Court junks contempt rap vs. Maguindanao massacre lawyer

MANILA, Philippines - A Quezon City court has dismissed an indirect contempt charge filed against one of the private prosecutors in the Maguindanao Massacre case filed in 2011 by principal accused Andal Ampatuan Jr., based on a History Channel interview.

Judge Jose Paneda of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 220 said Ampatuan failed to show in court that lawyer Harry Roque Jr.'s cable television interview aired on Sept. 26, 2010 gave rise to a "clear and present danger" to the multiple murder trial.

The judge also ruled that an established precedent in Philippine jurisprudence that "the advocacy of ideas cannot constitutionally be abridged unless there is clear and present danger that such advocacy will harm the administration of justice."

"Under the clear and present danger test, petitioner failed to prove that there exists a substantive evil which is extremely serious and that the degree of its imminence is so exceptionally high as to warrant punishment for contempt," the magistrate said.

For his part, Roque's legal counsel, Romel Bagares, said the judge's decision on the contempt case is a "big victory for freedom of expression."

"This is a big victory for free expression in  relation to a celebrated case where the very right to free expression of 32 journalists and media workers who perished in the massacre were forever denied them," said Bagares, who is also Center for International Law executive director.

Ampatuan Jr. or Datu Unsay, along with other members of his political clan, is accused of masterminding the murder of 58 persons, including 32 journalists and media workers, on Nov. 23, 2009 in a town in Maguindanao.

He had charged that Roque violated the sub judice rule in cases being heard in court when he told History Channel that key members of the Ampatuan clan were responsible for the massacre and used public funds to perpetuate themselves in power.

Under the sub judice rule, litigants in a case are prohibited from discussing in public the merits of the case.

At the trial, Ampatuan's  only witness was a technician at his lawyer’s office –Fortun & Narvasa –who recorded the History Channel episode. 

The technician admitted on cross-examination that Roque did not specifically name anyone in the Ampatuan clan as a massacre suspect.

He also admitted that the copy of the video of the History Channel interview he presented in court was not authenticated by the cable television channel.

Under the indirect contempt charge against Roque – a criminal case – a conviction would have meant a fine or a jail term, or both.

"Lawyers occupy an integral role in the administration of justice. Such position justifies the rules and regulations imposed on their conduct because membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions," Judge Paneda in his  12-page decision.

Roque is also facing two similar indirect contempt charges filed with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court  by two other accused in the Ampatuan massacre, the clan patriarch Datu Andal Ampatuan Sr. and a certain Datukan Malang Salibo.