The Rappler video feed on the Ampatuan convictions last month.

For decades, the feared Ampatuan clan held sway in the impoverished province of Maguindanao in Mindanao in the southern Philippines. Through a ruthless private army and a reported “propensity for beheadings”, the clan cultivated a culture of impunity. Now, however, reports David Robie, a courageous judge has challenged the horror by jailing the masterminds of the 2009 Ampatuan massacre for life.

SPECIAL REPORT: By David Robie in Manila

The families of the 58 victims – 32 of them journalists or media workers – had waited for 10 years for justice in the Philippines.

After so long, what is another couple of hours?

The Ampatuan massacre in Maguindanao on 22 November 2009 was the world’s worst single attack on journalists and the worst elections-related violence in a country notorious for electoral mayhem.

READ MORE: The Ampatuan massacre – what happened and why

With the judge almost two hours late in arriving at the fortified special courtroom in Camp Bagong Diwa, a police barracks with a jail annex in Manila’s satellite Taguig City, fears were expressed for her safety.

The 101 accused (although three were missing and cited for possible contempt of court) for the heinous crime, dressed in yellow jail tees, were housed in in a barred cage sandwiched between lawyers and some 200 heavily armed police guards and waiting.

The lawyers for both prosecution and defence were waiting.

The media crews for the CNN Philippines live broadcast anchored by celebrity Pinky Webb were waiting.

The CNN Philippines live newsfeed on the Ampatuan judgment.

Live television
The public, glued to their television sets or live streaming from CNN and the state-run People’s Television, were waiting.

In the end, the historic judgment took only 52 minutes.

Many of the victims’ families burst into spontaneous applause for the jailing of the ringleaders; others wept for joy with the convictions. While other families of some of the accused were relieved with the acquittals.

Judge Joycelyn Solis-Reyes of the Quezon Trial Court Branch 221 announced to the court that she could deliver the shortened verdict rather than the full 761-page judgement or “it could take all day”.

In fact, broadcaster Peter Musngi reckoned it would have taken “43 uninterrupted days” to read the full judgement. Both prosecution and defence lawyers agreed to the short reading with the full judgment being made available online – read it here on Rappler.

Judge Solis-Reyes sentenced the 28 principal accused – including three brothers of the powerful Ampatuan warlord clan from Mindanao – to life in prison without parole and ordered them to pay a total of more than 155 million pesos (almost NZ$5 million) in changes to the heirs of 57 victims killed in the massacre.

The judge reduced the “official” death toll from 58 to 57 because the body of photojournalist Reynaldo Momay was never found. This means that the Momay family was not granted compensation even though it was commonly known that he was with the journalists who were killed and never been seen since. There was also dental evidence linking him found at the multiple murder scene.

Appealing sentences
Some of those jailed announced last week that they are appealing against their sentences, and the prosecution is also appealing over the acquittals and the judge’s Momay finding.

While it has been a long wait for justice for the victims, it had also been a long wait for the judge herself. Judge Solis-Reyes had shelved her own plans for career advancement so that she could see the notorious case through to judgment.

She was forced to brave death threats and political pressure over the case. At least three witnesses were killed during the course of the trial.

The judge had earlier admitted in interviews that she had wanted to pursue a career in broadcast media and had studied journalism at the Lyceum of the Philippines.

Describing the atmosphere in the courtroom with 400 people packed in to hear the verdict of the century” on December 19, Tempo columnist Jullie Y. Daza wrote that the judge “deserves the nation’s gratitude for her dedication and deportment”.

“All I can say is,” she added, “you’re priceless, Your Honour.”

Judge Solis-Reyes broke down her summary into 1. Those guilty beyond reasonable doubt; 2. Accessories; 3. Those released on the basis of reasonable doubt; 4. Those facing arrest warrants.

Police officers acquitted
Forty-three people, including leaders of the Ampatuan clan, were convicted of mass murder or being accessories, and 58 other accused – many of them police officers – were acquitted in the infamous case.

Sentenced to reclusion perpetua, or up to 40 years in prison without parole – effectively life – on 57 counts of murder were prominent clan members Datu Andal “Unsay” Ampatuan Jr; his brothers, former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) governor Datu Zaldy “Puti” Ampatuan Sr, and Anwar Ampatuan Sr, former mayor of Shariff Aguak town.

Another brother was acquitted. Two other prominent members of the clan – nephews Anwar Ampatuan Jr and Anwar Sajid Ampatuan – and 23 others were also found guilty of the multiple murders.

Fifteen other accused – almost all of them policemen – were convicted as accessories to murder and sentenced to between six and 10 years in prison.

It took 10 years, 424 trial days, to hear the testimonies of 357 witnesses against 197 who were originally charged.

During the long-running trial, six accused were acquitted and the clan patriarch, Andal Ampatuan Sr, also accused, died in prison from a sudden heart attack in 2015, aged 74.

One of his daughters, Rebecca, told the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) that her father had six wives and 40 children. The PCIJ closely followed the case for a decade with a series of special reports in The Maguinado Chronicles.

The killings in 2009 sent shockwaves around the world because of the brazenness of the attack. The victims, including 20 women, were kidnapped and clubbed before they were executed, mutilated and buried in shallow graves.

Mass graves
The backhoe digger, using a government machine, who excavated and filled the mass graves, was among the convicted accessories.

