Press Briefing by Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda:

On the offer of information by Zaldy Ampatuan on the Maguindanao Massacre and the Arroyo administration

Briefing Room, 2/F New Executive Building, Malacañang, Manila

January 13, 2011; 1700 hrs. EST

SECRETARY EDWIN LACIERDA: Sorry for the very, very lateness of the hour …

Anyway, let me explain—there’s been a bit of confusion on why there seems to be some inconsistency between DOJ [Department of Justice] and DILG [Department of Interior and Local Government]. Our press briefing is to explain that.

We’ll give you a breakdown of what happened previous to the revelation of Mr. Zaldy Ampatuan.

We have received unsolicited officers of information from the camp of Zaldy Ampatuan. He sent feelers to different agencies, including the DILG and the DOJ.

His offers of information were on different things: to others he was asking for protection, and to others he did not ask for anything. But let me be clear—and this should be made very emphatically—there is no formal request from Zaldy Ampatuan for him to turn state witness.

Because of the different statements and at times conflicting information, we needed time, as we wanted to evaluate if any of these offers of information had any quality or probative value. As a result, the President—and as he has stated yesterday—has assigned people to evaluate the information being offered on various topics to assess the quality and the value of the information.

Willard Cheng [ABS-CBN, Patrol ng Pilipino]: Sir, ano-ano po ‘yung mga topics na binring [bring] up ng kampo ni Ampatuan?

LACIERDA: Well, let’s wait. Ngayon, nilalabas na ni Zaldy Ampatuan ang kanyang mga kaalaman tungkol sa various issues. Nag-umpisa po ito sa Ampatuan Massacre. Ngayon, nagsasalita na siya tungkol sa 2007 elections, and, I understand, Garci yata. Pati Garci, he is aware of it.

We are now, basically, assessing the information, the quality of information he is providing. So if anything, if you’re going to ask him about the allegations of Zaldy concerning the amounts of money that were paid to him by GMA [Gloria Macapagal Arroyo] … again, we are all assessing this information.

Cheng: Sir, how and who conveyed these offers of information to the Palace?

LACIERDA: It wasn’t directly to the Palace. OK, the feelers were not directly sent to the Palace. The President did not meet any … it was sent to Secretary [Jesse] Robredo, and he himself submitted that. In fact, there is a letter from the lawyer of Sec. Robredo if Zaldy Ampatuan can meet with Sec. Robredo. So iyon ang mga feelers din doon.

Cheng: Sino po ‘yung emisaryo?

LACIERDA: I’m not aware kung sino—ang alam ko lang ‘yung lawyer lang ni Zaldy Ampatuan ang nagsulat ng liham kay Sec. Robredo.

Cheng: Kasi may binanggit si Presidente kahapon, may emisaryo daw po. He used the term “emissary.”

LACIERDA: I think hindi ho iyong—ang klarong nakipag-usap kay Pangulong Aquino is Sec. Jesse Robredo, at wala hong kausap na directly from the camp of Zaldy Ampatuan. So we would like to disabuse this, kasi mayroon din isang abogadong nagsasabing kumakampi kami kay Zaldy Ampatuan.

Masabi ko lang po na during the election, nagkita na kami ng mga relatives ng massacre victims. Sinasabi po ni Harry Roque na nag-aabogado ako kay Zaldy Ampatuan. I’d just like to remind Harry Roque that Myrna Reblando, the widow of one of the slain victims, approached me in the presence of Fr. Arnold, and, in fact, she asked me to be her lawyer. And, in fact, I had to turn it down because I informed her that I was already the campaign spokesperson of Senator Aquino. So I personally feel for the victims and the relatives.

And the President himself—and this is some information I’d like to disclose: During the campaign, ang mga relative of the victim pumunta sa Times St., and we didn’t make it public, kasi nga ayaw namin ito gawing parang papogi kay—and Senator Aquino didn’t want na i-publicize itong nangyari. So the relatives were there, kinausap si Senator Aquino doon, at nag-usap sila nang masinsinan. So kung sasabihin ninyo kami ay kakampi kay Ampatuan, ay hindi po totoo iyan. Pero ngayon, may mga feelers na pinadala, responsibility po natin bilang gobyerno na i-assess po ang information. So we’d like to disabuse … at ito na po ay panawagan na rin sa mga relatives ng victims. You’ve met me; you’ve met Senator Aquino, you’ve met President Aquino during the campaign. We are committed to you. Pinaglaban po ni Pangulong Aquino na maging live ang coverage ng Ampatuan trial. Nandoon ang aming puso. Kasama po namin kayo.

