IMPUNITY AND PRESS FREEDOM CONFERENCE The ―Impunity and Press Freedom‖ conference, held from Feb. 27 to 29, 2008, was organized by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance and the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) with support from the Open Society Institute (OSI) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The conference was held at The Peninsula Manila Hotel, in the Philippine financial center of Makati City. One hundred ninety participants from human rights organizations, the legal sector (which included justices and lawyers), media organizations, and government as well as police officials attended the three-day conference. There were 41 foreign delegates, including experts/resouce persons from Southeast Asia and Latin America. Observers and delegates representing various development and advocacy groups also came from South Korea, United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, Australia, and the United States. Local delegates included representatives from the Supreme Court, Department of Justice, Philippine National Police, Commission on Human Rights, human rights groups, and the academe.
A dangerous time for truth The rationale for holding the discussions on Impunity and Press Freedom was captured in the keynote address of Philippine Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno: ―Democracy in this country is under siege because bullets fired at the direction of journalists pierce not only human flesh, but also our republican ideals.‖ He added: ―It is a dangerous time for those who report the truth.‖ A second keynote speaker, Ricardo Trotti, drew parallels between the Philippines and Latin America to illustrate the complexities and effects of impunity on society. The director of the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) Press Freedom Program and Press Institute, Trotti identified certain circumstances in the legal and social environment which permit impunity to prosper. He identified lack of political will, an inadequate legal framework, a weak judicial system, police inefficiency, scant resources, and negligence and corruption on the part of government as causes of impunity. Trotti defined ―impunity‖ as ―exemption from punishment or loss‖ and refers to the failure to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice. When allowed to fester, Trotti pointed out that impunity could lead to selfcensorship, misinformation, manipulation of news, erosion of the media’s watchdog role, media closure, and ultimately ―journalism that is reluctant to expose the truth.‖
Trotti also said that one of IAPA’s main efforts is conducting dialogues with governments of different countries to pressure them to combat impunity. ―We bother governments every now and then. That is a major and effective part of our work (as journalists)—to bother,‖ Trotti said. Echoing the observation that the press has to continuously defend press freedom worldwide, Atmakusumah Astraatmadja, Ramon Magsaysay Awardee for Journalism, Literature, and Creative Arts in 2000 and head of the Dr. Soetomo Press Institute, meanwhile said in his keynote speech that government pressures on the Indonesian press have continued despite the end of the Suharto dictatorship in 1998. The laws protective of press freedom do not automatically guarantee a safe environment for media practice if the public is unaware of the crucial role media plays in a democracy. What is needed is public awareness, he stressed. ―The tension between the public and the press in Indonesia is not necessarily a reflection of differences in their interest; it is more of a reflection of conflict of ideas and paradigms. Hence, the importance of continuous efforts to maintain mutual understanding between media workers and society, but without sacrificing the independence of the press,‖ Astraatmadja said. Attached is the complete program of the conference. Below are some highlights from the discussions.
