1

Keynote speech delivered by Chief Justice Maria P. A. Lourdes Sereno

during the Journalism Asia Forum: Media & Impunity on November 23,

2014 at the Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria, Quezon City

Good morning, everyone! I am very thankful for the warm welcome

you have afforded me. And I thank Melinda (Quintos De Jesus), my dear

friend, for the high expectations that she has set that this will be a

productive session for all of us.

I will just correct a small trivia. Justice Moran in the 1950s beat me

by a few months in terms of age, but he served in the Supreme Court for a

very brief period. I would therefore be the second youngest, the second

longest serving if I am able to complete my term, but definitely the first

female Chief Justice of the Philippines.

I am very honored to be among friends whom I consider to be of

kindred spirit. I have known Melinda; we have shared a few moments. I

have also known Mr. Vergel Santos, Dean Luis Teodoro and, of course, I

would like to pay special to Lorna Kalaw-Tirol. These are the members of

the Board of the esteemed Center for Media, Freedom, and Responsibility. If

it had not been really for the kind of acknowledgment that is being given to

this organization, it could have been very difficult to pull out the Chief

Justice on a Sunday morning because tomorrow we start another heavy

2

workload again in the Court. As you see, there are oral arguments and

decisions that are forthcoming from the Court in this very hectic period of

its life. But nevertheless, I would like to thank you very much for the

invitation to address you today.

I must confess that when I first received the communication from

Melinda, especially her email, following up the response to the invitation, I

hesitated to officially confirm my acceptance even though I had already

unofficially indicated that I was really interested in being with you today. I

was interested to meet you. I hesitated not because I am concerned about

this issue, but on the contrary, I hesitated precisely because I am very

concerned about this issue.

My duties as Chief Justice prevent me from freely expressing myself

on matters that are pending or will reasonably be brought… either before

the Supreme Court or before our various courts. In the end, however, I

decided to accept your invitation because like you, impunity is an issue that

has burdened me. It weighs heavily on me officially as Chief Justice, and it

has for a very long time been a source of heartache for me personally. And

today’s forum is perhaps the best opportunity for me to provide you some

thoughts on how the courts view this issue.

3

As Chief Justice, it is part of my official duty to let you know where are the

courts standing in our common goal and struggle to combat impunity.

Enhance accountability and strengthen the rule of law. That is the first

reason I accepted your invitation. Personally however, I also wanted to

dispel the perception that those in government do not care about issues

like these. I am part of government and I care, deeply.

I wanted to start with the reasons why I accepted your invitation

because more than just the discussion of the constitutional principles and

general statement of laws, I wanted to ground my remarks on the bedrock

of recollective experience with impunity and our common cause to uphold

and strengthen the rule of law in our country. The rule of law nourishes the

various freedoms that you enjoy. It is thus our shared burden to strengthen

and uphold the rule of law so that we may enjoy freedom - our common

currency.

A principle of governance that holds all persons, institutions, and

entities, public and private, including the state itself, accountable to laws

that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently

adjudicated; and which are consistent with human rights norms and

4

standards cannot be reconciled with a system that allows for undue

impunities from these processes and outcomes due to considerations that

are political and pecuniary. The rule of law upholds these truths to be self-

evident - that no one is immune from accountability simply because he is

powerful or because he is rich or both. The contrary view is anathema to

the rule of law, and that is impunity.

Impunity represents a breakdown, in part or in whole, of governance.

In its most recognizable form, it is the impossibility of enforcing

accountability in whatever form against offenders by reason of the

unavailability of existing proceeding and processes, means, and methods to

effect an effective and meaningful investigation, charge, arrest, trial,

judgment, sentence, or service of sentence.

Where an offender is unduly immunized from accountability through

external conditions such as policy, politics, pecuniary interests, or simply

bureaucratic inadequacies, then impunity has set in and the rule of law is

diminished.

It is in this light that combating impunity becomes a shared burden of

the courts and media. When peaceful dissent is silenced forever by death

5

and validated by the simple expedient of forgetting, then the cherished

freedom to speak, to write, to express, to dissent is diminished and

undermined. When forgetfulness or neglect becomes official policy then

that freedom is removed.

Many people have said that we are a people with a short attention

span and a country with an even shorter memory. Allow me to encourage a

fellow worker of justice, or Chief of Public Information Office, Atty.

(Theodore) “Teddy” Te, by quoting one of his favorite lines: “Impunity’s

greatest friend is forgetfulness; its single greatest enemy is remembrance.”

We must not be distracted, and we must not forget.

We in the judiciary are all too aware of our role in combating

impunity. The courts are the refuge, often the final refuge, for those who

seek to hold offenders accountable for their acts of violence against those

from your ranks. And rightly so, the long arm of the law often finds a face in

our courts, yet it is my sad experience that the long arm of the law often has

a very short reach.

Many of you do not know these, but sometime back, I sought on my

own initiative on a very confidential basis a meeting with some of you

6

because I wanted to find out more about the issue of media killings. My

desire to meet with some of you resulted in a very brief but substantive

exchange of ideas. That meeting gave me valuable insights into finding out

about what you expect from the courts and what realistically the courts can

do for you, the media. In the same way that I spoke directly to those in that

meeting, I will be very direct and candid with you. I want to share with you

two of the biggest challenges facing the courts in relation to our desire to

combat impunity and enhance accountability. Then I want to share with

you some of the things that we are doing to address these challenges.

First, and I was quite candid when I spoke in that small meeting, one

of our greatest limitations is that courts do not have the capability to effect

some of our own writs and processes. It does not have the power to effect a

warrant of arrest. Having no means therefore to ensure enforcement of our

writs, especially warrants of arrest, having no means to ensure that they

are served and having very little resources to ensure that those who do

attempt to serve them are protected from the very real threat of retaliation,

we are dependent on external agencies to enforce our orders, writs, and

processes.

7

I have been informed in connection with this observation that the

prosecution of some cases involving journalists that have been filed in

court have been delayed because the warrants of arrest issued by our

judges are not being served or cannot be served for one reason or another.

Because some of the issues on these cases may find their way to the court, I

will not go into much detail about the specific cases that I have been

informed about. Suffice it to say, however, that in some of these cases the

pattern appears to be the same. Should a case find its way to court… writs,

orders, or processes are not served because the suspects have fled or in

some specific cases the offenses are attributed even to the local policemen.

In the case involving of killing of Fernando “Nanding” Solijon, Dennis

Cuesta, Phillip Agustin, and Marlyn Esperat, suspects remain at large

despite warrants of arrest having already been issued. This situation is

unacceptable to me. The rule of law requires not only that processes that

are integral to the court’s jurisdiction work but that they are also perceived

to work.

The consequences of the failure or the inability of law enforcement

officers to ensure that warrants issued by the courts are served are dire:

they erode confidence in the system and force people to look elsewhere for

8

justice. When an offender enjoys a freedom that is no longer reserved

because a warrant of arrest remains unserved for political, personal, or

pecuniary reasons, the rule of law is diminished and impunity prevails.

On this matter, I am in touch, through the mechanisms of the Justice

Sector Coordinating Council, or the JSCC, with the Secretary of the Interior

and Local Government, “Mar” Roxas, and I have already communicated my

intense desire that we find a way within the scope of our respective

agencies’ capabilities and mandates to address the situation in the soonest

time possible.

Impunity is assured not only by the failure of the court to reach a

judgment but even more fundamentally, the failure to even commence any

action that will result in such a judgment. The evasion by the offender of

judicial processes through act or omission of public officers tasked to carry

these out leads to the assurance on the part of the offender that the long

arm of the law has been straightjacketed and that he would be at least

temporarily out of its reach.

Second, I am also aware that the judiciary has been in the spotlight

for some time now because of the perception that nothing is happening or

9

the court proceedings take too long. It is one of the judiciary’s burdens that

we are not in a position to make things move as quickly as we would want

because the judicial process involves the prosecution, both public and

private, and the defense, and in every instance, the fundamental rights of

the accused as well as the correlative rights of the state to prosecute. Each

case demands from the courts balancing of the specific interests implicated

in each case that the courts must determine in what way justice may best

be served. And unless a pleading is filed in court, we cannot act. Unless

evidence is formally presented to us according to our rules of procedure,

we cannot consider the same. Our processes depend a great deal on good

prosecution work and an equally good defense both cooperating and not

obstructing the processes of the court in order that expeditious trial can be

realized. And even if there is a popular belief in the guilt of the accused, if

the prosecution can only muster a weak case, we have to dismiss.

The Supreme Court has done its share in trying to provide the

greatest protection possible outside of legislation, which is not our

mandate, to journalists who have been on the receiving end of work-related

crimes. You may recall that in 2008, after a national summit on

extrajudicial killings, convened by the former Chief Justice Reynato Puno,

the Court came up with the twin writs of amparo and habeas data. These

10

writs were intended to protect and strengthen the right to life, liberty, and

security; and to address the incidences of extra-legal killings and enforced

disappearances.

Very recently, in connection with so-called Maguindanao massacre

trial, we provided the trial judge with all possible legal resources to speed

up the disposition of the case, mindful of the fact that at that time,

December 2013, it had already been four years since the killings. The

Supreme Court En Banc issued a new set of guidelines to speed up the case,

which guidelines apply only to this one case. You may appreciate that this is

extraordinary because the Supreme Court had never issued such an

expansive set of guidelines designed for only one case. The guidelines have

resulted in speeding up of the resolution of many incidents. It has allowed

the trial judge more flexibility in addressing questions at her level without

fear of being overruled by a higher level court.

As Chief Justice, I am regularly updated on what is going on in the

trial in People versus Ampatuan, et al. I keep track of what still need to be

done on the part of the Supreme Court or the Office of the Court

Administrator in order that the goal of speedy trial may be met while

ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected. I have also more than

11

once personally assured the judge in charge of the cases that the guidelines

that the Supreme Court had issued, especially the last one issued in

December 2013, are meant to fully empower her to resolve the case as

expeditiously as possible without sacrificing the quality of the decision she

will render while at all times ensure that all the accused are afforded due

process and that the Supreme Court does not prejudge the case.

The trial on the Ampatuan case commenced on January 5, 2010. Since

then, it has proceeded non-stop with no breaks except for official holidays.

Two days a week are devoted to evidenciary hearings; one day a week for

hearing motions. The judge handling the Ampatuan cases has been

relieved of her all other duties and responsibilities. She has been given two

assisting judges to observe all other pending cases in her sala and a third

one to help her with all pending incidents and motions in the Ampatuan

cases.

How big a case are we talking of? Let us run the basic figures. There

were 58 victims; 197 accused, from which number, two had acted as state

witnesses, and the information against one has been dismissed; 111 have

been arraigned; 70 of the accused have filed petitions for bail, 42 of those

have already been resolved; 166 witnesses have testified. The transcripts of

12

stenographic notes have now reached 70 volumes. The records, apart from

the transcripts, are 77 volumes thick and counting. Of the 430 incidents

that needed to be ruled on, i.e. motions, 400 have been disposed of and only

37 remain, most of them in relation to the petitions for bail.

The present panel of prosecutors is already the third constituted

panel. In addition are 80 private prosecutors and 15 defense lawyers and

firms. Some of the lawyers have already withdrawn their representation.

This data explain in part the long trial. As expressed by some of the

lawyers involved in these cases, the People versus Ampatuan guidelines

have accelerated the hearings to a remarkably fast pace. The guidelines

embody the strong sentiment of the Supreme Court that the trial should

proceed expeditiously by empowering the trial judge to dispose of all the

incidents and to also expeditiously arrive at the judgment yet taking into

consideration all the rights of the parties.

The Court has also maximized its role in the Justice Sector

Coordinating Council, again the JSCC, which consists of the Supreme Court,

the (Department of Justice) DOJ, and the (Department of Interior and Local

Government) DILG. The reconvened JSCC had since 2013 launched a series

13

of initiatives intended to speed up trial processes and streamline

procedures. Among these is an E-subpoena system, which is working

fantastically in Quezon City in connection with drugs cases. The E-subpoena

leverages on existing technology which is email, and if successful, after

more final testing, may become the basis for further reforms using

automation involving for example, warrants of arrest, hold departure

orders, and commitment orders. We are talking about a unified automated

and internet-based record keeping system so that accused persons will no

longer slip through the cracks simply because the paper documents are in

transit in the mail.

In a few days, the JSCC will launch the first Justice Zone in Quezon

City. The concept of having Justice Zones is an experiment in coordination

among agencies and offices comprising the justice sector. A Justice Zone is a

geographical area, typically a local government unit, where all the offices

involved in the administration of justice are present, functioning, and

funded. It would involve not only the courts but also the prosecution

service, the legal defense service or the Public Attorney’s Office, the police,

the BJMP or the Bureau of Jail Management, the barangay arbitration

system, and the local government officials. Obviously, the belief of the JSCC

is that the work of rendering justice is not limited to the work of the courts

14

alone. It involves many other offices and agencies. And the fundamental

element that has been missing in previous efforts was really

communication, coordination, and cooperation among the various agencies

and offices comprising the justice sector. The Justice Zone is an experiment

precisely… communicating, coordinating, and cooperating.

In order to address the perennial complaints of delay in the

resolution of the cases in the various courts, the Court is seriously

discussing some additional guidelines to effectively implement continuous

or speedy trial. The input of a working group of trial judges has been

submitted to the Court, and it is being considered. We have also

acknowledged the commitment of 27 volunteer judges from across Makati,

Quezon City, Pasig, and Manila who have agreed to pilot the continuous

trial system for criminal cases in their courts. Our vision for an enhanced

and improved continuous trial system would be a trial system where

ideally cases would be heard either from day to day or if there are breaks, it

would only be minimal until the case is finally terminated. This is in

addition to other resources and measures that we are studying right now to

implement really an effective and speedy justice system.

15

I have had the occasion already to showcase to media the electronic

courts of Quezon City. Presently, that is being rolled out in other countries,

in other cities rather, and in a few months we will be inaugurating these

new electronic courts. We have already been implementing a very

aggressive docket decongestion program called the Hustisyeah!, and we will

be announcing soon the additional cases that have been declogged from

our heavily clogged and congested courts.

These are but some of the measures that the judiciary had

undertaken and will continue to undertake very soon in response to the

urgent desire of our people to have a system of justice that is timely,

predictable, transparent, and fair. Many more measures will be enrolled in

the years to come. It is the least we can do to help combat impunity and

enhance accountability.

Words of assurance, even from the Chief Justice, are not enough to

assuage the hunger of our people for justice, much less be the soothing

balm to heal broken and hurting hearts and lives. I am aware that at this

point, my works are but a possible starting point, one among many

platforms by which a national conversation on eradicating impunity for

crimes can be launched and perhaps sustained.

16

What I offer is a public face to the Philippine Judiciary’s sincere

desire to be a genuine vessel of justice. I know that the question that is

foremost in your minds is when the trial on the most shocking mass killings

the Philippines has ever experienced since the Second World War will

come to an end. I, of all the people, desire to give you an answer. But the

only answer that I can tell you with all sincerity is that the judiciary is doing

its best.

The Supreme Court is exercising its power in a way it has never done

before to bring a speedy end to the long anguished wait. But we can only do

so much. A full decision to cooperate with a judicial goal with a speedy trial

lies in the hands of the prosecution and the defense. But I believe that if we

start with a right spirit, the right approach perhaps, we will as a people be

able to resolutely turn the wheels of justice to trek the right path.

Corollarily, a question also in your minds will be when and how will

impunity stop in the Philippines? I want to partly address the latter

question by ending with some words on the relationship between the

courts and the media.

17

I had the occasion to speak before the Kapisanan ng mga Broadkaster

ng Pilipinas recently. And there I underscored the fundamental and

necessary interdependence that characterizes our relationship. I wish to

reiterate my statements in that forum with additional thoughts on how best

we each may discharge our respective roles on putting an end to impunity.

Strengthening the rule of law requires a system of justice that is

predictable, open, and transparent. But it also needs deep public confidence

in the judiciary and in the administration of justice which would require a

heightened sense of vigilance.

We in the judiciary is burdened with insuring the former, but you in

the media must do your share to assure the latter requirement of

heightened sense of vigilance. By shining a light in the areas that a culture

of impunity keeps dark, the media plays a crucial role in stopping impunity

and ensuring accountability. On the other hand, the courts ensure that the

media may be able to share to indeed shine a light where and when needed

by protecting the crucial freedoms that ensure independence of the press.

Ironically often that light is trained on us. But that is a reality I cannot

ignore. The interdependent relation between the media and the judiciary

may at times be uncomfortable, but it is necessary.

18

It has been five years since the killing of 50 people, 32 of whom were

journalists, on a road that led to nowhere in Maguinadao. This forum and

activities that followed are stark reminders to all of us that there is a need

for ceaseless struggle and greater vigilance. It also underscores the need for

us to work together, not against each other. We both are fighting against a

culture, a way of thinking, of seeing, and thus, of acting or choosing not to

act. It is a culture that is ingrained and deeply rooted. It is a culture that

started when people started to look the other way: a culture that thrived

when people stopped caring; a culture that prevailed when people stopped

hoping.

The only way to fight against such a culture is to be a counterculture:

to write about truths when others are spreading lies; to encourage actions

when others are apathetic; to dare to hope when others have given up. This

is our common cause, our shared burden, our one hope. Thank you for

listening, and a good day to all of you!

End