Cheng: Plano ba makipag-meet sa mga relative ng mga victim ng massacre?

LACIERDA: I’m still confirming that with the Private Office. Ang nagsalita po noon si Governor Mangudadatu, but we will confirm that.

Reymund Tinaza [Bombo Radyo]: Some international groups, Media groups, and even the families of the victims are against this possible pagiging state witness ni Zaldy Ampatuan. How can these people, or how can the Filipino people be assured that the issue will not be diverted to, parang, political vendetta or getting after the former President, kasi lumalabas po ngayon ‘yung alleged election fraud [during] the last elections, 2007?

LACIERDA: Let me be clear. There is no formal request for Zaldy Ampatuan to be a state witness. What we are assessing is not whether he will be a state witness or not. What we are assessing is the information that he is providing. And so, whether there is an issue for him to be a state witness, there’s none on the negotiating table. There is nothing to negotiate. The only thing he requested is that he be given security and protection. And we have provided him that. Nabigyan na po namin siya ng security at protection.

Now, is this going to be a political issue? We’re assessing the information provided for, and this goes beyond the Maguindanao Massacre. Again, he’s already revealed certain information that he is in possession of. And that’s the reason why dapat tayo maging prudent to access kung ano ba ‘yung information mayroon siya. Again, we’re assessing him—and I cannot repeat it often enough—that we are not assessing him to turn as a state witness. We are assessing the information that he is providing. There’s a big difference as to turning state witness compared to that of assessing the information that he is providing.

Tinaza: May fears kasi na lately ‘yung mga lumalabas na reports sa media, sa television ay nasesentro na doon sa nalalaman ni Zaldy Ampatuan doon sa alleged rigging ng election. So for the record, categorically, do you assure the victims na never ma-divert ‘yung issue doon sa hinahabol nilang justice ?

LACIERDA: The President has said many times that he wants to know why the massacre happened, and how we can prevent it. And doon pa lang sa statement na iyan, alam nila po kung saan ang puso ni Pangulong Aquino.

Maliban po sa massacre, mayroon pa siyang alam na iba. Kaya nga ang ating posisyon rito ina-assess po natin ang kalidad ng information mayroon si Zaldy Ampatuan.

Aurea Calica [Philippine Star]: Sir, were there formal affidavits submitted to the Palace by Zaldy Ampatuan? Because mayroon daw isa ngayon na kinakalat na inimplicate naman niya si GMA for fund diversion.

LACIERDA: I’m not aware of any affidavit submitted to the Palace. Kung mayroon, is it part of the information? I will have to ask the people tasked to assess the information. And I don’t know who are the people who have been tasked to assess the information.

Calica: And also, can you clarify why Secretary [Leila] de Lima had this categorical statement that the government would reject Zaldy Ampatuan as state witness?

LACIERDA: I think ‘yung minention [mention] ni Secretary de Leila de Lima, she was answering from a legal point of view. You must remember that to qualify as a state witness—and, again, I’m saying that there is no offer from Zaldy Ampatuan to be a state witness—but legally speaking, you have two requirements. Number one, you must admit to the crime; and number two, you must be the least guilty. How can Zaldy Ampatuan be qualified as a state witness in the Ampatuan massacre when he does not even admit to the commission of the crime? Iyan po ang sinasabi ni Leila. You must admit first. Ang kailangan i-admit mo muna ‘yung krimen. Pero ang sinasabi ni po Zaldy Ampatuan doon sa kanyang lumabas sa video interview, “wala ako doon sa nangyari.” In effect, he’s not admitting to anything. He’s not admitting to the crime; he’s not admitting to the murder, so how can he qualify as a state witness? ‘Yung unang rekwisito pa lang, hindi na niya nagampanan o nasunod. So legally speaking, there’s nothing that would qualify him to be a state witness. Again, we are assessing the information, the probative value of the information given, not on whether he’s going to be a state witness or not.

