DOJ won't drop raps vs 2 Ampatuans

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Justice (DOJ) denied a petition filed by two prominent members of the Ampatuan clan seeking their exclusion as suspects in the 2009 Maguindanao massacre.

Justice Undersecretary Leah Tandora-Armamento said there is no “cogent reason” to drop the charges against Sajid Ampatuan and his nephew, Saudi Ampatuan. The resolution was promulgated June 17 but was only released to the prosecution panel on July 25.

“Their claim for lack of participation or involvement in the carnage as they neither attended the alleged meeting of the Ampatuans nor were present during the grisly killing of 57 victims hardly merits credence,” Armamento said in the 12-page resolution.

She said while there is “no specific evidence” that will point to them as the actual killers of the 57 victims, “their criminal culpability…springs from being co-plotters… or conspirators to the crime.”

Armamento said former Ampatuan militiaman Kenny Dalandag identified Sajid and Saudi as among those who attended a meeting on Nov. 22, 2009 to plot the killings.

Dalandag said clan patriarch Andal Sr. presided over the meeting, which was attended by Andal Jr., Zaldy, Sajid, Anwar, Saudi, Ban, Ulo and other clan members.

Saudi, according to the resolution, is a nephew of principal massacre suspect Andal Jr., while Sajid is the latter’s brother. Their father and clan patriarch Andal Sr. and brother Zaldy are among the 196 accused in the case.

“During the meeting, the elder Ampatuan gave an order to finish off everyone in the Mangudadatu convoy, children, and all,” read the resolution, referring to then Buluan vice mayor and now Maguindanao Gov. Esmael Mangudadatu.

Dalandag also alleged that Sajid and Saudi were present when Andal Jr. arrived at the checkpoint where Mangudadatu’s wife and supporters were intercepted.

Sajid and Saudi said they were not in Maguindanao at the time of the killings. Both also claimed to have never attended the meeting.

Sajid’s lawyer, Paris Real, said they have yet to see a copy of the resolution and decide whether they would elevate it to the Court of Appeals.

Armamento, however, said the “twin defense of denial and alibi are negative self-serving defense that do not deserve as much weight in law as positive and affirmative testimonies.”

The “defense of denial and alibi…crumbles in the face of Dalandag’s positive and clear identification of them as co-conspirators and principal participants to the crime,” Armamento said.