A Critical Review of "The Flor Contemplacion Story"

VIVA Films uploaded The Flor Contemplacion Story on YouTube last February 13, 2024, at 9:00 A.M.. Yes, I didn't notice it since I saw it before, and it was one incredibly awful film. The film has been remastered into HD to fit with the times. However, in the age of social media and the like, any old piece of truthful information can be later revealed. It's not about the age of the information but the truthfulness of it. In this information age, one can easily upload any undiscovered truth in the past. That also includes that one of Cebu's bad boys in the past, Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga, was innocent of the crime involving the Chiong sisters. In 2018, VIVA Films also released a movie called Jacqueline Comes Home which I may watch and review. Though I've already seen Give Up Tomorrow, which has been more objective since there was evidence that Paco was indeed in Manila and that real perpetrators haven't been found.

Normally, the best way to review a film is not to put spoilers. As a very awful film (which still had an award internationally at the Cairo International Film Festival), it might be safe to give away the spoilers just to avoid the film from getting any more publicity. Sure, it's effortless to bash the documentary Give Up Tomorrow because the film was made by an extended member of Paco's family. Give Up Tomorrow was directed by Marty Syjuco, the brother-in-law of Mimi Larrañaga-Syjuco, so he's not legally related to Paco. Marty was ready for backlash when he made the film. Also, the film The Flor Contemplacion Story had its story provided by the widower of Flor, Efren Contemplacion. The film had Jon Jon Contemplacion and Joel Contemplacion, play as themselves in the same film. Obviously, the degrees of bias are way higher than any bias Give Up Tomorrow may provide. 

Artistic liberty mixed with truth

The artistic liberties of the movie are often there. I guess artistic liberties can't be avoided. Back in high school, I remember acting out a historical character in a class project. Obviously, adlibs had to be done. However, I read this somewhat unrelated article about how Hollywood movies use cinematic liberty and alter the history of films. This is a very truthful statement that may also apply to what happened during the film:

Films have always taken cinematic liberties while representing history on screen. Films need to change certain things in the narrative in order to get a mass appeal to the storyline. There are many scenes or even characters in films based on history or historical events and figures that are purely dramatised or just put in to express the writer-director’s vision better onscreen. Just to get the dramatic appeal a lot of historical accuracies are overlooked. While people end up enjoying the popular appeal of the movie, the problem arises when people watching the films start believing what’s being shown is cent per cent true.

That statement was very true as I was watching the film. The movie opens up with guards speaking in Mandarin Chinese, taking Flor to death row. Flor spoke to them in Tagalog (in some scenes) and they're speaking to her in Chinese. Wouldn't it be more accurate if Flor and the guards talked in English with an Asian accent? As Flor is taken away to death row, she screams in Tagalog where if they execute her, she will not let them go to rest. A very empty threat considering that those guards were ethnic Chinese. If those guards were Filipinos by birth and became guards in Singapore then be more accurate. Even that part of the film might make one question logic. It's almost like a scene straight out of a cartoon, a comic, or a video game where people talk to each other in their native language. 

After that, the film takes us back to before the execution happened. I could probably laugh at how Sharon Garcia Magdayao (Vina Morales) is cast as Russell Contemplacion. Russell did show up in Magpakailanman--a real-life drama anthology on GMA-7, hosted by Mel Tiangco. That's probably not much of an issue. Later on, Alessandra De Rossi played as Russel in Magpakailanman. The beginning shows the dysfunctional family. Caridad Sanchez is portrayed to play as Flor's mother-in-law. Ian De Leon, the son of Nora Aunor and her ex-husband Christopher De Leon plays the late Xandrex Contemplacion. Xandrex died in jail while the twins are still in jail, today. 

The dysfunctional family ties are shown. Flor's parents-in-law have long split and they have their "kanya kanyang pamilya" or own families, in English. Later on, we see that Efren had an affair while Flor was working abroad. Flor can't even distinguish the twins from each other after she goes home from Singapore. The film partly showed the consequences of OFW families. Some artistic liberties such as the brownout (that should tell you why national industrialization doesn't work, dialogues between the children, and we see the family's dysfunctionality. My assumption is that Efren took a mistress, even if they're poor because he couldn't wait for Flor to come on. That also shows how talks of separation aren't drama. A later scene is shown where Russell is talking to her mother Flor, telling the latter to just stay in the Philippines.

