press freedom advocates have also joined civil society organizations in pushing for a better budget for the state-run WPP. In December 2008, the Senate approved a P30-million increase in the proposed budget of the WPP. Senator Richard Gordon in a December 2008 press statement said that “A well-funded protection program is an indispensable requirement for the successful resolution of heinous crimes, such as murder, kidnapping-for-ransom and drug trafficking.”