The ambushed electoral convoy had been taking the registration papers to enable challenger Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu to contest the governorship of Maguindanao in defiance of threats by the Ampatuans. He was not with the convoy, but his wife, Genalyn, was shot 17 times: “They shot her on her breasts, her private parts. Such unimaginable cruelty.”

He subsequently won the election in a landslide in 2010 and has since been elected to the Philippine national Congress.

The mass murders were widely condemned around the world by governments, global media freedom organisations and human rights groups. The US ambassador at the time, Kristie Kenney, described the killings as “barbaric” and then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the brutal political violence in the southern Philippines.

The Malacañang presidential palace welcomed the convictions last month, saying the rule of law had prevailed in closing one of the darkest chapters of Philippine history.

“The Maguindanao massacre marks a dark chapter in recent Philippine history that represents merciless disregard for the sacredness of human life, as well as the violent suppression of press freedom,” said presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo, who ironically was once one of the lawyers for the Ampatuans.

“This savage affront to human rights should never have duplication in this country’s history.”

Editorial opinions cautious
However, most editorial opinion in the nation’s media and human rights groups greeted the “historic” judgment with caution.

“Justice at last, but …” summed up the headline on a Philippine Star editorial, warning “a victory has been achieved, but the pursuit of justice is far from over”. Said the Star:

“Amid the rejoicing are the disappointments and concerns about what might happen next. With 56 defendants cleared, including two members of the Ampatuan clan, there are valid concerns raised by the victims’ families that violence remains a serious threat in the clan’s turf.

“Most of the guns believed owned by the Ampatuans and their private army remain unaccounted for. The claim is believed to continue enjoying control over substantial funds and other assets.

“Harassment of witnesses, victims’ relatives and prosecution lawyers are possible. At least three witnesses were killed in the course of the trial.

“There are 80 suspects still to be brought to justice, and an appeals process that could take another decade to complete. There is the equally complicated task of going after the assets of the Ampatuan clan.

“There are other criminal cases – about 200 of them – still being pursued, including complaints for corruption and obstruction of justice, as well as cases related to the murders and disappearances of witnesses.”

‘Terrible crime’
The Philippine Daily Inquirer noted in an editorial that this daily newspaper – along with other media – had “faithfully reported on the terrible crime that thrust the Philippines squarely on the map for the single deadliest attack on journalists in the world.

“In bearing witness, we strived mightily to ‘piece together the bloody shards of the crime’, and to find the words to ‘approximate the horror’.

But the Inquirer added that there were significant lessons to be learned – and acted upon – in spite of the hope stirred by Judge Solis-Reyes’ guilty verdicts, such as the “endless delay” caused by defence motions that reflected the “dismaying state of the judicial system”.

“And journalists and media workers remain in peril in the fast-shrinking democratic space.”

Philippine Star columnist Ana Marie Pamintuan described the Ampatuan clan as “Monsters Inc.” and was candid in a wide-ranging article about the challenges ahead after the judgment.

One challenge is to “catch the 80 suspects who remain at large and bring them to justice”. Another is the expected “spirited fight for their acquittal” on appeal for those who were convicted.

“Let’s hope the road to final judgment won’t take another 10 years,” warned Pamintuan.

Another huge challenge is the legal fight to have the Ampatuans’ massive wealth forfeited by the state, and payment of civil damages to the victims’ families.

Property freeze orders
Freeze orders have been issues by the courts on bank accounts, real estate property and other identified assets of the Ampatuan clan.

“Prosecutors believe, however, that substantial amounts of cash have been stashed away by the clan the old fashioned way – not in banks where there is a paper trail, but perhaps in boxes, chests or baul [a Tagalog word meaning a traditional clothes trunk], buried somewhere or concealed within walls the way South American narcos do with their mountains of dirty money,” says Pamintuan.

“In one of the poorest regions in the country, the Ampatuans thrived, driving around in convoys of luxury vehicles with their private armies, living it up in fortified mansions. How do local executives in third-class municipalities and impoverished provinces, with their modest salaries, manage to accumulate that kind of wealth?”

The last challenge – and probably the toughest – is how to “eliminate the environment that creates monsters and breeds impunity”?

Etta Rosales, former chair of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, described the Mindanao environment as like the “wild, wild west”, warning it remained “compromised injustice” until the private armies and political dynasties were rooted out.

While the Ampatuan massacre remains the worst example of this environment, there are many other regions of the Philippines where the local population are ruled by patronage and fear.

The implications for press freedom in the Philippines have not been lost on students and tertiary journalism schools.

‘Already afraid’
Writing on Rappler, Diwa Donato, a political science graduate from Saint Louis University, Baguio City, who has dedicated 13 years of her life to campus journalism as an advocate for youth empowerment, press freedom and democracy, says she will never forget the day of the massacre. She was aged 10 at the time – and she was “already afraid to continue my dream of pursuing journalism”.

“The Philippines remains one of the deadliest countries for journalists in Southeast Asia,” she says.

“The fight of professional journalism will always be the fight of campus journalism. We celebrate the Ampatuan massacre verdict, hope for justice, and continue to address the struggles of press freedom.

“For now, democracy and press freedom have won. But we do not fight to win, we fight to be free. There is more to be done.”

National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) chair Nonoy Espina also fears for the future.

“The culture of impunity for crimes against journalists means that massacres like the one in Ampatuan can happen again,” he says. “Without justice, the bloodshed will continue.”