Calica: So this means that you’re going to find out if you’re going to benefit in any way from this information, that he’s not going to get anything from you? Is that how—

LACIERDA: Ang hinihingi lang niya is protection for his family. Iyan lang ang hinihingi niya.

Calica: But wala … kasi sabi ng iba gimmick nila iyan or ploy nila iyan para part of the family could be free and take care of the wealth, and also, baka mapasubo daw yung Palasyo if you’re going to entertain Zaldy as—. Even ‘yung information lamang niya: is he a polluted witness or person in the first place?

LACIERDA: You know what, those are valid concerns. And that’s the reason why we are assessing the information, evaluating the information that he’s proffering, ‘di ba? Hindi mo puwedeng kaagad iitsa puwera. Nag-o-offer siya, pag-aralan natin anong klaseng testimony mayroon siya. Maramimg nagsasabing misinformation, disinformation. That’s why we’re assessing all of this. We need to study all of the information being given. Does it help us? Does it help in the pursuit of truth? Dapat pag-aralan. Malalaman din natin kung kuryente iyan. So it’s all a matter of assessing the information, evaluating the information provided for by Zaldy Ampatuan.

Calica: And what could be the agenda of Harry for accusing you or—

LACIERDA: KSP.

Calica: Aside from being KSP?

LACIERDA: He is a polluted source. I don’t know where his information … he attacked Ricky Carandang. Ricky Carandang’s life was threatened when he went to Maguindanao, when he was still reporting on the 2007 elections. Allies of Ampatuan threatened him. And how can I lawyer for Ampatuan when Myrna Reblando asked me to be her lawyer? I saw the pictures, and it’s unimaginable for me to even lawyer for Zaldy Ampatuan.

Calica: And also would you like to clarify why Deles was also accused of being part of the—

LACIERDA: That’s really from left field. Talagang polluted ang source ni Harry Roque. Ewan ko kung saan nanggaling ‘yung mga source of information niya. I think dapat mag-research muna siya bago siya— .

It’s s a work of fiction on the part of Harry Roque.

Calica: Wala itong Balay-Samar issue?

LACIERDA: Ewan ko sa kaniya; walang Balay-Samar. This is in pursuit of truth. How can someone even say “it’s Balay,” “it’s Samar”? I mean, lahat kami dito sa gobyerno, si Pangulo when he was a senator, he was questioning this massacre thing. I mean, how can one politicize the—. It’s so unfair of Harry Roque to even politicize such a tragic incident. It’s so irresponsible and malicious of him to do so. And I think he should apologize to Jesse Robredo, to me, to Ricky Carandang, and to all the members he has maligned. That’s totally irresponsible.

Calica: If he’s KSP, then you’re giving him the attention.

LACIERDA: I need to straighten the truth. It’s important for us to state the truth here. We cannot allow these things to go on without us responding. And I think, and I hope, that he would stop—that he would do research first, before he would start making a new round of accusations. Just because I’m a schoolmate of Howie Calleja, iyon lang ang connection namin. Ang babaw naman ni Harry, ‘di ba? Mag-aral muna siya; magbasa siya kung anong pinagdaanan. And, by the way, alam ni Harry na kinukuha akong abogado ni Myrna because I spoke to Harry. So, kasinungalingan ang sinasabi ni Harry Roque.

Jun Lingkoran [DZMM]: Kanina po naipaliwanag niyo na, na hindi niyo kakampi si Zaldy Ampatuan para po sa kabatiran ng publiko, naka-live na po tayo ngayon sa DZMM—

LACIERDA: Live ‘din tayo sa NBN4. At sa Radyo ng Bayan.

Lingkoran: Opo, naghihintay po ng kasagutan ang oposisyon sa Kamara. Nagdududa po si Congresswoman Mitos Magsaysay na baka daw gamitin ng Malacañang sa pulitika si Zaldy Ampatuan dahil, sa halip na sumentro tayo doon sa issue ng Maguindanao Massacre, eh doon tayo patungo sa election fraud, kay dating Pangulong Arroyo. Ano po ang inyong reaksiyon?