Challenges and Options The conference started with a panel discussion aimed at establishing where current and existing campaigns against impunity currently stand. For the Philippine context, Court of Appeals Justice Lucas Bersamin discussed the highlights of the July 16-17, 2007 Summit on Extrajudicial Killings the Supreme Court held in Manila. IAPA’s Gonzalo Marroquin narrated key points discussed at the ―Hemisphere Conference on The Judiciary, The Press and Impunity‖ held on July 18 to 20, 2007 in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Justices from the highest courts in the Americas as well as 200 jurists, legal experts, lawyers, and journalists had attended the Sto. Domingo conference, which stressed the need to enact legal reforms and active judiciaries in the fight against impunity. The two separate but similarly-timed conferences in July 2007 werein fact the main inspirations behind the organizing the current conference, SEAPA executive director Roby Alampay pointed out The chance to bridge lessons and experiences between the Philippines and Latin America promised to be rich and
productive, he said, given similarities in the legal traditions and politic al environments in the Philippines and Latin America. Law professor Raul Pangalangan, former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, discussed the realities and challenges of following through on the recommendations from the Supreme Court-initiated summit in Manila. Among other things, he acknowledged the difficulties confronted by Philippine prosecutors and weaknesses and limitations in the country’s witness protection program. Subsequent panel discussions put focus on the Courts as Human Rights Mechanisms. Jose Manuel Diokno of the Free Legal Assistance Group, Jan Michael Simon, head of the Latin American Section for the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Germany, Justice Eduardo Freiler of the Court of Appeals of Argentina, and Judge Fernando Andreu Merelles of the Audiencia Nacional de España, discussed key cases from the Philippines and around the world that demonstrated the potentials as well as limitations of courts in protecting human rights. A panel on national, regional, and international mechanisms against impunity complemented the discourse on the courts as a human rights mechanism. Christine Chung, a senior fellow at the Schell Center for International Human Rights, and a former prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, discussed the history and rationale behind the creation of the ICC, and stressed that as imperfect as it may be, the ICC has a credible record in fighting crimes against humanity and fighting impunity. The Philippines, it was noted, has signed but not ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. Ruben Carranza, Senior Associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice, stressed that addressing impunity is necessary to bring about genuine justice and reconciliation in the Philippines. Herminio Harry L. Roque Jr., a human rights lawyer with the Roque & Butuyan Law Offices, said the Philippine legal community should consider international mechanism to complement, or put pressure on, the flawed and exploited justice system in the Philippines. At times, he says, it is wise strategy to file cases and be dismissed or defeated in the local courts, if only to satisfy conditions for elevating cases to international mechanisms.
Seeking solutions There was particularly high interest in the writ of amparo, a legal tool applied in Europe and Latin America, to complement the writ of habeas corpus.
In one panel discussion, the writ of amparo was discussed by the US-based Due Process of Law Executive Director Eduardo Bertoni, Judge Santiago Pedras Gomez of Spain, and Philippine Supreme Court Justice Adolf Azcuna. Bertoni said that to better appreciate and understand the writ of amparo, it is vital to understand first why the usual remedies, like the writ of habeas corpus, often do not work. Gomez meanwhile said that the writ of amparo in some cases has also been used to defend freedom of expression by protecting an individual’s right to communicate or receive information. Senior State Prosecutor Leo Dacera of the Philippines meanwhile explained the state of the witness protection program (WPP) of the Department of Justice which has been often cited as in dire need of reform. He explained the disconnect between the popular notion of what a WPP should be and the actual reality on the ground that the program has to operate in. In some cases, the economic expectations of some witnesses who come under the program pose a big difficulty as the WPP is only allotted a limited amount of funds. Dacera said that to an extent, WPP personnel could be considered as ―glorified caregivers.‖ The importance of a sustained campaign against impunity through a joint effort by the government and media as exemplified in the Marlene Esperat case, would be effective in fighting impunity, Dacera said. The killers of Esperat have been convicted through the combined efforts of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, or FFFJ (of which CMFR is a founding member) and government prosecutors. Dacera’s insights were affirmed by Ms. Nena Santos, private prosecutor for the Esperate case. Ms. Santos said close coordination and cooperation between private counsel, public prosecutors, and the witness protection program, helped to mitigate for weaknesses in the system and actually bring about positive developments in the case. But she stressed that financial considerations and security concerns are constant problems. Maria Socorro Diokno, secretary general of the Free Legal Assistance Group, said civil society support is thus also crucial for key victories and milestones. She noted the Philippine civil society sector’s experience with Philip Alston, UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines, where NGOs and human rights and legal assistance groups set aside political differences to present a comprehensive and concise presentation for the UN mission. The NGOs provided their own security and logistical support to have Mr. Alston meet with human rights victims and survivors – resource persons and witnesses he otherwise would not have met had his program been limited to what the government had prepared.
Future plans
On the third day of the conference, discussions focused on the future and concrete activities that could be taken up on international, regional, national, and even community levels. Once again, insights and lessons from the international delegates provided crucial reminders, experience, and models for consideration. Carlos Cortes Castillo of the Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa idiscussed the creation of a special protection fund for threatened journalists in Colombia. Damian Miguel Loreti of the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales of Argentina reminded of the importance to also recognize threats from non-state agents. Carolyn O. Arguillas, Editor of Mindanews and Rowena Paraan, secretary general of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, emphasized the needs and working conditions of journalists outside of the city areas, stressing the vulnerability that comes with working in smaller towns where rule of law is weak and political and criminal elements are more powerful. For their part, Maria Teresa Ronderos of Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa and Jose L. Pavia, Chairman of the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists, acknowledged that the media industry must also look inwards to consider what they themselves can do to protect journalists – from self-regulating against unscrupulous journalism to providing journalist trainings on ethics, safety, and security. Based on all the discussions, CMFR’s Melinda de Jesus facilitated a dialogue of stakeholders to brainstorm on needs and programs to address impunity as it threatens press freedom. At the culmination of the three-day conference, an campaign was launched by CPJ, SEAPA, CMFR, the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ), and the OSI. The FFFJ is a coalition of six media organizations formed in 2003 in response to the increasing number of slain journalists. The FFFJ members are the Center for Community Journalism and Development, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, Philippine Press Institute, the US-based newspaper the Philippine News, and CMFR which serves as the secretariat. Both CMFR and PCIJ are also founding memberorganizations of SEAPA. The campaign involves enhancing public awareness of impunity, more research analysis into the cases of journalists killed, mobilization of quick response teams to help journalists under threat, and the establishment of a legal defense fund among others.
CPJ executive director Joel Simon said that political will, an active judiciary, a strong community of the local press as well as media advocacy groups, the presence of international pressure, and records of landmark prosecution such as Esperat case provide an opportunity to campaign against impunity. ―I believe there is a unique and fleeting opportunity to make a difference on an issue that has deep implications for the future of Philippine democracy,‖ Simon said. The conference did not only demonstrate the common interests of human rights groups, jurists, lawyers, and journalists in combating impunity. It was also an occasion for the groups representing these sectors to forge a united front across frontiers in the defense of free expression and press freedom, as well as a warning to the killers of journalists and activists that their deeds will not go unpunished. Press coverage The forum received prominent news coverage, as both local and foreign media organizations covered the three-day event. News about and updates on the conference appeared in Manila’s leading newspapers, among them the Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Daily Inquirer. International wire agencies and media organizations such as the Associated Press and Asian Journal also covered the event. Puno’s keynote speech was reported in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Manila Times as well as on online sites, among them the Inside PCIJ blog of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, GMANews.TV, abscbnNEWS.com, and Newsbreak. Primetime news programs such as GMA-7’s 24 Oras also aired excerpts from Puno’s speech. Opinion-editorial columnists discussed the issues raised at the conference. Sun.Star publisher Pachico Seares twice wrote about press freedom and impunity in his Sun.Star column. Juan Mercado, another veteran journalist whose column appears in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sun.Star-syndicated newspapers, and more than a dozen community papers, also discussed the issues at the conference. Manila Times editor-in-chief Rene Bas also wrote about the conference in his column. Community newspapers also reported the event and the presentations of the speakers and resource persons. The launch of the international impunity campaigns was prominently covered in Manila newspapers including the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Manila Times.
PDF copies of available speeches and presentations February 27, 2008 Keynote Address Hon. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno Supreme Court of the Philippines Panel Discussion 1 Gonzalo Marroquin Inter American Press Association (IAPA) USA Panel Discussion 3 Christine Chung Senior Fellow, Schell Center for International Human Rights, Yale Law School and former Prosecutor, International Criminal Court Ruben Carranza Senior Associate International Center for Transitional Justice USA February 28, 2008 Keynote Address Ricardo Trotti Press Freedom Program and Press Institute Director Inter American Press Association (IAPA) USA Keynote Address Atmakusumah Astraatmadja Ramon Magsaysay Awardee for Journalism (2000) Dr. Soetomo Press Institute Indonesia Panel Discussion 5 Nena Santos Private Prosecutor for the Marlene Esperat Case Philippines
February 29, 2008 Panel Discussion 6 Melinda Quintos de Jesus Executive Director Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility Philippines Maria Teresa Ronderos Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa Colombia Rowena Paraan Secretary General National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) Panel Discussion 7 Joel Simon Executive Director Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) USA