The NUJP played a key role in independent investigations and keeping a watch on government, also sponsoring family members of slain journalists to get to Manila for the trial.

Ruthless warlords
The Ampatuans were the warlords of Maguindanao and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

“Even Andal Ampatuan Jr’s ruthlessness and sociopathic violence served a purpose,” admits Pamintuan. “Cops and soldiers who were assigned to the ARMM talk of the Islamic separatists being terrified of incurring the ire of Andal Jr because of his reported propensity to decapitate and mutilate anyone who crossed him.”

“There are other political warlords still out there – running their own fiefdoms like gangsters, naming streets and villages and government projects after their family members, freely using public money for private purposes and controlling every aspect of the local criminal justice system.”

Yes, a victory, but the fight to end impunity in the Philippines has just begun.

Professor David Robie, director of the Pacific Media Centre, was recently in Vinzons, Camarines Norte, Philippines, on a research sabbatical.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

The head of an Auckland-based Pacific media watchdog says New Zealand “takes media freedom for granted” and could learn a lot from its Pacific neighbours.

“For the last few years we have been sitting fairly pretty in the world press freedom index where we are seventh at the moment – we have gone up one place from last year and we just take it for granted,” said Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie.

“Everything’s fine. Hunky-dory here.

“But around most of the world, particularly in the Pacific, World Press Freedom Day is a really important thing because there is a constant struggle going on.”

WATCH VIDEO: UN Secretary-General António Guterres speaks out for World Press Freedom Day

Radio 95bFM’s The Wire host Jemima Huston was asking Dr Robie on a pre-Media Freedom Day special of the Pacific Media Centre’s Southern Cross programme about why the event was barely observed in New Zealand.

Also being interviewed was Pacific Media Watch contributing editor Michael Andrew. He said last month’s call by traditional chiefs on the Federated States of Micronesia island of Yap for the expulsion of a local US journalist had “opened up a whole bunch of scrutiny from abroad to see what is actually going on there”.

Asked by Huston why he thought media freedom stories did not get covered as well in New Zealand as in the Pacific, he replied coverage of Micronesia was “in the shadows” because of US colonisation history which had kept the region out of Australian and New Zealand attention.

Listen to PMC’s Southern Cross programme.

Across the Asia-Pacific region, many events are happening to mark World Press Freedom Day.

In Fiji, University of the South Pacific student journalists are staging a debate on the theme of “links between quality information, elections and democracy.”

The panel will be led by the Wansolwara journalism training newspaper editor Rosalie Nongebatu, of the Solomon Islands, and she will be joined by Kirisitiana Viuwai, Apenisa Vatuniveivuka and Eparama Warua (all of Fiji).

In the Philippines, where journalists and the media have been under severe pressure for many months, with award-winning editor Maria Ressa of the popular Rappler digital media website being arrested on trumped up charges, a lively programme is being planned.

Staging a “freedom festival”, the organisers, including from the Philippine Centre for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), described the government attacks on the media as “grave and more direct”.

“We, a community of journalists, photojournalists, and artists, have come together to #fightback and mark the day in hope, courage, and unity, so we may all protect and defend our fundamental freedoms and the people’s right to know,” the organisers declared.

The activities include the release of a “State of the Philippine Media” report on the “Killings, attacks, and threats on the Philippine media, June 30, 2016 to April 30, 2019″, a protest at the Department of Defence in Aguinaldo military camp in Manila, and an online screening of the documentary Portraits of Mosquito Press.

The PMC Southern cross radio programme on media freedom.

In Timor-Leste, an all-day World Press Freedom Day event is planned and one of the keynote speakers is former PNG Post-Courier publisher and Asia-Pacific media training consultant Bob Howarth.

Addressing hate speech, he praises New Zealand in his keynote.

“New Zealand’s media are setting an example for the rest of the world as a result of the Christchurch mosque killings in March. They have agreed to focus reporting on the massacre victims and not the white supremacist currently facing justice,” he says.

He also speaks with pride about the Timor-Leste Press Council launching a campaign to lobby Google and Facebook to add Tetum to the list of languages they can translate automatically to other languages.

Sri Krishnamurthi’s media freedom videos:

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Rappler

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism has responded to what it called President Rodrigo Duterte’s “broadsides” aimed at PCIJ’s recent reports on the Duterte family’s wealth, saying there was no reason for the President to “lose his cool”.

“The PCIJ report was built on the Dutertes’ own declarations in their SALNs (Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth) and data from official government records,” said PCIJ executive director Malou Mangahas in a letter sent to media groups.

“PCIJ had wished only for the Dutertes to offer clear, direct, straightforward replies to our queries. Instead of blaming PCIJ for the report. Mr Duterte should turn his attention [to] his deputies, notably Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo, for the failure of [the] Office of the President to attend to PCIJ’s request letters, over the last 5 months.”

READ MORE: The Duterte millions – Rodrigo, Sara, Paolo mark big spikes in wealth while in office

DUTERTE: Rich man, poor man, mayor, President. Graphic: PCIJ

On Saturday, April 6, the President claimed it was money driving investigative reports. While he did not mention PCIJ by name, the comments were made in the aftermath of the investigative group’s three-part report, “The Dutertes: Wealth Reveal & Riddles”.

“Makita mo ‘yung utak ng mga investigative journalism kaya…. Pera-pera lang. Binabayaran ‘yan kung gano’n kalaki. Pati nung lawyering ko,” said the President.

-Partners-

(Look at how those in investigative journalism think…. It’s all about money. They get paid a huge sum if the story is that big. They even included my lawyering.)

The series reported that members of the Duterte family may have participated in conflicts of interest, declared assets inconsistently, were affiliated with an unregistered law firm, were found with “sudden, sharp” increases in wealth while in public office, and emerged from elections with their personal funds largely intact.

Opaque data
President Duterte and his children Sara and Paolo separately and together offer token or opaque data that, under the law, they are required to reveal in their SALNs
Duterte, Sara, Paolo mark big spikes in wealth, cash while in public office

How and why their fortunes are rising remain a mystery; the numbers do not seem to add up, reports PCIJ

The President said his late mother, Soledad Roa Duterte, was responsible for the family’s wealth.

“Putang ina ninyo. Hoy, ‘yung mga dilaw, all the time I was with my mother. Maski na noong mayor na ako, ang nagpapakain sa akin nanay ko. ‘Yung nanay ko ang may pera. ‘Yun ang nanay ko nag-iwan ng pera sa amin. Pero kung magkano, eh bakit sabihin ko sa inyo?” asked Duterte.

(You sons of whores. You yellows, I was with my mother all the time. Even when I was still mayor, it was my mother who fed me. My mother was the one who had the money. It was my mother who left money for us. But as to how much, why would I tell you?)

Better to have responded
PCIJ said it has reported on the wealth and the controversies of 5 presidents before Duterte: Benigno Aquino III, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Joseph Estrada, Fidel Ramos, and Corazon Aquino.

PCIJ detailed its efforts to solicit comments from the Duterte camp in letters sent beginning October 2018. According to Mangahas, it would have been “far better had Mr Duterte, daughter and Davao City Mayor Sara, and son and former Davao City vice mayor Paolo granted PCIJ’s request for comments, and possibly sit-down interviews, before the story ran.”

“Eh ngayon, tinitira kami ng mga anak ko. All about lawyering. Ano ba naman pakialam nila na what happened to my law office?” Duterte said in Iloilo City.

(Now, my children and I are being attacked. All about lawyering. What do they care about what happened to my law office?)

Among its findings, PCIJ reported that “the President, Sara, and Paolo separately and together offer a muddled mix of token or opaque data” in their SALNs.

PCIJ found spikes in the net worth of Duterte and his children. PCIJ said the President, Sara, and Paolo “have all consistently grown richer over the years, even on the modest salaries they have received for various public posts, and despite the negligible retained earnings reflected in the financial statements of the companies they own or co-own.”

The numbers, said the investigative group, “do not seem to add up.”

The Pacific Media Centre and Pacific Media Watch collaborate with Rappler and the Philippine Centre for Investigative Journalism.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

BACKGROUNDER: By David Robie

Three United Nations special rapporteurs have added their voice to the global protests this month over the President Rodrigo Durterte government bureaucracy’s attack on the independent online news website Rappler and a free press in the Philippines.

Rappler has been the latest media target for the administration’s wrath over a tenacious public interest watchdog that has been relentless in its coverage of the republic’s so-called “war on drugs” and state disinformation.

Some media freedom advocates claim that the Philippines is facing its worst free expression and security crisis since the Marcos dictatorship, with The New York Times denouncing the “ruthlessness” and “viciousness” of Duterte’s disdain for democracy.

The death toll in the extrajudicial spate of killings range between 3993 (official) and more than 7000 or even double that figure since Duterte took office on June 30, 2016, according to human rights agencies.

Headlined “After killing spree, is a free press Mr Duterte’s next victim”, the NY Times editorial said: “Even among that cast of illiberal leaders who rouse mobs with their ruthless policies and disdain for democratic protections, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines stands out for his viciousness.

“He has effectively declared open season on those he and his minions accuse of being drug users and dealers … Exposing such brazen abuse of power is a hallowed mission of a free press, so it should come as no surprise that authoritarians like Mr Duterte usually go after independent media.”

The NY Times described Rappler as a “tenacious critic of the president’s vicious crackdown” and this had led to the government announcing on January 15 it was revoking the online news site’s licence.

No hard evidence
Media freedom watchdogs say the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has produced no hard evidence to support its “foreign ownership” in breach of the constitution accusations against Rappler and the company that owns it, Rappler Holding Corp. Rappler is challenging this SEC ruling through the courts.

Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Manuel “Babe” Romualdez denied any “political motivation” behind the SEC ruling on Rappler.

In a letter to the editor published by the Times on January 24 in response to the editorial, Romualdez described SEC chairperson Teresita Herbosa as “a person of unimpeachable character”.

Rappler and many supporting news groups staged “Black Friday” demonstrations across the Philippines on January 19 when chief executive Maria Ressa declared her organisation would “ hold the line” on press freedom, insisting journalism was “not a crime”.

“We’re doing journalism. We’re speaking truth to power. We’re not afraid and we won’t be intimidated,” she said.

Ressa has joined a group of courageous, outspoken and defiant women opposed to Duterte who are “being marginalised, silenced, or worse”, according to The Diplomat.

They include Vice-President Leni Robredo (effectively gagged and whose office will be eliminated under Duterte’s controversial “federalism” plans) and Senator Leila De Lima, a human rights advocate (jailed for the past year on trumped up charges that have yet to be tried).