LACIERDA: She can doubt all she wants. She is the doubting Mitos.

So again, we’re assessing all the information provided by Zaldy Ampatuan; he knows information on the massacre, we’re assessing that. He knows information on the “Garci,” we’re assessing that. He knows information on the 2000 elections, we’re assessing that, without politicizing anything.

By the way, hindi ba si Gloria kaalyado ni Mitos? Oo nga ano, hindi ba? Kaya, magduda siya ng gusto niya.

Marie Peña Ruiz [Facilitator]: Jun?

Lingkoran: … Follow up question lang po, Secretary. Natigilan ako sa inyo roon eh. Baka gusto ninyo ng tubig muna.

LACIERDA: [Laughs].

Lingkoran: Sino po iyong grupo na inatasan para i-reassess po iyong ano?

LACIERDA: Hindi po namin—para ho walang bahid pulitika, walang kulay po itong pag-a-assess po, hindi po namin ipapangalan itong mga taong inatasan po ni Pangulong pag-aralan iyong mga testimonya po.

Lingkoran: So wala naman tayong table kung kailan dapat tapusin?

LACIERDA: Hindi pa ho namin alam kung submitted na po—kumpleto na po iyong testimony—iyong ibibigay na kaalaman ni Zaldy Ampatuan eh. So pinag-aaralan—ia-assess po iyon.

Norman Bordadora [Philippine Daily Inquirer]: Sir, good afternoon.

LACIERDA: Hi Norman.

Bordadora: Sir, toward what end iyong assessment noong testimony ni Zaldy Ampatuan? First of, doon sa, perhaps, doon sa allegations niya against the former President. I understand aside from the electoral fraud, he has already started talking about other allegations against the former President. So when you say you’re assessing the evidence or the information that he is giving, toward what end, Sir? Possible prosecution against the former President perhaps?

LACIERDA: We’re getting too ahead of ourselves there, Norman, ano? So right now we’re still, basically, assessing the information, we can’t give you a categorical answer on what’s the end point here. Because, first of all, we have to assess the information. Is it something of probative value? Is it something that we would have to be decided by the people tasked by the President to assess? So I can’t say anything beyond the fact that we’re assessing the information right now.

Bordadora: But how are you taking his information? Is the administration taking it quite seriously at this point?

LACIERDA: The people tasked to assess the information are taking it seriously. We are going to get reports eventually on what the assessment of the information is. So if he, for instance, identifies a particular individual, then you would have to verify if—and see if there’s corroborative testimony toward that point. So it’s all being assess by the people tasked to do so.

Bordadora: Sir, would you say that the panel looking into Ampatuan’s allegations … would you characterized the panel as composed of top officials of this administration, or top level—

LACIERDA: I don’t want to give you any clue, Norman. We just—precisely to address the concern of whether it will be politicized, that’s whey we’re trying not to disclose the names of these people tasked to assess them. That will be up to the President to do so if he chooses to do so.

Bordadora: I asked that question, Sir, just to get an idea of how seriously the administration is taking that—?

LACIERDA: If you’re going to assess information, Norman, you would have to assess if based on probative value—based, also, on truthfulness. There’s no point in politicizing information, number one. Number two, you’re going to go and really search for the truth in all these things. That’s the whole idea behind assessing the information.

Bordadora: Sir, but aside from iyong probative value, of course, one also has to consider the implications. Aside from legal, there are … perhaps, there are also the political implications of these allegations?

LACIERDA: We’ll just cross the bridge when we finally assess the value of the information, Norman. At this point, I’ll just remain with my statement that we are presently assessing the information.

Bordadora: Sir but is the—last point. Is the—are the people looking into Zaldy’s allegations in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre also the same set of people looking into his allegations against the former President?

LACIERDA: The information provided for in the Maguindanao Massacre can be proven or disproved by testimonies conflicting or corroborative. So, it’s all being assessed right now. So we have not made any judgment, but if he says one thing, it has to be assessed base on the testimony of a prosecution witness. So that has to be compared and assessed. He claims he wasn’t there. So are there any testimonies that would say he was there? Again, that’s why you’re comparing and assessing all the information there. You can’t make a judgment call as of this point, especially when the Maguindanao Massacre where you have already a slew of testimony there. It’s easy, for instance, for them to discuss or to assess based on testimonies already provided for in court. But that needs to be assess.

