MANILA, Philippines—An official of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) asked the Court of Appeals to dismiss the contempt case filed against her for speaking her mind on the celebrated Maguindanao massacre.
At the same time, NUJP Director Rowena Paraan asked the Court of Appeals to let another division of the court hear the contempt case instead of the division of Associate Justice Danton Bueser.
The Court of Appeals last April 12 ordered Paraan and a widow of one of the victims in the massacre, to explain in writing statements they reportedly made a month earlier allegedly insinuating bias and corruption in the appellate court.
The resolution, filed by Justice Bueser, cited a March 3, 2011 Philippine Daily Inquirer article which quoted Paraan and the widow as asking the appellate court justices during a March 2, 2011 protest (“Massacre victims kin hit impending Ampatuan trial”) to render a “fair judgment on the petition for certiorari and prohibition” filed by suspended Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Gov. Zaldy Ampatuan.
Paraan, through her counsel from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), requested that another division of the court should hear and decide the contempt charge against her “to ensure that it is decided with the ‘cold neutrality of contempt of an objective judge.”
Bueser is one of the justices handling the petition filed by the suspended ARMM governor asking for the quashing of the multiple murder charges against him filed by the Department of Justice in the Quezon City Regional Trial Court.
Paraan acknowledged that her statement quoted in the news article used words and phrases such as “inconsistent,” “the massacre was a conspiracy” and “there were witnesses who planned and tried to cover up the massacre.”
But she argued that the language used “is still within the bounds of fair comment.”
“The Ampatuan case is a matter of public concern not only because it involved killing, but also because of its magnitude, brazenness and impunity, “ she said in her statement. “As the Supreme Court has held, debate on public issues should be “uninhibited, robust and wide open…and it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks against government officials,” she explained.