Highly successful and innovative website
Ressa founded Rappler in 2011, originally on Facebook, after being CNN’s leading Asia investigative journalist for several years. It has been a highly successful and innovative online and “citizen journalism” website, with an Indonesian edition.

Rappler also currently faces a “cyber libel” complaint that is seen as highly dangerous for the media.

Duterte has also threatened to block renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise – the largest and most influential television network in the Philippines and publicly criticised the Philippines Daily Inquirer for its alleged “slanted reporting”. (A Duterte crony, San Miguel beer baron Ramon Ang, then seized a majority ownership stake in the company).

University of the Philippines journalism professor Daniel Arao said the President’s criticism echoed the martial law era, when then dictator Ferdinand Marcos ordered the shutdown of media outlets that were critical of his regime.

“The Duterte administration is being creative in terms of harassing and intimidating the media, but there is also the brutality, the bullying and the crassness,” Dr Arao said.

“Right now, he might even end up worse than Marcos.”

Other media freedom advocates have also warned that the Philippines is sliding into its “darkest chapter” of Philippine history between 1972 and 1986.

‘Flagrant’ violation
Describing the government’s stance as a “flagrant” violation of press freedom, the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders watchdog announced it had asked the United Nations, UNESCO and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to take a stand.

“The decision to close Rappler is fraught with danger, hence the urgency of referring it to these international bodies,” RSF deputy director-general Antoine Bernard said. “We are very concerned about the safety of its journalists and the protection of their sources, especially as Rappler is well known for the quality of its investigative reporting.”

The watchdog’s Asia-Pacific director Daniel Bastard added: “For more than a year, Duterte’s notorious troll army has been spreading the rumour that Rappler is 100 percent foreign-owned.”

In a joint statement on Thursday, the three UN special rapporteurs said they were “gravely concerned” about the government moves to revoke Rappler’s licence.

“Rappler’s work rests on its own freedom to impart information, and more importantly its vast readership to have access to public interest reporting,” said the rapporteurs.

“As a matter of human rights law, there is no basis to block it from operating. Rappler and other independent outlets need particular protection because of the essential role they play in ensuring robust public debate.”

The rapporteurs are: David Kaye (Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression), Agnes Callamard (Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions), and Michael Forst (Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders).

‘Dangerous, risk of murder’
Writing in The Diplomat, University of Portsmouth academic Dr Tom Smith warned that journalism in the Philippines “has long been a dangerous trade, one that carries a very real risk of murder with little likelihood of accountability”.

He reminded readers of the 2009 Maguindanao massacre when 58 people, including 32 journalists, were “hacked to death, allegedly by members of the Ampatuan clan”. There had been no justice so far for the victims so far in a flawed prosecution case that has crawled over the past decade.

“Yet it is vitally important that Filipinos have a robust critical press to question a government up to its neck in human rights abuses.”

This is why so many people were despairing with the news that Duterte’s administration is trying to ban Rappler.

Dr David Robie is editor of Asia Pacific Report, published by the Pacific Media Centre.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Being a journalist in the Philippines has become a lot tougher, riskier and traumatic in the face of  President Rodrigo Duterte’s so-called “war on drugs” which has seen more than 7000 people killed in the Philippines in the last 18 months, says a leading media researcher and advocate.

In a narrative “singularly dominated by the police”, says Malou Mangahas, executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), the face of journalism in the Philippines has begun to feel the impact.

Mangahas told the audience of the ‘Journalism under duress in Asia-Pacific’ panel during the Pacific Media Centre’s 10th anniversary event one of the “freest” and “most rambunctious” media in Asia was facing serious challenges.

“The media in the Philippines right now is suffering from severe psychological trauma for seeing dead bodies, observing the terrible grief of family members of those who have been killed in the war on drugs by our president of only 16 months,” she said.

Mangahas said journalists in the Philippines had become “first responders” in a war which had seen institutions falter and the rule of law challenged.

“The rule of law is weak in the Philippines. This happens, this aberration – Duterte, the war on drugs, the martial law on Marawi – because we have many broken institutions in the Philippines.”

Although impunity was a problem in the drug war, Mangahas said accountability was a “twin problem” which the media had failed to uphold in a story “written and dramatic in numbers”.

‘Nobody owns up’
“People are getting killed but nobody owns up. Nobody gets jailed for what he has done. Cases are not even filed or pursued in court up to prosecution and conviction.

“I think we have gone wrong, we have not reported enough about our people,” she said.

Mangahas said that reporting on justice and rule of law, a “very difficult thing for a journalist to do”, had become harder under Duterte’s drug war, as journalists had to retrace their steps.

PCIJ’s executive director said that the drug war had called attention to the role of the journalist in the Philippines, which a “virulent social media community” had seized upon.

The war on drugs had seen “trolls” call out reputable media organisations such as Rappler and the Philippine Daily Inquirer as “fake news”.

Mangahas said she did not like to see journalism diminished by the “loose term” and warned fake news was a form of misinformation, propaganda, spin and hate speech.

“People never think about what it includes, what it excludes.

‘Open to opaqueness’
“News is never, ever fake,” she said.

Mangahas said a general shift from “open to opaqueness” now characterised media freedom in the Asia-Pacific region.

“Historically in the last 20 years, nations of the Asia-Pacific region have moved from open to opaque.

“In many parts of the region what we’re observing is a general push-back.”

Johnny Blades, a senior journalist at Radio New Zealand International, spoke about the media and Melanesia, especially Indonesian-ruled West Papua.

