Does Marty Syjuco Being an "Extended Family Member" of Paco Larrañaga, Invalidate the Whole Film's Content?

As the rainy days hit July, as July 16 passed a few days ago, it's hard not to think of one of the greatest miscarriages of justice namely the Chiong Sisters case. Okay, I don't believe that the Chiong sisters are alive because the evidence given is faulty. How many times do people need to be reminded that the two sisters have a youngest daughter named Debbie Jane Chiong-Sia. Poor Debbie is frequently mistaken because of their resemblance. There's even an entire school to prove that Debbie was an elementary student when the crime happened. Also, two sisters-in-law were mistaken to be the late Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. I believe that both sisters are already gone. What was amazing was that Give Up Tomorrow came out, I heard from a friend that he was with Paco Larrañaga on July 16, there were records to prove that he was in Manila, yet that evidence was ignored by the regional trial even up to the Supreme Court decision. 

It's easy to say, "Oh, I'm sure it's biased because Marty Syjuco was related to Paco." Some fool even wrote him as a cousin. No, Marty is the younger brother of the husband of Mimi Larrañaga-Syjuco. The film didn't shy away from mentioning that Marty was an "extended family" though Miguel Syjuco is the brother-in-law of Paco, legally speaking. It's really a logical fallacy to immediately reject a source solely because Paco was an extended family member of the producer, Marty.

A statement from Marty himself is rather honest and straightforward:

I first met Paco at my brother's wedding to Mimi, Paco's older sister. Eight years younger than I, he was just a big, overweight kid, and I didn't pay him much attention. Later, when I heard about his arrest and trial, I went on with my life. Part of me figured the courts would sort it out. Another part was so inured to the injustice and corruption that form the background noise of the Philippines, that I, like most Filipinos, was hobbled by fatalism.

After moving to New York and working in film distribution, I began to crave something more meaningful and creative. When Paco's sentence was elevated to death, and I saw the letter from the 35 "unheard witnesses," I knew I was at a crossroads. My own mother had seen Paco in Manila — 300 miles from the scene of the crime — on the day of the murders and had been denied the right to testify in court and corroborate his alibi.

I know some will question my objectivity and intent because Paco is my brother-in-law, but that relationship gave me inside access and perspective. It also opened my eyes to a part of the Philippines that, as one of its beneficiaries, I had ignored.

My family members are mestizos, a group that traditionally benefits from endemic corruption and cronyism. Educated in Canada and the United States, I had lived in a gated community in the Philippines, and I had been naively and willfully ignorant of the poverty all around me — blind even to the thousands of street children who haunt our cities. My clan was well protected by race, political connections and wealth from the worst aspects of our country's deeply flawed system.

It was precisely my comfort in this role, and my perspectives as a political and familial insider, that made me particularly suited — and obligated — to act in Paco's case. I had left the Philippines, but it lived inside me. And I knew I had to return. I love the country and have friends and family there, but I have grown to abhor the fatalism that allows people to turn away from injustice, and that helps the elite control the poor and uneducated.

But even for the elite, the country's poorly paid and ill-trained police are a persistent threat — to be bribed as a first resort, and allowed to escape if that fails. Under political pressure to solve crimes, they commonly charge any vaguely likely suspect. I strongly believe that most of the Philippines' prisoners have been denied due process or are innocent — or both, as we found in Paco's case — and that injustice is facilitated by the media. Once I had believed what I read and saw, but first-hand knowledge made me question so many of my birthright preconceptions and opened not only a sea of skepticism, but an ocean of hope.

Paco Larrañaga is just one among many. And the Philippines is not alone in failing to build the trappings of democracy, including elections, on a solid foundation of impartial institutions, such as independent courts. There are thousands of Pacos around the world, from Egypt to the United States. We are hoping that this film will make not only Filipinos, but people of all nationalities, sit up, pay attention and act.

There was real field research that was done for seven years. It was a difficult project. Again, legally, Marty isn't the brother-in-law of Paco but a brother-in-law in name only. Marty hardly knew Paco like my relatives on my mother's side will hardly know my relatives on my father's side. Marty himself was on the side of the Syjucos. Miguel married into the Larrañaga family through Mimi herself. The only Syjuco who would've known Paco better was the brother-in-law, Miguel. Marty would be the brother of the brother-in-law, which doesn't really make Marty the brother-in-law of Paco, according to the law.

