III. Issue of Propriety

Media victims of the Masalay massacre have been indemnified from government funds – each receiving P100,000 from the Presidential Staff; P30,000 from the staff of Secretary Jesus Dureza, the Presidential Assistant for Mindanao; and P10,000 from the Department of Justice.

This was in the media (MindaNews, December 1, 2009 as published in Mindanao Times, Davao City) and personally confirmed by two newspapermen in General Santos City. However, no list of who actually received P140,000 each is available 

In another report, the Palace promised to give each media and non-media victim P100,000 from the President’s Social Fund. (philstar.com, November 28, 2009: Palace offers P100,000 to each massacre victim).

Granting that this is legal, is it proper?

How Much?

If 33 media victims – unconfirmed if all and with ground to doubt – have been indemnified, that would have amounted to P4,620,000. If the 30 non-media victims, as promised, will still be paid P100,000 each or P3 million in all, that will total to P7,620,000.

The basis of computation, 63 victims, – contrary to the 57 (31 media, 26 non-media) constantly in news reports (most recently 58 – 32 media, 26 non-media) – has been taken from the following lists:

n  The Report of President Arroyo to Congress on December 6, 2009 has 55 names – 29 media and 26 non-media victims.

  n  The partial list published by INQUIRER.net on November 25 has 47 names – 20 media and 27

         non-media victims.

n  The list from the Department of Justice consolidated from the lists of SOCO (Scene of the Crime Operatives), OCD (Office of Civil Defense) and PIA 12 (Philippine Information Agency Region 12) has 54 names – 29 media, 25 non-media.

n  The FFFJ (Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists) has 31 names of media victims only. 

Matching these lists shows there are names in one not in others or in others not in one. And when complemented with reports from INQUIRER.net, philstar.com, and MindaNews, the collation and consolidation yield 33 names of media and 30 non-media victims.

To Update

The 31 verified names in FFFJ list were published in the first part of this article (MindaNews, January 17, 2010). Add to those the names Jephon C. Cadagdagon and Eugene Depillano – both in the President’s Report and very lately validated by the list from the Department of Justice.

The non-media victims are:

Women (1 to 16): Genalyn T. Mangudadatu, Bai Eden Mangudadatu, Pinky Balayman, Bai Farida Mangudadatu, Rowena Anne Mangudadatu, Mamotabay Mangudadatu, Farida Sabdula, Zoraida Bernan, Raida Sapulan Abdul, Rahima Puto Palawan, Lailan “Ella” Balayman, Wahida Ali Kalim, Atty. Cynthia Oquendo-Oyano, Atty. Concepcion “Connie” Brizuela, Mariam Calimbol, and Patricia Palaypay.

17. Catalino Oquendo; Drivers (18 to 24): Abdila Ayada, Norton “Sidic” Edza, Unto, Eugene Dojillo, Patrick Pamansang, Chito, Razul Daud; Government Employees (25 to 30): Wilhelm Palabrica, Mercy Palabrica, Eduardo “Nonie” Lechonsito, Cecille Lechonsito, Daryll Vincent delos Reyes and Anthony Ridao.

Precedents

Was it proper to have awarded P4,620,000 or a little less of government money for 33 media victims and to award P3 million more to 30 non-media victims should the promise be fulfilled? There are precedents and maybe laws to make such use of government funds legal. But do these apply to the Masalay massacre victims?

Victims of MILF raids in Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte and in Lanao del Norte and of terrorist bombing in Cotabato City received “cash assistance” - varying amounts –some P10,000, others more, others less - from President Arroyo. The Ramos government also gave cash to the victims of the April 3. 1995 Ipil (then of Zamboanga del Sur) raid and funds to rehabilitate the town.

Are the victims of such calamitous incidents entitled to government indemnity? In theory, it seems. These raids and terrorist bombings are acts aimed to destabilize the government. Since the government has the duty to protect the people from the enemies of the state, failing do so, it has to compensate the victims.

