Who really killed leading botanist?

The military credibly must explain the slaying of renowned botanist Leonard Co in its supposed crossfire with communist rebels. Its reputation among thinking Filipinos depends on a deep inquiry. Scientist- and artist-admirers of Leonard bewail the violent waste of talent in a forest where he was doing research for the nation.

It’s unclear from initial reports if a gunfight did occur Nov. 15 in the mountain barrio of Lim-ao, Kananga, Leyte. What’s sure is why Leonard, biodiversity consultant of the Lopez-owned Energy Development Corp., was there. He had set out with two EDC foresters and two guides to gather seed specimens for reforestation. EDC security, in protocol with the Army 19th Infantry Battalion in the area, had cleared their trek. Hours later shots rang out in the forest: Leonard, one forester and one guide fell dead. Leonard’s autopsy bared three bullet-entry wounds in the back. The Army reported to the local police a skirmish with insurgents.

Questions beg answering: who shot the three? Why would knowing foresters and guides venture into perilous grounds? What proof is there of a firefight? Why are official statements contradictory? Where are Leonard and companions’ personal belongings?

Battalion commander Lt. Col. Federico Tutaan had dispatched the patrol to Lim-ao three days before. This, he says, was on appeal of EDC security, fearing the presence of marauders. The company denies making such request. Tutaan reportedly admitted in a press briefing that a soldier fired the first shot upon spotting strangers with long arms. So presumably the troops had taken down at least one enemy, yet no rebel fatality was presented. At any rate, the patrol appears to have lain in ambush, a clear violation of human rights. Tutaan later denied ever stating that the first volley came from their side. EDC personnel raced up the forest trail to recover their slain and surviving colleagues. Leonard’s mobile seems to have been taken by a Jejemon texter.

Leonard was one of UP’s brightest products. He avidly had studied Sierra Madre’s flora, including a giant flower later named after him, rafflesia leonardi. He wrote books identifying native medicinal plants of Cordillera and Palawan mountain tribesmen. Only 56, he would have done more for Philippine science had he not been killed. “We are very, very remorseful over what happened,” Tutaan says. The nation also wants the truth.

* * *

My articles on land disputes in Quezon City incited readers to report horror stories of violations of their property rights. Quite interesting is the legal row over Sombrero Island off Aborlan, Palawan. Locals, among them Manuel Palanca Jr., had applied for and were granted homestead patents over portions of the 18-hectare island between 1972 and 1996. But when they officially got their land grants, one George Katon asked the court to nullify their titles and revert the holdings to the state. Katon claimed that he had sole right to apply for a homestead patent over the entire island. This, he said, is by virtue of his having asked the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to survey the island 35 years ago.

The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of Palanca’s group. Still I found intriguingly familiar the name of one of Katon’s lawyers, Manuel Abrogar III. I later remembered that he is one of the lawyers of the spouses Manahan, counter-claimants to the controversial Manotok Compound in QC that I have written about.

Knowing the parties behind an issue can explain its facets. It’s much like knowing who stood to gain had that infamous NBN-ZTE deal pushed through. The Manahans’ is similar to Katon’s case in that their claim was made many decades after their ancestors supposedly bought the land from the government. In fact, the Manahans filed a petition to intervene in the Manotok property suit after 73 years. Aside from such details, Abrogar represents both Katon and the Manahans as “collaborating counsel.” In the Manotok case it was he who asked the DENR to have the National Bureau of Investigation authenticate pertinent documents.

The request was made after an NBI chemist opined that the Manotok documents were “not as old as they purport to be, and therefore spurious.” The chemist said a paper chromatography test showed that the document had ballpoint pen and sign pen ink that came into use only after World War II. She forgot to mention that the ink came from an aniline “certified true copy” stamp, dated “2-25-99”, of the DENR Land Management Bureau. The chemist also withheld that, of all submissions, only the Manahan document bore a watermark of the American colonial administration. Curiously the emblem American eagle held arrows in its right talon and an olive branch in the other, the opposite of the design defined by US law. On the basis of the chemist’s tale, the SC this year returned to the national government the titled Manotok land.

Last September Abrogar again asked the DENR to have the NBI examine another document. This time the new NBI director Magtanggol Gatdula declined, since the submission is a mere photocopy from which “no definite opinion can be rendered.”

* * *

 “Sometimes the person wronged suffers less than the person who did wrong.” Shafts of Light, Fr. Guido Arguelles, SJ

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]