Both Migrante International and Gabriela are introduced into the scene. We also have scenes of the late Atty. Romeo Capulong (who died on September 15, 2012). who were trying to save Flor from what was called an "unjust execution". An unjust execution, that's what the film's narrative wanted to say. Years later, the actress Nora would often participate in the rallies by Migrante. Both Migrante and Gabriela are also known to be very anti-reform in one way or another. For example, its current chairperson Joanna Concepcion believes that national industrialization, not accepting FDIs, will better produce jobs (read here). All the while, Joanna herself lives in California--a place that benefited from the free market American system. 

A further look at the artistic liberty vs. the legal system of Singapore

I mentioned earlier the ridiculous scene of Flor cursing the Singaporean guards in Tagalog. The film itself was filled with scenes depicting Singapore as a totalitarian state. It would be believable if the jail scenes happened in Communist countries like North Korea or the more economically open ones like China or Vietnam. Flor wasn't a domestic helper in Vietnam or China where the exaggerations would be easier to believe. 

From the National Library Board of Singapore, reading its side of the story would be best. Valerie Chew presents some useful details and the country had progressed by then. So where was the narrative placed in the movie? This is the version that was refuted but the movie still insisted that it was what really happened, according to the movie anyway: 

The case 

Nicholas’s parents discovered the bodies of Maga and Nicholas in their flat at Gangsa Road on 4 May 1991 when they returned home from work that afternoon. As no one had appeared to greet them, they began searching the house and found their 22-month-old daughter crying in Maga’s room. Then, they found their son lying on the floor of the bathroom in the kitchen with his head in a pail of water, and Maga lying next to him with an elastic cord around her neck.6 The boy had drowned and Maga had been strangled.7

Suspecting that the culprit could be Maga’s friend, the police decided to question Contemplacion, as her name and address were written in the dead woman’s diary.8 After interrogating Contemplacion and checking her alibi, which turned out to be false, the police arrested her on 5 May 1991.9 Two days later, she was charged for the two murders.10

In her statements to the police and subsequent court testimony, Contemplacion admitted to the double murder and gave a detailed account of what happened.11 She also claimed that she had felt ill before the killings and that she was not in control of herself when she was hurting the victims.12

According to Contemplacion, Maga, who was scheduled to return to the Philippines on 5 May 1991, had agreed to help her deliver a parcel to her parents in the Philippines. On the morning of 4 May, she went to Maga’s flat to hand her the parcel. When Maga was in the kitchen doing some work, Contemplacion used an elastic cord to strangle her from behind. After Maga collapsed, she dragged the body to the attached bathroom, where she saw Nicholas playing with water in a pail. She stood behind him, held him by his upper arms and pushed his head into the pail. She let go when the boy became motionless. She then took some items that Maga was planning to take back to the Philippines and left the flat.13

From trial to execution 

Contemplacion’s trial in the High Court commenced on 26 January 1993.14 On the third day, she claimed that her statements to the police had been obtained under duress, but the judge dismissed the allegation.15 The next day, she chose to remain silent when her defence was called as the hearing drew to a close.16 The judge then found her guilty as charged and sentenced her to death.17 She subsequently filed two appeals but failed to have the sentence reduced. Her execution was set for 17 March 1995.18

In January 1995, then president of the Philippines, Fidel Ramos, wrote to Singapore’s then president Ong Teng Cheong requesting clemency on humanitarian grounds.19 Ong turned down the request in February, explaining that there were no justifying circumstances. Contemplacion’s own petition for presidential clemency, also submitted in January 1995, was rejected at the same time.20

Ramos wrote to Ong again six days before the scheduled execution, this time asking for a stay of execution in the light of new evidence provided by another Filipino domestic worker, Emilia Frenilla, who worked for the brother of Nicholas’s father.21 Frenilla claimed she had overheard a conversation between her employer and Nicholas’s father that led her to believe that the latter had strangled Maga after discovering his son had drowned.22 Ong turned down Ramos’s appeal as the allegations were found to be baseless.23

On 17 March, just after 4 am, the police received an affidavit by Contemplacion’s former fellow inmate Virginia Custodio Parumog, who claimed Contemplacion had told her that Nicholas’s father had killed Maga in anger upon seeing his dead son. Parumog’s statement was found to be false, and Contemplacion was hanged as scheduled later that morning.24 The next day, her body was returned home and more than 5,000 supporters gathered around her house in San Pablo to see her coffin.25 Her funeral on 26 March attracted about 40,000 people.26 In 1995, a movie about her, titled The Flor Contemplacion Story, was released in the Philippines.27 Another movie, Victim No. 1: Delia Maga, Jesus Pray for Us, A Massacre in Singapore, was released in May 1995 to packed audiences in Philippine cinemas. It was based on Flor Contemplacion and directed by Carlo Caparas, known for his massacre movies.28

Now, for details from The New York Times which counteracts what the film wanted to present:

The first witness, Emilia Frenilla, had also worked as a maid in Singapore. Her employer was the uncle of the dead boy, and Mrs. Frenilla said she overheard her employer and the child's father talking about pinning the two deaths on Mrs. Contemplacion.

Mrs. Frenilla, who has since returned to the Philippines, said that the boy accidentally drowned after suffering an epileptic fit in a bathtub, and that the boy's father then killed Mrs. Maga, blaming her for the child's death.

The second witness is Virginia Parumog, a Filipino woman who had pleaded guilty to prostitution charges in Singapore and who had been held in prison there with Mrs. Contemplacion. Miss Parumog alleged that Mrs. Contemplacion had been tortured into confessing to murder.

In detailed statements rebutting the testimony of the two women, the Singapore Government said that it had investigated Mrs. Frenilla's allegations and found them untrue. It said that the boy did not suffer from epilepsy and that Mrs. Frenilla could not have understood a conversation between the boy's father and uncle because she did not understand the Chinese dialect they spoke.

The Government described Miss Parumog's allegations as "wild and baseless." It said that Philippine diplomats had made nine prison visits to Mrs. Contemplacion since her arrest in 1991 and that there had never been "any representations regarding complaints of ill treatment or claims to Contemplacion's innocence."

The Singaporean rebuttals did nothing to calm Mrs. Contemplacion's grief-stricken friends and supporters, who turned out by the thousands last weekend to catch a glimpse of her coffin as it was transported by hearse from Manila's international airport to her home in the central province of Laguna for burial.

That means that the torture scenes were really questionable. Not only was it questionable because Flor tried to speak to the guards in Tagalog but why were the guards talking in Mandarin Chinese? The scene's not supposed to be funny but we're not playing a video game here. Never mind all the cases of police brutality in the Philippines, even after martial law. A few years after Flor's execution, the documentary Give Up Tomorrow reveals that "star witness" Davidson Rusia was actually tortured into telling a lie. Yes, Rusia, the "star witness" of the Chiong Sisters case. I would like to share about the Singapore Police Force. Here's something that the Philippines lacks and why I find the movie really hard to watch:

Deescalation and strict guidelines

According to Section 75(2) of the 1955 Criminal Procedure Code (as amended), if a subject “forcibly resists or tries to evade arrest, the police officer or other person may use all reasonable means necessary to make the arrest.” It is also mentioned that the arrested subject “must not be restrained more than is necessary to prevent his escape”.

Section 63(2) further states:

a police officer may act in any manner (including doing anything likely to cause the death of, or grievous hurt to, any person) if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that — 

(a) the person (whether acting alone or in concert with any other person) is doing or about to do, something which may amount to a terrorist act; and

(b) such act by the police officer is necessary to apprehend the person.

Additional powers are conferred by the 2018 Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act. Section 18(8) authorises a police officer to utilise “such force as is reasonably necessary, including the use of lethal weapons”

(a) to prevent an individual, or a driver or other person in charge of a vehicle or vessel, from entering or attempting to enter a cordoned area…; or

(b) to remove an individual or a vehicle or vessel from or away from a cordoned area, as the case may be. 

Interestingly, these powers are not in compliance with the international law and standards on the police’s use of force.

In Singapore, police officers are taught to assess the circumstances and to only use the appropriate amount of force required to diffuse the situation. There are strict guidelines when it comes to the use of tasers and guns in the force. For instance, they are only to be considered for use when subjects are physically violent or armed with dangerous weapons that can potentially cause serious harm to officers or members of the public. As such, cases of police shootings are extremely rare in Singapore.  

In the past 20 years, Singapore’s policemen have only opened fire to subdue subjects in just six reported cases, of which three deaths have occurred. In all three cases of death, the police shootings were found to be justified by the state coroner.

With what I highlighted in yellow, does that sound like the kind of police force that would torture "poor innocent Flor" as Virginia claimed? Even this makes the claims of Virginia even more moot:

Conscription also prevents the creation of an “us against them” mentality when dealing with police officers. Currently in America, public pressure to defund law enforcement agencies is mounting – public trust in these institutions are low, and rightfully so. Interestingly, the inverse is true as well. Police officers don’t trust the communities that they are policing, and have formed a “siege” mentality of sorts. “We’re seeing policing becoming a very psychologically isolating profession,” said Radley Balko, an American author and blogger.

In Singapore, since a sizable proportion of the police force consists of citizen-officers whose main identity is as citizens and not as professional policemen and whose “loyalty lies with home and community,” you prevent the creation of two distinct groups of people: the career law enforcement officers and the communities being policed.  

The intersectionality of both these groups has probably helped to reduce the instances of unjustified force. The police officer is likely to identify with the people he is policing and the policed might be less hostile considering that they might know someone – a brother, a father, or a cousin – who was conscripted into the force as well.  

It would be time to look at the legal system of Singapore. It was during the 1990s when Hubert Jeffry P. Webb, was wrongly arrested for the still-evasive Vizconde Massacre. Just knowing how Singapore vs. the Philippines works--how can people who demanded Hubert's conviction despite lack of evidence and the testimony of a shady character known as Jessica Alfaro, even have the nerve to cry out "justice" for Flor? The Singaporean has a long history of a better anti-corruption drive. Singapore had achieved what it needed to achieve during the 1990s after 31 years of the late Lee Kuan Yew's rule. LKY even talked about his talks with the late Fidel V. Ramos in the book From Third World to First. Ramos almost foolishly cut ties with Singapore until further autopsy results were done. 

Contemplacion’s execution sparked intense public outrage in the Philippines against the Singapore government. Demonstrations were staged outside the Singapore embassy and Singapore flags were burned.29 The embassy reported receiving threats against Singaporeans and Singapore properties in the country30 and there were calls to boycott Singapore products there.31 The Philippine public, who considered Contemplacion a heroine, also directed their anger against their own government, which was criticised for not doing enough to protect the country’s millions of overseas contract workers.32 Fearing for their safety, several Singaporeans working in the Philippines left the country and many who were there on holiday or business cut short their visit.33

All this occurred in the run-up to the Philippine national elections on 8 May 1995, putting severe pressure on the Ramos administration and leading the Philippine government to certain actions that in turn soured diplomatic relations with Singapore.34 A few days after the execution, the Philippines recalled its Singapore ambassador and downgraded its diplomatic representation here to charge d’affaires.35 Singapore responded by recalling its Philippine ambassador as well.36 The April visit of then prime minister Goh Chok Tong to Manila, and joint naval exercises planned for July were also postponed.37

Ramos even threatened to sever diplomatic ties with Singapore if the special commission he had created on 20 March 1995 found Contemplacion to be a victim of injustice.38 The commission’s report, submitted on 6 April, added fuel to the fire with its conclusion that Contemplacion might have been innocent and that the case should be re-opened.39 The Singapore government rejected the findings but agreed to re-examine Maga’s remains.40

Two autopsies later, a joint one in April by experts from both sides and a second one in July by an independent panel,41 the Philippine government finally accepted the original findings of Singapore’s pathologists, and thus began the process of reconciliation between the two countries.42

Ramos made the right decision to make a request for further examination. After several tests, Ramos did the right thing to restore relationships with Singapore. Yes, all the people of Migrante International and similar groups can keep crying. They can keep insisting on the disproven narratives by a highly competent justice system. They need to answer if their sentiments for Flor have even created employment. 

The film is really nothing more than propaganda. I believe that the film was uploaded by VIVA Films because of the ongoing talks for charter change. If so, they have really failed to see also that many Filipinos are forced to work overseas, talks of separation aren't "just drama, and that economic reform is necessary. But when told that we can learn from Singapore, it's always been bringing up the Flor case all over again.