Whether this is a policy or a presidential discretion is not clear. [However, that the Muslim family on a banca sunk by a military plane in Rio Grande somewhere in Datu Piang area last year and Muslim victims of military bombings and shelling in their villages were not indemnified is ground to question the fairness of the policy or presidential discretion -- if such is so.] (The Commission on Human Rights gave financial assistance to the victims of the Datu Piang Massacre- ed).

Different Case

However, the Masalay massacre is an entirely different case. While it was an act of terrorism, it was not aimed against the government. It was political violence by the Andal Ampatuan clan against its political rival, the Mangudadatu clan.

The Mangudadatu women group and their drivers represented their clan. Lending the perceived power of media to help secure the groups made the 33 media men and women allies of the Mangudadatus. The six government employees, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, were collateral victims.

The media people were killed, even if some of them were personally known to the Ampatuans for past publicity relation, because they were seen as Mangudadatu allies. The six government employees were silenced as witnesses to what could have been a perfect crime – even just for a while – had government troops not come before the victims and their vehicles could be buried.

Anyone can bet his or her last peso. Had the reporters gone to Sharif Aguak on their own to inquire into Mangudadatu’s filing of his COC and interview Datu Andal or any of his sons, they would not have been killed. And they could have made a very good story about the political rivalry.

The truth, in reality, is this: Had it not been for Buluan Vice Mayor Mangudadatu’s invitation, not that many media people could have accompanied the women group in convoy. Or perhaps, just a handful or none at all.

Justice

Do the massacre victims deserve indemnity? Certainly, and not the media victims only. Indemnity is an integral part of justice for victims of heinous crimes. The party responsible for the crime – not the government unless the state has some degree of responsibility – must indemnify the victims.

In the Masalay massacre, Datu Andal and his sons, if convicted, are liable for indemnity and other damages as the court may deem fit. Unless they are able to overcome the preponderance of evidence piling up against them – including public outrage – conviction appears inevitable.

The Mangudadatus could not just wash their hands of their responsibility. The vice mayor invited the media and had an attendance sheet passed around for those present to sign in. That implied work and mutual obligation relationship – the media people being obliged to do something for the vice mayor and he being responsible for them in return. 

The 33 died in the “employ” of the Mangudadatus; they deserve compensation.

Proper?

Is it then proper for government to use its funds to indemnify victims of violence that the state had nothing to do with? The P4,620,000 was given to the media victims on the behalf of the Ampatuans and the Mangudadatus. That is how it appears; some Arroyo critics can maliciously and derisively look at it that way.

Does this suggest that the P4,620,000 should be taken back? Not at all. There is no way. Why return what has been received without asking and apparently given as a policy or presidential discretion -- in all sincerity out of good will? 

But what is proper is proper: If convicted, Datu Andal Ampatuan and his sons should indemnify the victims and reimburse the government what it has already advanced to the media victims, as well as what it may award to the non-media victims if it fulfills its promise.

To some victims, the P140,000 or P100,000 is not enough, counting lost earning opportunity. In justice to them, they should be awarded the difference.

In reality, Malacañang has preempted the court. It is the court that should award compensations and damages upon conviction of the accused. The court can even freeze the assets of the Ampatuans to answer for anticipated compensations and damages.

What if the Ampatuans are acquitted? The victims who have received P140,000 each and others who may still receive P100,000 can thank the Arroyo government.

The P100,000-Question: The Masalay massacre was just the first of the many election-related killings expected to happen from now until May 10, 2010 and after. Will future victims of political violence expect indemnity from Malacañang? 

("Comment" is Mr. Patricio P. Diaz' column for MindaViews, the opinion section of MindaNews. The Titus Brandsma Media Awards recently honored Mr. Diaz with a "Lifetime Achievement Award" for his "commitment to education and public information to Mindanawons as Journalist, Educator and Peace Advocate." You can reach him at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it )

---

Share this story through the following Social Media sites: