Impunity at the Valley Golf

IMPUNITY AT THE VALLEY GOLF

Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles

This is a story of how a member of the government’s Peace Panel forgot his duty and allowed violence to happen in front of him.

On 22 December 2006, Gloria Arroyo appointed Sec. Nasser C. Pangadaman of the Department of Agrarian Reform to the Peace Panel.

On 26 December 2008, Sec. Pangandaman allegedly stood by while his son and namesake, Masiu City, Lanao del Sur Mayor Nasser Pangandaman Jr. and five bodyguards mauled Delfin de la Paz, 56 and his son Bino, 14. The attack first happened on the golf course of the Valley Golf and Country Club in Antipolo when the Pangandaman party overtook the de la Paz party on the course.

From the Gmanews.tv: The elder de la Paz said the Pangandaman father and son overtook them at one of the holes, prompting him to ask a marshal to have them get back in line, but when they were playing at the fifth hole, Pangandaman Jr allegedly voiced impatience with his slow playing.

Irked at the blatant breach of golf etiquette (parties or “flights” as they are called, should not overtake another flight without permission from the preceding one), Delfin de la Paz went up to speak to the Pangandaman party. Heated words ensued and Pangandaman, Jr. threw a punch at Delfin de la Paz. Bodyguards immediately followed and repeatedly punched de la Paz. Bino del la Paz rushed to assist his father but was in turn punched repeatedly and personally by Pangandaman Jr. It bears repeating that Bino de la Paz is fourteen years old.

Bambee de la Paz, daughter of Delfin and part of his flight, tried to help her father and brother but was prevented from doing so by other bodyguards. She says “So we complained to the marshal. We played the 5th hole and walked towards the next hole, where there is a tee house, and both the flights in front of us were there, talking with the marshal. The mayor of Masiu City, Lanao del Sur talked with my dad. Things got heated up. Voices were raised. But never, in my wildest dreams, did I ever imagine that someone would pull out a punch. Apparently not. He attacked my father. His flightmates, maybe 2 or 3 of them, rushed to his aid and beat up my father. My 56-year-old father. My younger brother and I could not just watch. We rushed to break the fight. My younger brother pleaded to the mayor to please stop it. To not hurt my dad. To just stop. His words still ring through my head..."Sorry na po, sorry na po...tama na...tama na po..." With his hands in front of his chest in a praying position. PLEADING. The mayor sacked him in the face. My brother defended himself. My dad was still on the ground getting clobbered. My brother, the same way. I tred to stop the fight, but all I could do was stop one person. There were 4 or 5 of them attacking now.

Someone broke up the fight. I thought it was all over. The mayor shouted to his caddy: "Hindi nila kami kilala! Sabihin mo nga sa kanila kung sino ako!" And believe me, I had no idea who this person was. But now I know. He's the person who, with 4 other men, beat up my 56-year-old father and my 14-year-old brother. He's the person who sacked a pleading 14-year-old kid in the face. He's a person who, I am sure, is gonna rot in hell.

I lashed out, but my dad held me back. I was screaming my lungs out, shouting to this mayor, telling him about what he had done. I said: "Nakakahiya kayo. Singkwenta'y sais anyos ang tatay ko. And kapatid ko kakatorse anyos. Anong ilalaban nila sayo?"

The mayor looked at my brother, poinedt to his face, and says, "Tatandaan kita!" And he told me that my brother has a bad attitude and that I need to watch him. WHAT THE HELL?! So, my brother's bad for defending his father?!” (http://vicissitude-decidido.blogspot.com/)

After the scuffle, the three went to the clubhouse to report the incident where they again ran into the Pangandaman party.

Bambee says, “We leave. We walk to the clubhouse to file a complaint. My brother asks for a doctor. My dad could barely walk. Their group comes to the clubhouse, sees my brother. Once again my brother pleads, says sorry, and is crying. He was CRYING, for crissakes. But no. The relentless mayor still punches him in the face, and then sees my dad and goes after my dad again. Him and his friend pull my dad to the ground, pulls at his feet, and steps on him like he's dirt. I run to him and try to hold him back, holding him back by his shirt, while this other guy and this girl tries to stop me. She tells me to just stop it. I scream in her face "they're beating my father up and you want me to stop?!" I pull at his shirt--I don't let go. All I can see was my dad being trampled on. I didn't even see my brother getting beat up.

People pull them away. I get my dad, and I saw my brother. His right ear was bleeding. I freaked out. I told the receptionists to bring my brother to the clinic. I pull my dad away. People were separating us.

My mom and my older brother come. I tell her Bino's right ear is bleeding. They both look like they could kill. My dad holds my brother off, I hold off my mom. When I finally got my mom under control, my older brother gets away and I hold him off. Two of the mayor's bodyguards pull out guns. I embraced my brother from the back, just holding him back, crying. The receptionists came to us, crying, hugging me, my dad, and my mom, whispering to us to just leave. "Maam, umalis na po kayo, may mga baril sila...Maam...umalis na po kayo please..."

Aside from the obvious charges of physical injuries filed against Pangadaman, the de la Pazes charge the attackers with violation of Republic Act 7610 the Anti-Child Abuse Act, for the injuries deliberately inflicted on 14-year-old Bino. Mayor Mangandaman, Jr. meanwhile counter charges Delfin de la Paz with slight physical injuries alleging that de la Paz attacked him with an umbrella.

The outrage on this is building and already the coffee shop pundits are wondering if GMA will fire her DAR Secretary and consequently remove him from the peace panel. I’m also wondering if the general public will see the connection between the illegitimacy of Gloria Arroyo and the blatant abuse of power displayed by these public officials.

In the past eight years, the Arroyos have managed to subvert all manner of processes to keep themselves free from litigation. Does anyone remember the kidnapping orchestrated by Mike Defensor on Ping Lacson’s witness on FG’s improprieties? The impeachment processes that were reduced to the inappropriately termed “numbers games”? ZTE? Yet, amazingly, when Mike Arroyo filed his own cases, his cases seemed to speed right along.

People know that these things happen in the halls of power. But never has it been so blatant, so in-your-face. And never have we, as a people been so cowed and so accepting of this kind of insidious status quo. A member of the government peace panel cannot keep the public peace and stands by as his son beats up a father and son. It seems to be just another injustice in the land of the apathetic.

Victorina Will Continue To Fight

by: Atty.Trixie Angeles

The Constitution says that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press. This provision assures us that free speech is the rule, and it is protected. Government is therefore prevented from prescribing laws such as censorship that prohibit expression prior to publication or punishment after publication. But not all speech is protected.

Libel, sedition and obscenity are some of the known exceptions. Libel is defined under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonour or contempt of a natural or juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead,

The elements of libel are:

a. imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another
b. publication of the imputation
c. identity of the person defamed and
d. existence of malice

For conviction, all elements must be present and proven. Standards are lower for public figures which include but are not limited to actors, "celebrities," and politicians. Defamatory statements or imputations are presumed to be malicious –even if true – if no good intention or justifiable motive for making it is shown.

A columnist inferring that a government official has dipped his hand into the public coffers may defend himself by showing that such a statement was made in accordance with the public interest of transparency. If, however, there is no justifiable reason to have made the malicious imputation, even if such an imputation is true, it shall be considered libellous. In such a case, truth is not a defense. Quite recently, (January 2008) the Supreme Court recommended to the lower courts the imposition of fines and the payment of damages, rather than imprisonment of those convicted of libel. It also recommended to Congress the decriminalization of libel.

Congress, on the other hand, came up with the Right to Reply bill, requiring media to provide equal and commensurate space for the subjects of a news item or column, to present their sides. It has not passed plenary, though. In consonance with the Supreme Court recommendations, criminal libel should be a thing of the past. However, since there are instances where a person could be wrongfully maligned, its civil liability will remain. We must note that the internet appears to be the last bastion of absolute free speech. Yes, currently the local courts appear to be less inclined to explore its parameters. This is perhaps due to the difficulty of establishing jurisdictions, or maybe due to the lack of ‘cyber-knowledge’ among some of our magistrates. Yet for most of us, online blogging categorically makes for a far more interesting reading than traditional media.

The phenomenon of blogging has removed the censorship power from those seeking commercial political and religious advantages that makes mainstream media pander to their interests. It has allowed the democratization of free speech by taking away the filters of opinion that publishers have by virtue of ownership. The internet has allowed us to say things we cannot say or are afraid to say in print, television or even in movies.

Brian Gorrell, for instance, would not have found an audience for his story had he gone to the papers first, nor would Malu Fernandez have been given the internet version of an extreme reality check. These have the effects of providing an alternative to mainstream media and directly empowering the ordinary person. It is all well and good. Yet the law addresses the bad stuff –malicious imputations and the like -- because clearly, there is a need to do so. We acknowledge that democratic space is necessary and so is the need to protect individual rights, such as the right to be protected from libel.

Because of the empowering effect of the internet, a single person can destroy the reputation of one otherwise outstanding citizen. That person need not be telling the truth. But a blogger can continually blog untruths until, as Goebbels said, the lies are repeated often enough and become appreciated as the truth. Anyone who has been the object of unfair gossip knows what this feels like and for the most part, sometimes time doesn't heal.

Our discussion therefore must seek a balance between the right to free speech and the right to be protected from libel.

Do we do this by applying a less stringent form of the libel law to the internet or should we leave such balance to be achieved naturally by the force of public opinion?