Among a handful of New Zealand journalists to travel to West Papua, Blades explained that despite President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s best intentions of loosening media restrictions, there was a lack of cohesion about Widodo’s “Papua policy” in various state agencies.

“Out there in Papua it’s not Jokowi running the show, it’s more likely to be the military and the police.

‘Unlikely to quell discontent’
“His focus on development is unlikely to quell the discontent with Indonesian rule among Papuans and that, to a large degree, relates to their historic core grievance about what they see as an illegitimate self-determination process,” Blades said.

Despite the “dominating” presence of security forces and an “uneasy reality” and “terrible tension”, Blades said he was grateful for the chance to have gone there.

“I never thought I’d get to West Papua.

“I was really blown away by the beauty of West Papua. It’s indigenous people are truly magnificent people,” he said.

Introducing the panel, the chair, PMC director Professor David Robie, said how both the Philippine crisis and the Indonesian human rights violations in West Papua had been virtually ignored by the mainstream media in New Zealand.

He said the PMC’s media products Pacific Media Watch freedom project and Asia Pacific Report had tried hard to balance these blind spots.

A minute’s silence was held to remember the victims of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, while protesters held “Stop the killing” placards.

At the start of the panel, AUT graduate Sasya Wreksono introduced her special video to mark the anniversary, saying “I hope you get the feeling of the commitment, the drive and the passion that goes into the Pacific Media Centre”.

Evening MC Alistar Kata, an honours graduate and former Pacific Media Watch editor, added: “I would imagine, Sasya, it wasn’t easy to fit 10 years of stuff and content into two and half minutes!”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Journalists in the Philippines take their life in their hands doing their job. What was already one of the world’s riskiest places to be a reporter has become even more difficult under President Rodrigo Duterte and his “war on drugs”, reports RNZ’s Mediawatch.

In today’s Mediawatch programme featuring the executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Malou Mangahas, who spoke at “Journalism Under Duress in Asia-Pacific”, a summit marking the 10th anniversary of Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre, presenter Colin Peacock reports:

When the Philippines appears in the news here these days, it’s not normally good news.

Most stories focus on the maverick president Rodrigo Duterte – nicknamed The Punisher – who is often compared to Donald Trump. Many of those stories also refer to the bloody crackdown of his ‘war on drugs’ launched after he took power last year.

READ MORE: Journalism under duress in Asia-Pacific – an introduction

Thousands of people have been killed by vigilante-style policing since mid-2016.

PCIJ’s Malou Mangahas (centre) at the Pacific Media Centre with RNZ’s Johnny Blades, Pacific Media Watch’s Kendall Hutt and PMC’s Del Abcede. Image: David Robie/PMC

-Partners-

In her APEC visit to Manila last month, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the deaths “require investigation . . at the very least” – and in a rather awkward-looking press conference, she also made a point of telling the president New Zealand’s police are unarmed.

The culture of impunity allowing police to kill suspected drug users and sellers in the Philippines is also putting journalists under severe pressure – and in some cases getting them killed too.

The extra-judicial killings are often officially explained as self-defence or the results of shoot-outs. But sometimes media reports show otherwise.

This week, Reuters news agency published a startling multi-media report called Operation Kill detailing the extra-judicial killings of three men and how the circumstances were covered up by police officers.

“The Philippines has one of the most free presses in Asia, and it also one of the rambunctious in its exercise of freedom,” said Malou Mangahas.

“The drug problem is very serious and that is accepted across the country. It is the method of the war on drugs is what has divided it.”

https://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mwatch/mwatch-20171203-0912-reporting_risks_grow_under_the_punisher-128.mp3

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

What do some bankers and fund managers, a few senior government officials, a dozen top taxpayers, and a handful of companies located in the Philippines have in common?

They are among some 200 Filipinos, Philippine residents, and corporations that own or are linked to offshore accounts in tax havens across the world, according to the “Paradise Papers” cache of 13.4 million confidential electronic documents that had been leaked and exposed this month.

READ MORE: PCIJ’s Malou Mangahas to speak at Pacific Media Centre’s 10 years On event in Auckland

While having offshore accounts is not a wrongdoing per se, in some cases, these may be used to avoid or evade tax payments in their host countries, hide unexplained wealth, or move illicit and fraudulent financial flows across borders.

The latest expose by “Paradise Papers,” which has led to stories by media outfits such as the BBC and the UK newspaper The Guardian, covers offshore investments made by the law firm Appleby and corporate service providers Estera and Asiaciti Trust in 19 tax jurisdictions in the world.

About 120,000 people and companies are enrolled in “Paradise Papers,” including Philippine citizens, residents, and business entities.

Leaked papers
The “Paradise Papers” data files were leaked to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which shared these with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) based in Washington, DC, and its global reporting network of over 380 journalists from 100 news organisations, including PCIJ.

PCIJ reviewed the list with special attention to apparent transparency and accountability issues. PCIJ thus sent inquiry letters to about a dozen individuals who had served as senior state officials, donated to candidates for president, own or run major corporate entities, or are tied to contracts with government.

Not all the Philippine accounts are active as of the current year. Most accounts are listed to be operational still while some turned out to have been dissolved already, according to those PCIJ reached for comment.

