Over a month since violent incidents during the Sept. 21 anti-corruption rallies, at least six individuals so far have been identified as respondents to subpoenas by the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) probing the riots.
Here’s what we know about the subpoenas:
Who has been subpoenaed?
CIDG public information officer Maj. Helen dela Cruz first confirmed the issuance of the subpoenas in a press briefing at Camp Crame on October 6.
Though pressed by reporters on multiple occasions since then, Dela Cruz has consistently declined to identify the respondents, citing ‘data privacy’ and ‘human rights.’
However, the following individuals identified themselves as respondents:
Aldrin Kitsune – Film student, De La Salle University – College of Saint Benilde; officer, anti-corruption group Kabataan Kontra Korapsyon
In their letter to the CIDG, Kitsune’s legal counsels said police tried to serve him his subpoena last Sept. 30, but he previously told the Inquirer that he was unable to receive it personally since he was with human rights groups assisting protestors detained during the riot. He only managed to access an electronic copy the following weekend. He could not immediately say when the subpoena was issued and when he was scheduled to appear before the CIDG.
Park Alamada Pangawilan – Vlogger, also known as Kuya Park
On his social media, Pangawilan did not immediately say when his subpoena was issued and when exactly it was served. However, he posted photos of parts of the subpoena last Oct. 2. He was scheduled to appear before the CIDG last Oct. 6.
Jacob Baluyot – Journalism student, Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), Sta Mesa; associate editor, PUP student publication The Catalyst
In his letter to the CIDG, Baluyot said his subpoena was dated Oct. 3. He previously told the Inquirer that police tried to serve him the subpoena at his Manila home last Oct. 7, but he was in class and his relative received it on his behalf. He was scheduled to appear before the CIDG last Oct. 10.
Joaquin Buenaflor – Political science student, University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman; chairperson, UP Diliman University Student Council
In his letter to the CIDG, Buenaflor said his subpoena was dated Oct. 21. UP Diliman student publication Philippine Collegian reported that police tried to serve him his subpoena last Oct. 22, but his uncle refused to receive it while Buenaflor was away from home. Nonetheless, police managed to serve him his subpoena at around 10 a.m. on Oct. 24, but Buenaflor was supposedly scheduled to appear before the CIDG earlier that morning.
Tiffany Brillante – Political science student, PUP Sta. Mesa; president, PUP Sentral na Konseho ng Mag-aaral
In her letter to the CIDG, Brillante said her subpoena was dated Oct. 21 and served to her on Oct. 22. She was scheduled to appear before the CIDG last Oct. 27.
Meanwhile, a copy of the sixth subpoena sent to reporters was addressed to:
Harry Angping – Former Manila 3rd District representative; former chairman, Philippine Sports Commission
The subpoena showed that it was dated Oct. 21. It is not clear whether Angping has already been served his subpoena, but he is scheduled to appear before the CIDG on Oct. 29.
Manila Mayor Isko Moreno, citing intelligence reports, previously hinted that rioters ‘may have been paid’ and instigated by a Filipino-Chinese politician and lawyer.
What gives the CIDG the power to issue subpoenas?
Dela Cruz cited Republic Act No. 10973, which grants the Philippine National Police (PNP) chief; and the CIDG director and deputy director for administration, the authority to administer oaths, and issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum.
A subpoena duces tecum requires the respondent to produce specific documents.
And if the respondents do not comply with the subpoena? Dela Cruz cited a provision in RA No. 10973, stating: ‘Failure to comply with subpoena and subpoena, duces tecum shall authorize the filing of a case for indirect contempt under the Rules of Court with the Regional Trial Court.’
What is the CIDG’s objective in issuing the subpoenas?
Asked why the CIDG was subpoenaing the individuals, at the Oct. 6 press briefing, dela Cruz said, ‘They are invited to appear to shed light on the facts and circumstances surrounding the violent incidents that occurred.’
National Police Commission (Napolcom) Vice Chairperson and Executive Officer Rafael Calinisan likewise defended the CIDG subpoenas at a forum with the media at their office in Quezon City last Oct. 24.
‘We all saw what happened on Sept. 21. It was a peaceful assembly turned into a violent assembly, from a rally to a riot. So, if the Philippine National Police is supposed to investigate it, then the Philippine National Police should investigate as they must investigate,’ he said.
How have the respondents answered the subpoena?
In a phone interview with reporters later on Oct. 6, Pangawilan confirmed that he appeared before the CIDG at his set time and denied involvement in the riots.
He maintained that he was not involved in the riots and that lighters they were carrying from a program held at Liwasang Bonifacio were for a candlelight vigil originally scheduled at Mendiola.
‘There was no intention to burn anything. There was no intention to cause chaos. I was even scolding the young people who were causing trouble. I told them the police and the military were not our enemies,’ Pangawilan stressed.
For their part, Baluyot answered the CIDG in a letter on Oct. 10. Buenaflor, Brillante, and Kitsune followed suit on Oct. 27.
All four student-leaders also denied their involvement in the violence but declined to participate in the CIDG investigation, invoking their constitutional rights and maintaining that the probe constituted a ‘custodial investigation,’ thus treating them not as witnesses but as suspects.
Buenaflor and Brillante, in particular, stressed: ‘[We] respectfully urge the CIDG to direct its investigative and prosecutorial efforts toward those accountable for corruption. instead of targeting youth leaders and ordinary citizens exercising their democratic rights and fulfilling their civic duties.’
‘[We] sincerely hope that the CIDG would be one with the youth and the Filipino people in their quest for a corruption-free government,’ they added.
As for Angping, the Inquirer is still working to reach him for comment.
However, in a DZRH interview aired on September 24, Angping also denied involvement in the riots.
‘I am not a financier. I will never be a financier of any movement that seeks to destabilize our government or plunge our society into anarchy. I do not have ties, direct or indirect, to those who caused the riot,’ he said in Filipino.
Rights
In light of the four student-leaders’ subpoena, last Oct. 23, the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) issued an advisory for possible other respondents.
The group urged respondents to formally notify the CIDG that they are invoking their constitutional rights, including the rights to refuse to participate in the investigation; to remain silent; to have legal counsel of their choice; and to protect themselves from self-incrimination.
‘The subpoena powers of the PNP may not be used to harass, intimidate, or threaten anyone for exercising their right to free expression, peaceful assembly, and redress of grievances,’ the NUPL said.
‘Any violation of these rights by law enforcement officers is a criminal offense punishable under Republic Act No. 7438, which protects the rights of persons under custodial investigation,’ it added.