I could discuss the evidence gathered in the film vs. the Supreme Court decision. Sure, somebody can say that he or she read the Supreme Court decision and watched the film then chose to believe in the Supreme Court decision. However, the description given by Marty himself, makes you wonder how good was the decision anyway? Even Winnie Monsod in a deleted scene reacted terribly (read here) because of how badly made it was. I may not like Mrs. Monsod for being anti-reform but she certainly had a point. 

The evidence gathered in the film included 35 witnesses who saw Paco in Manila. If they say that a logbook can be tampered with, they need to prove that claim! There was class attendance and there were photos (backed up with negatives) of Paco in Manila. Was the late incompetent judge, Martin Ocampo's, "I'm sure!" mentality real empirical evidence? If the judge was in doubt, why not have the photos examined to make sure it wasn't a camera trick? Why did the judge even ignore the negatives presented in court? The documentary didn't fail to even show the judge sleeping in court or how the judge dismissed the identity of the body in Carcar. Yet, some people still choose to stay in their comfort zones because "I'm sure it was all made up!" Oh, if they're sure then can they prove it?

Attacking the film solely because Marty was the brother of the brother-in-law is again, an Ad Hominem. They would rely on that Supreme Court decision over the documentary which presented much evidence of Paco's innocence. I could really agree with Philippine Star writer Boo Chanco that the Philippine justice system is in shambles. Why didn't the Supreme Court, at that time, really bother to even realize that Paco and his co-accused, weren't allowed to testify at the Regional Trial Court (RTC)? Can that be proof that Paco was really "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"? 

The several degrees of Jimenea we may have forgotten 

Would it be Hilario Davide Jr. whose wife's middle name is Jimenea, a relative of the mother of the Chiong sisters or Marty who is a brother of the brother-in-law of Paco? I'm amazed that some people still believe in the Supreme Court decision at that time. Which one would be easier to influence the brother of one's brother-in-law or a direct relative by marriage? That certainly would be a good question to raise. Not to mention, the Chiong Case had extreme coverage because Cheryl Jimenea is a sister of Mrs. Thelma Jimenea-Chiong. I'm emphasizing Jimenea because it's several degrees of Jimenea. Not only did Joseph Estrada appoint Davide Jr. but he also worked with Thelma's sister. The court case would've not been so big if it wasn't for Thelma's connections to the Supreme Court (Davide) and her sister as Estrada's personal secretary. 

May I remind people of the temporal boost of power that the Chiong had? It was very faulty that Thelma offered positions to people who could help the case. However, it was really what I'd call a very bad way to cope with the pain. What later happened was that the Chiong parents, the late Dionisio Chiong and Thelma, tried to fight against the screening of the movie Butakal. They weren't rich people so the power boost had to come from a connection. Estrada worked with Cheryl and Davide Jr. was married to someone related to the Jimeneas. It's really very wrong in hindsight. That's why I believe that the process of finding justice got clouded. Marty was right to call it clouding the judicial process. It's sad to hear Mimi admit she sympathized with Thelma when it happened. However, when Thelma started lying about Paco courting Marijoy then something was off. Even the very act of giving a birthday cake to the "star witness" Davidson V. Rusia was very off. Rusia was forced to admit to a crime he never committed as well. Hopefully. Davidson can be found so the truth can come out! 

Speaking of the film Butakal--I think the Larrañagas themselves would've probably had the right to complain too. Paco's parents would've had the right to sue the late Toto Natividad over the film. The late John Regala was asked to parody their son Paco. The whole story was partly based on the narrative of Davidson, a narrative that was put into question. Instead, it was the Chiongs and not the Larrañagas who tried to stop the film from showing. Until now, I do believe that Natividad himself was interviewed. It's possible that a deleted scene featured the film Butakal. However, the focus was kept on the Calvento Files episode, which was featured. 

I'm afraid some people are too used to their comfort zones. That's why I wrote about that it's very easy to say I'm sure and be wrong about it. It's effortless to say I'm sure. It's like, "I'm sure the sun rises from the West." when the sun rises from the East. Saying I'm sure doesn't invalidate a fact nor validate an error. The burden is in the claim. That's why I learned to be careful about saying, "I'm sure that.." because the burden is there when I say it. Can those who say Marty's documentary is automatically wrong because of his extended relation, be sure of it?