PARADISE PAPERS: For the full list of persons and companies, check out ICIJ’s Paradise Papers database

This is the second round of PCIJ reporting on offshore accounts with ICIJ. In 2013, PCIJ wrote about the offshore ties of then re-electionist Ilocos Norte Gov. Maria Imelda “Imee” Marcos, then senator Manuel “Manny” B. Villar Jr., and then senatorial candidate Jose Victor ‘JV’ Ejercito. They all failed to disclose their interests offshore in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth.

Five of those PCIJ sought for comment, as well as replies from the law and accountancy firms that had assisted them, invariably disowned or denied any wrongdoing had been committed in regard to their offshore accounts.

But Filipino and Philippine-based offshore account holders may have nothing to worry about for now. At present, the Philippines has neither law nor rules, nor any effective regulatory framework for monitoring or even recovering taxes possibly due from monies in these accounts.

Split opinion
Also, between former and current finance officials, there is a split opinion on what the Philippine government should do to regulate such accounts and to run after their owners.

Interviewed recently by PCIJ, former Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Jacinto-Henares said that in her view, when someone or some entity opens an offshore account, that should raise concern at once among government officials.

In contrast, Finance Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez — who admits his connection to an offshore account himself until 2001 – told PCIJ that “there is nothing illegal per se about these accounts… and we are not about to declare them illegal”.

“Actually,” Henares said, “nobody can stop you from incorporating anywhere in the world.” But, she said, “the question is if that company has an asset that matches (its) net worth.”

She pointed out, “The important thing to ask is if the tax for that had been paid, and second, did it come from questionable deals. Kasi ‘yung galing sa masama rin, hindi mo rin binabayaran ‘yung buwis (Because if it came from something illegal, you wouldn’t pay the tax due).”

Why hide monies?

Henares continued: “Ibig sabihin, hindi mo siya maipasok mainly sa pangalan mo kasi hindi mo ma-explain saan nanggaling ‘yung income, saan galing ‘yung pera. ‘Yun lang naman ‘yung tinatanong d’yan, pero itself, wala namang problema (In other words, you couldn’t place it under your name because you won’t be able to explain where the income was sourced, where the money came from. That’s really the only question there, but itself, there’s no problem).”

It’s a question, according to her, of what would drive someone or some entity to open an offshore account. “Siyempre, medyo may tanong lang na ano bang objective mo (Of course, there’s a bit of a question there on what really your objective is),” Henares said. “Parang lahat ng tao feeling nila na kapag Pilipino ka, naiisahan mo ‘yung gobyerno mo. Bakit mo ginagawa ‘yan? (So everyone starts feeling like, if you’re a Filipino, you can easily put one over your government. Why do you do that?)”

‘No law, not illegal’
Dominguez takes the contrary view. Indeed, he said that there is no clear, cogent legal framework to regulate offshore accounts, but getting one “would require legislation by Congress.”

At the moment, he said, “we’re all focused on the tax reform bill until December.”

“But really,” Dominguez said, “there is nothing illegal per se about Filipinos or Philippine residents opening accounts overseas.” Still, he said that “when information like this comes out, then we look at it case by case.”

“In truth, there is nothing illegal about it,” Dominguez said. “It is legal, and we are not about to declare it illegal.” He then cited one instance when he was told that a friend of his staff had planned to open a dollar account in Hong Kong to buy bitcoins. Recalled Dominguez: “I told her, ‘Go ahead, that’s okay’.”

These comments by the Finance Secretary came on the fourth time that PCIJ had called him in the last month, to follow up on a request letter for an official opinion on offshore accounts from his department.

PCIJ mailed its letter to Dominguez last November 8, prompting a quick call from him; at the time, though, he was still in Vietnam for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit (APEC).

Working group promise
He promised then that he would organise a technical working group of his staff, as well as officials of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and — if they would agree, he said — of the Bangko Sentral and the Anti-Money Laundering Council.

The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Summit intervened and kept Dominguez busy for a week. He received PCIJ’s second and third calls during the week, however.

Last November 16, he said, “My staff will write you a letter. We discussed this yesterday. There is no law prohibiting anyone from opening offshore accounts. It’s allowed by law.” Offshore accounts “may be a tax leak for us,” Dominguez said, “but it is a small leak.”

He added that offshore accounts are a lesser problem than tax incentives that some companies and sectors have been enjoying for so long. “We have a list of tax incentives given, and you’d be surprised how big those amounts are,” Dominguez said. “Some have been receiving tax benefits for over 40 years.”

Tax leakage on account of incentives given to corporations is, in Dominguez’s view, “a more important issue than someone buying, registering a plane or cargo vessel — that is a one-off thing.”

In an offshore leaks database reported in 2013, Dominguez’s name had actually come up as an offshore account holder. The company listed in his name was called Radstock Corp.

Connection admitted
When PCIJ asked Dominguez about this, he promptly acknowledged his connection with Radstock.

“I saw that before,” he said. “I was involved with them a long time ago, 2001 ‘ata.” As he recalled it, his engagement as a director of Radstock was connected with a project of the Philippine National Construction Corporation.

Like Dominguez, many other finance experts say that offshore accounts are legal. They also note that these are rather common among multinational enterprises with global operations.

Yet when account holders turn to tax havens offshore to avoid or evade paying taxes, hide illicit wealth, and conduct illegitimate or abusive financial flows in secret, they cross over to forbidden territory in law.

Evade, avoid taxes
International companies, finance experts say, operate in tax havens to be able to transfer the taxable income to jurisdictions where tax rates are lower. Companies that make profits in the Philippines, for instance, can transfer these to other jurisdictions. This means that what should have been part of the tax base of the Philippines becomes instead part of that of another country.