Bordadora: Sir, so, [there is] just one set of experts looking into his allegations?

LACIERDA: I don’t know who they are. That’s why I can’t answer you. I don’t know who the President tasked to assess the information.

Usec. [Abigail] Valte just informed me that the President is meeting with the relatives of the victims of the Maguindanao Massacre at 4 p.m. tomorrow.

Joyce Pañares [Manila Standard]: Sir, while he may not qualify legally to become a state witness and there was no offer also made by Zaldy, what can the Palace give to him in exchange for whatever info that he gives?

LACIERDA: The only thing that he has asked for, Joyce, is security and protection. That’s the only thing that he asked for.

Pañares: So even in exchange for the information that he has on the former President, that’s the most that you can also—?

LACIERDA: He has not asked for anything beyond security and protection.

Pañares: Sir, kasi iyong fears lang noong families ng victims is he might be able to squeeze a deal, not from what he knows doon sa massacre, but from what he knows doon sa poll fraud issue.

LACIERDA: Again, there is no formal request from Zaldy Ampatuan to turn state witness. We are assessing his information. We’re assessing him not because we want him to be a state witness or he has offered to be one. We’re assessing his information, and the probative value of his information. Walang request, so ang hinihingi lang niya is security and protection.

Pañares: Sir, iyong meeting bukas ni Presidente with Toto Mangudadatu, ano iyon, to seek his opinion on this issue?

LACIERDA: I would imagine, siguro gusto nilang malaman talaga kung ano ang damdamin ni Pangulo; at naipahiwatig na ni Pangulong Aquino sa mga relatives ng mga biktima noong panahon ng kampanya. And in fact, I received a text from a priest who’s in direct contact with one of the relatives of the victims that they do not believe that President Aquino would—they do not believe what the news reports are saying. So, iyon po siguro ang gustong malaman nila Governor Toto Mangudadatu.

Mia Gonzales [Business Mirror]: Sir, can Malacañang give an assurance then, that whatever help Mr. Ampatuan gives the government would not get him out of jail?

LACIERDA: He only asked for security and protection, Mia. I won’t belabor that point. That’s the only thing that he asked for and he would like to prove his innocence in court.

Bella Cariaso [Bandera]: Sir just a follow up on Mia’s question. Kasi, it is unbelievable kasi na Zaldy Ampatuan will offer that bid or that information without something in return, Sir. So ano iyong assurance—?

LACIERDA: Bella, your life is threatened. Security and protection is not a small thing. When you see your life threatened, when you see your family, your kids being threatened, asking for protection is not a minor thing. So it is something that—that’s the only thing he asked for, that is something that we have provided him.

Cariaso: Pero, sir, sino ang nagthre-threat considering that ang mga victims dito iyong nag-aano na sila iyong thine-threaten ng mga Ampatuan eh? So, saan nanggagaling iyong threat kay Zaldy at kaniyang pamilya?

LACIERDA: Hindi galing po sa mga biktima. Well, it’s simple, who is he testifying against? Iyong una, sa tatay niya, sa pamilya. Like I told you before, there’s a strain in the relation between the father … So, we don’t know kung sino. Siya ang nagsabing kailangan ko lang ng protection, humihingi siya ng protection. You know, for us who have not been threatened, we do not see that as valuable. But for someone who fears for his life, it’s very important for him. It’s, in fact, the only thing that he asked for: security and protection.

Cariaso: He will be given security despite, sir, na hindi siya ma-ano sa witness protection? Paano ninyo ika-qualify?

LACIERDA: He is not asking for witness protection, Bella. He is not even asking for that. He is not even asking to be a state witness. All he asked for is security and protection. He is not even applying as a … to qualify under the witness protection even.

Gil Bugaoisan [Daily Tribune]: Follow up lang po doon. What are the security arrangements given to Zaldy Ampatuan?

LACIERDA: Number one, we won’t disclose those security arrangements with what the DILG is providing si Zaldy Ampatuan. All we know, and this is the only thing that we know, is that he has been isolated from the others. Iyon lang. But beyond that, I can’t give you details of the security arrangements.

Michael Fajatin [GMA]: Sir, pampaklaro lang po para sa mga Pilipino. Iyong takot po kasi at pangamba ng mga Pilipino ngayon, sa nangyayaring isyu po dito tungkol kay Ginoong Zaldy is, mayroon po bang clear distinction iyong sa statement … may clear distinction po ba? May statement po ba ang Palasyo? May assurance po ba sila para sa taumbayan? Iyong pagiging suspect po ni Zaldy Ampatuan sa Maguindanao massacre at iyong pagiging whistle blower niya po ngayon, so to speak, dito sa mga election fraud na naganap, hiwalay po ito at hindi po ito maaapektuhan ng isa’t isa? Parang ganoon po.

LACIERDA: Again, paliwanag lang natin. May mga offers of information si Zaldy Ampatuan. Ngayon po natin naririnig itong mga offers of information niya. Ang hiningi lang niya dito sa offer of information niya ay bigyan siya ng protection. That’s why ngayon lang natin nalalaman kung ano ang mga kaalaman niya, what he knows from the past, being governor. He has already mentioned a number of them. The Maguindanao massacre, he claims he wasn’t there. He claims he knows of something during the Garci and the 2007 elections. So, klarung-klaro dito, wala ho tayong request mula sa kaniya na maging state witness siya, and so hindi po namin tinitingnan ang kaniyang information in return for him being a state witness dahil hindi ho namin iniisip iyan. So, walang ganoong offer.

Fajatin: Sir, papasimplihan ko po nang kaunti. Maapektuhan po ba ng kaniyang maaaring ilahad—itong mga alleged na anomalya noong nakaraang eleksyon involving several politicians and si PGMA and the First Gentleman—maaapektuhan po ba ito maski gaano kabigat, gaano kadirekta po ang kaniyang sasabihing testimonya regarding doon sa election fraud? Maapektuhan po ba nito—

LACIERDA: Ang massacre?

Fajatin: Opo, ang kaniyang pagiging sangkot naman bilang suspect sa—

LACIERDA: Very categorically, No. Again, it is already within the sound discretion of the judge. Siya po ang maghuhusga sa testimonya po ng prosekusyon. Siya ho ang maghuhusga sa testimonya po ng defense. So, kung sa amin po manggagaling iyan ho, wala pong ganoong klaseng … it’s a categorical no and the judge will see to it that justice will be done.

Fajatin: Sir, last na lang po. Iyon po kasing parang pinagmulan nito—iyong kay Ginoong Harry Roque naman—kinu-quote po niya iyong parang sinagot ninyo po doon sa isang tanong tungkol sa kung saka-sakaling pong maging state witness. Could you say, sir, was it taken out of context? Iba po ba ang pagkakaintindi ni Harry Roque, ng media, tungkol doon sa sinagot niya po? Ano po bang ano nito?

LACIERDA: Hindi siya nakikinig because the statement, noong umpisa: there is no deal. He only asked for protection. Sinabi po natin kahapon iyon, at tulad ngayon, pinapaliwanag natin na wala pong request mula sa kampo ni Zaldy Ampatuan na maging state witness.

Cristina Jose [Remate]: Sir, doon sa binigay ninyong protection kay Zaldy Ampatuan, hindi parang ayaw ninyo lang na mapatay siya, o mamatay siya, habang nagsasalita or nagbibigay ng information sa government?

LACIERDA: Kasama na iyon, Cris. Kasi ang feeling niya may banta sa buhay niya, ‘di-siyempre, iyon ang hinihiling niya. So we’ll provide him that.

Jose: Sir, last. Hindi ninyo ba nakikita, sir, iyong aspect na puwedeng gamitin naman ni Zaldy Ampatuan ang Aquino government para makaganti sa Arroyo government, kasi despite of nanalo sila sa ARMM at nakatulong ang Ampatuans eh na-pin-down pa rin sila doon sa Maguindanao massacre?

LACIERDA: Kris, kaya nga natin ina-assess iyong information. We do not want to politicize these things. We’re assessing the information on their truthfulness and their probative value. Iyon po lang ang aming tanging consideration dito; hindi po namin pinupulitika po iyan.

ENDS