Tax havens also use secrecy as a prime tool to hide identities. Individuals and entities can hold shares in offshore companies without being identified, unlike in the Philippines where incorporation and registration records are public.

Too, one can sell shares offshore without having to pay capital-gains tax.

Secrecy jurisdictions provide structures that enable people or entities to skirt or undermine laws of their home country or jurisdictions elsewhere. In the Philippines, the lack of a legal and regulatory regime over offshore accounts makes it difficult for government to run after tax evaders and money launderers.

According to the Tax Justice Network, between $21 trillion and $32 trillion of private financial wealth is located, untaxed or lightly taxed, in tax havens around the world. Illicit cross-border financial flows have also been pegged at $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion per year, a huge amount compared to the $142.6 billion in global foreign aid in 2016.

Founded in 2003, Tax Justice Network or TJN is a UK-based independent international network that conducts research, analysis, and advocacy on international tax, the international aspects of financial regulation, the impact of tax evasion, tax avoidance, tax “competition,” and tax havens. Not aligned with any political party, TJN has global and regional partners in Africa, Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and North America.

TJN has a Financial Secrecy Index that ranks jurisdictions according to their secrecy and the scale of their offshore financial activities. The higher the rank, the more secretive financial activities are in the country.

The scoring is based on an assessment of 15 secrecy indicators that can be grouped around four broad dimensions of secrecy: knowledge of beneficial ownership, corporate transparency, efficiency of tax and financial regulation, and international standards and cooperation.

Of the 92 countries surveyed by TJN for its 2015 Index, Bermuda was ranked No. 34 and Isle of Man at No. 32. The Philippines was 46th. Switzerland, Hong Kong, and the United States are first, second, and third, respectively.

The Financial Secrecy Index reveals that the stereotypes of tax havens are misconceived. Said TJN: “The world’s most important providers of financial secrecy harbouring looted assets are mostly not small, palm-fringed islands as many suppose, but some of the world’s biggest and wealthiest.”

Wanted: Evidence
As of this posting, PCIJ has yet to receive a written reply from Dominguez himself, or even from the “technical working group” that he said he plans to convene to study the matter of offshore accounts.

He tossed PCIJ’s query letter to Finance Undersecretary Antonette C. Tionko, who recently replied to PCIJ. She said in part that they had “gone through the attached list which contains names of Filipinos and a few foreign corporations which appear to have Philippine ownership (although this is not clear considering that only the name of said corporations are provided).”

“Please note,” Tionko said in her letter dated November 22, “that under Philippine tax laws, income of Filipino citizens are subject to Philippine income tax regardless of where earned. On the other hand, only income of foreign corporations from Philippine sources is subject to Philippine income tax.

“Hence, if we assume that the listed corporations are all foreign corporations, evidence must be presented… that income is earned and not reported in the Philippines to constitute a violation of the Tax Code.”

She then asked for “further information” on the Filipinos on the Paradise Papers list. According to Tionko, information “such as purported types of investments, amounts of said investments, and the like will be relevant in determining whether or not there is a violation of Philippine laws.”

Global vs local firms
To Henares, meanwhile, big companies and top taxpayers who have offshore ties are not suspect. She is more concerned, she said, about those on the list who have no global business or reason to have offshore companies.

Asked Henares: “If you have no international corporation, then what are you doing there?”

Henares said that she welcomes having more information into offshore transactions primarily because without information and appropriate regulations, governments have no way of running after tax evaders who hide their wealth offshore.

The BIR, with Henares at the helm, had set to investigate Filipinos with offshore accounts following PCIJ’s 2013 report. But Henares said she could not recall updates on the planned investigation.

When contacted by PCIJ on the matter, BIR Assistant Commissioner Marissa Cabreros said that the Bureau cannot confirm or deny any information about it because its staff are bound by law to keep silent.

In any case, Henares said that the country’s strict bank secrecy law in a way already offers “a domestic haven” for people who may want to hide their cash assets. Tax havens offshore meanwhile offer options for people who may want to hide their ownership of properties.

“Let’s say,” she said, “without knowing how much they have in the bank, we already know they’re deficient by P1 million. What more if we have that bank figure? It would be much, much more ‘di ba? Then what more if we have the information about the international (accounts)? Then it could become much, much more din.”

Information exchange
The OECD Global Forum for Tax Transparency was specifically set up to address the risks to tax compliance posed by secrecy jurisdictions. Global Forum members, among them the Philippines, had agreed to implement transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. This includes the Exchange of Information on Request (EOIR) and the Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information (AEOI), which requires tax administrations to exchange taxpayers’ financial information.

Henares clarified, however, that the Philippines is involved only in the EOIR, which allows the BIR to exchange information only with a country that the Philippines has a tax treaty with.

The Philippines was reviewed as “largely compliant” in the first round of the EOIR review. But it currently has treaties with 41 countries only; it has no tax treaty with many of the popular tax havens.

The OECD and the Council of Europe also developed the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, which is said to be the “most comprehensive multilateral instrument available for all forms of tax co-operation to tackle tax evasion and avoidance.”

The convention not only provides for exchange of information, but also includes assistance in recovery, the service of documents, and facilitation of joint audits.

The Philippines signed onto the agreement in 2014 but has yet to ratify it.

The article was published by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and is republished here with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz