While waiting for my wife at the Blue Wave mall in Marquinton (Marikina City) last January 18, I killed time by strolling around. Lo and behold, I found a lot of funny signs!

I saw a notice of job vacancy at a bookstore on the second floor.

Apparently, the management does not require experience in spelling! Talking about misspelling, notice anything wrong with this sign at a skin care clinic?

If you’ve immediately noticed the typographical error, good for you! But no matter how eagle-eyed you are, you may have some difficulty understanding this sign.

Obviously, this is one sign in dire need of a couple of commas, a space and a period.

This sign, on the other hand, is understandable (and perhaps tolerable), but only if you already know what LAN means!

Okay, I know it’s hard to conceptualize signs, especially if they’re meant to promote a product. But don’t you think the sign below is wanting in creativity? Please pay close attention to the slogan.

A collectible power card is…collectible! Is it just me, or has the person run out of ideas? By the way, it’s also…non-reloadable! Talk about negative advertising!

Anyway, that’s all for now. More funny signs to follow. Thanks for reading!

N.B. - This was published in Vol. 7, No. 4 (January 30-February 5, 2008) of Pinoy Weekly (p. 5), the full text of which may be retrieved from http://www.pinoyweekly.org/cms/2008/01/%E2%80%98obhetibong-pagpanig%E2%80%99-ng-mga-mamamahayag. The photograph above, retrieved from The Daily PCIJ blog, is just meant to prove my obvious involvement.

Mahalaga para sa isang mamamahayag na huwag maging bahagi ng balita: Sa pagkober ng isang pangyayari, dapat ay nasa isang tabi lang siya, matamang minamatyagan ang sitwasyon.

Tungkulin kasi ng isang mamamahayag na iulat ang mga pangyayari batay sa kanyang mga nakalap na datos. Kung siya ay bahagi ng balita, siguradong makokompromiso ang kanyang kredibilidad dahil iisipin ng kanyang mga mambabasa, tagapakinig o tagapanood na siya ay hindi obhetibo.

Pero iba na ang pagkakataon ngayon. Kaming mga mamamahayag ay naging bahagi na ng balita dahil sa desisyon naming labanan ang malinaw na pagsikil sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag.

Hindi man namin kagustuhan ito, itinulak kami ng kasalukuyang sitwasyong hindi na sapat ang simpleng pagsulat lang ng mga pahayag, bagama’t mahalagang gawain pa rin ito. Kinakailangan na ring kumilos para protektahan ang kalayaang ipinaglaban at ipinagbuwis ng buhay ng ating mga ninuno.

Hindi lang isa kundi dalawang kaso ang isinampa namin noong Enero 28. Ang una ay petisyon sa Korte Suprema na hinihiling na pagbawalan ang ilang mga nasa kapangyarihan na patuloy na sikilin ang kalayaan sa pamamahayag, at ang pangalawa ay kasong sibil na nasa Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC). (Kailangang malaman ng mga mambabasa na petitioner ako sa huling kaso.)

Ang aming isinampang kaso sa Makati RTC para sa P10 milyong danyos ay isang hakbang para ihatid ang mensaheng kailangang literal na pagbayaran ng mga awtoridad ang ginawa nilang mga pag-aresto at pagbabanta sa mga mamamahayag.

Napakalaking bagay ng temporary restraining order (TRO) ni Makati Executive Judge Winlove Dumayas na pinagbabawalan sa loob ng 72 oras ang mga awtoridad na mag-aresto ng mga mamamahayag at maglabas ng anumang pahayag laban sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag. Kahit sa napakaikling panahon, sana naman ay sundin ito ng mga nasa kapangyarihan.

Madaling sabihin ng mga pulis at ilang opisyal ng pamahalaan na hindi sila nakikipag-away sa midya, at ginagawa lang nila ang kanilang tungkulin. Ilang beses na nga nilang sinabing tama lang ang tinagurian nilang “processing” ng mga mamamahayag na nasa loob ng Manila Peninsula noong Nobyembre 29. Hindi ba’t madalas din nilang idiing dapat na sinusunod ng mga mamamahayag ang lahat ng utos ng pulis?

Sa bahagi naman ni Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, sinabi niyang ang kanyang kontrobersiyal na “advisory” noong Enero 11 ay simpleng paalala lamang na may karampatang parusa ang sinumang lalabag sa kautusan ng mga awtoridad, partikular sa pagkober ng mga sitwasyong tulad ng nangyari sa Manila Peninsula noong Nobyembre 29.

Sa isang “ordinaryong” sitwasyon, totoo namang kailangang sundin ang utos ng mga awtoridad. Pero malinaw na iba ang kalagayan ngayon: Sa konteksto ng pamamahayag, nangyayari ang pagbabanta at intimidasyon para magkaroon ng masunuring mga organisasyong pang-midya. Para sa mga nasa kapangyarihan, kailangang mawala ang mga kritikal na pagsusuri sa nangyayari sa lipunan.

Ang mga kasalukuyang pagbabanta at intimidasyong hinaharap ng mga mamamahayag ay pagpapatuloy lamang ng ipinakitang kawalan ng respeto ng pamahalaan sa ating mga batayang kalayaan nang ipataw ang Proklamasyon 1017 noong Pebrero 2006.

Kung noon ay inakala ng iba na ang mga pahayag ng pamahalaan laban sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag ay dahil wala silang alam tungkol sa huli, ngayon ay malinaw na malinaw na ang kanilang intensiyon ay patahimikin ang mga mamamahayag na patuloy na nagsisiwalat ng katotohanan.

Sa kontekstong ito, maaasahan ang mga mamamahayag na panatilihin pa rin ang pagiging obhetibo sa pagbabalita. Pero sa sitwasyong ginagalawan natin, ang kanilang pagiging obhetibo ay kinakailangang mayroon na silang kinikilingan ngayon, at ito ay ang pagpanig para ipaglaban ang kalayaan sa pamamahayag at ang karapatan ng mga mamamayan sa impormasyon.

Ang pagpanig sa kalayaan sa pamamamahayag ay hindi nakokompromiso ang pagiging obhetibo ng isang mamamahayag. Kung tutuusin nga, ang una ay lubos na kinakailangan para epektibong magampanan ang kanyang tungkulin.

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

All students: I accepted an invitation from the provincial government of Aklan to speak before elementary, high school and college teachers in Kalibo. I will be leaving for Kalibo on January 31 (Thursday) and will return to Manila on February 3 (Sunday).

January 31 (Thursday)

• J 117 (Online Journalism): The Beltran News Room (BNR) will be made available to you from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. even if we will not meet. Please use your free time to write your online news feature article on ACLE which you should upload to your website on or before February 7. You should also make changes to your website based on what we discussed in class.
• J 122 (Publication Design and Layout): We will not meet for very obvious reasons. Group 1 will report on February 7, while Groups 2, 3 and 4 will report on February 14. Don’t worry. We will move the deadlines for the brochure and newsletter.

February 1 (Friday)

• J 109 (Writing for Popular Audiences): Kindly get your papers from the department secretary. Please prepare for your presentation of your planned specialized article on February 8, focusing on the objectives for writing the article and the target audience.

N.B. - This was published in Vol. 7, No. 3 (January 23-29, 2008) of Pinoy Weekly (p. 5), the full text of which may also be retrieved from http://www.pinoyweekly.org/cms/2008/01/pulitika-peligro-ng-agresibong-pagmamaneho.

Madalas pag-awayan naming mag-asawa ang paraan ng aking pagmamaneho.

Mahirap mang aminin, may dahilan naman para magalit siya sa akin: Kung saan kasi ang lubak, doon ako napapadpad. Dahil masunurin ako sa mga markadong daan sa mga lansangan, hindi ako basta-basta lumilipat ng lane na siyang dahilan ng pagkaantala ng aming biyahe kung mabagal ang sasakyang nasa harapan ko.

Hindi ko rin gustong mag-eksperimento sa mga ruta na ikinagagalit din ng aking asawa, lalo na kung nagmamadali kami. Napansin ko kasing may mga kalyeng one way na walang nakalagay na marka, at bigla ka na lang huhulihin dahil sa isang kasalanang hindi mo naman alam. May mga kalye ring bigla na lang kumikipot o nagsasara dahil sa mga nagbebenta ng kung anu-ano. Para sa akin, hindi bale nang mahaba ang ruta, basta’t sigurado ka sa direksiyong pupuntahan. Sabihin mo nang aksaya ito sa gasolina, pero sa tingin ko’y mas ligtas ka namang makakarating sa patutunguhan.

Alam ko na ang sasabihin mo: Bago pa lang kasi akong nagmamaneho. Kahit na sabihin mong ilang beses na akong nakapagmaneho mula Maynila hanggang Cavite, Tagaytay, Lucena at kahit Camarines Norte, wala pa akong isang taong gumagamit ng sasakyan. Totoo, marami pa akong kakaining bigas kumpara sa mga beteranong drayber.

Pero kung anuman ang limitasyon ng aking karanasan, pinipilit kong punan ng praktikal na kaalaman. Bago pa man ako humawak ng manibela, nagbasa ako ng mga libro tungkol sa epektibong pagmamaneho. Siyempre pa, binasa ko nang buo ang manwal na kasama sa sasakyang binili namin. (Gusto ko mang kumuha ng pormal na pagsasanay sa pagmamaneho, napakamahal naman ng bayarin. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit pinakiusapan na lang ng aking asawa ang kanyang pinsan para turuan ako.)

Isinakonteksto ko rin ang sitwasyon sa lansangan, partikular ang mga estadistika tungkol sa mga aksidente na nakuha ko mula sa Philippine National Police Traffic Management Group (PNP-TMG). Alam mo bang noong 2006, nagkaroon ng 15,064 aksidente sa lansangan, o 41 bawat araw? Lumalabas na ang 4,182 aksidente ay dahil sa pagkakamali ng drayber. Ang iba pang pangunahing dahilan ng mga aksidente ay mekanikal na depekto (2,388), masyadong mabilis na pagpapatakbo (1,956), sariling aksidente (1,115), maling overtaking (1,067) at depekto sa mga lansangan (1,021).

Nagresulta ang mga aksidenteng ito sa pagkamatay ng 674 katao at pagkasugat ng 3,767. Nagkaroon din ng 10,623 kaso ng pagkasira sa ari-arian.

Akala ko noon, karamihan ng mga aksidente ay nangyayari sa gabi at karamihan sa mga ito’y kinasangkutan ng motorsiklo. Pero lumalabas sa opisyal na estadistika na noong 2006, 9,102 aksidente o 60 porsiyento ay nangyari sa araw na kung saan mas maraming sasakyan at mas matindi ang trapiko. At kung susuriin an gang pagkakahati ng mga aksidente ayon sa tipo ng sasakyan, pinakamarami ang mga aksidenteng kinasangkutan ng kotse (27 porsiyento) na sinundan ng motorsiklo (20.7 porsiyento), dyip (19.2 porsiyento), trak (11 porsiyento), traysikel (10.9 porsiyento), bus (7.6 porsiyento) at iba pa (3.6 porsiyento).

Ipinapakita ng mga estadistikang ito ang peligro ng agresibong pagmamaneho. Pero dapat tandaang may obhetibong batayan sa ganitong ugali at hindi lang ito basta-basta maiuugat sa “likas na masamang ugali” ng isang tao. Bakit nga naman dadaan sa peligro ang isang taong nasa matinong pag-iisip? Sino ba naman ang may gustong maaksidente?

Sa kaso ng mga taksi, dyip, traysikel at iba pang pampublikong sasakyan, parati silang may hinahabol na oras para makarami ng pasahero. Malaking bagahe para sa kanila ang trapiko sa lansangan, kaya ginagawa nila ang lahat para umiwas sa pagkakabuhol-buhol ng trapiko. Pero hindi ba’t madalas na ang mga kapwa nila drayber din ang kadalasang sanhi ng mga ito dahil sa kanilang basta-bastang pagpapasakay at pagpapababa ng kanilang pasahero?

Hindi man katanggap-tanggap ang klase ng pagmamanehong maaaring makaabala o makadisgrasya sa iba, kailangan ding isaisip ang panlipunang kalagayang nagtutulak sa mga drayber na gawin ang sa tingin nila’y nararapat para lang kumita.

Sa madaling salita, may konteksto ang anarkiyang nakikita sa mga lansangan, at may dahilan ang desperasyong nakikita sa agresibong paghawak sa manibela.

Kung susuriin mo ang aking pagmamaneho, mapapansin mong ako na mismo ang umiiwas sa mga pampasaherong sasakyan dahil alam kong maaaring maging walang pakundangan ang kanilang pagmamaneho. Hangga’t maaari, iniiwasan ko rin ang mga pangunahing lansangan tulad ng EDSA at C-5 at dinaraanan ko na lang ang mga kalyeng walang masyadong trapiko. (Buti na lang at maraming alternatibong ruta mula sa aming bahay sa Marikina hanggang sa UP Diliman!)

Tunay na ang anarkiya sa mga lansangan ay repleksiyon ng kaguluhang nangyayari sa ating lipunan. May malalim na dahilan sa agresibong pagmamaneho ng ating mga kababayan na hindi kayang lutasin ng kung anumang polisiyang ipapatupad.

Kaya kung gusto nating baguhin ang kalagayan ng ating lansangan, may mas malaking “bagay” tayong dapat baguhin na puwede mong sabihing dapat magsimula sa katagang “Patalsikin!”

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

January 24 (Thursday)

• J 117 (Online Journalism): Members of Group 2 will present their report. Please include your email address in our mailing list group so that I can finally send my evaluation of your website. As of today, there are still three students who haven’t joined. You should also know that two students have not yet given the URL to their website.
• J 122 (Publication Design and Layout): It is possible that classes will be suspended from 1 to 4 pm on January 24 due to the ACLE. If this happens, we will be forced to re-schedule the group reports. In the event of suspension of classes, I will be at the ACLE-sponsored forum of the UP Samahan sa Agham Pampulitika (SAPUL) titled “Link: Political Socialization and Digital Art” at Palma Hall Room 116-118. You are not required to be there, but your presence will be appreciated. I will be focusing on the aesthetics of computer-aided designs and websites, after all.

January 25 (Friday)

• J 109 (Writing for Popular Audiences): We will continue our discussion of the characteristics of the popularized article.

Even the premier state university (i.e., UP) has its share of funny signs.

Last January 10, as I waited for my turn to withdraw my salary from the ATM of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) beside the Shopping Center, I noticed this advisory. Please read it carefully!

Did you notice what’s wrong with the advisory? If you noticed the redundancy in the phrase “ATM machines,” then you’re absolutely right! As you know, ATM stands for automated teller machine. There’s no need to use the word “machine” to describe ATM.

Redundancy in the use of words is a common mistake in English, resulting in popular though ungrammatical expressions like “pleasant good morning,” “tuition fee,” “present state,” “part and parcel,” and, lest I forget “PIN number.” As regards the latter, I’m sure you know that PIN stands for personal identification number.

The proper use of prepositions is another common mistake in English. Unlike the previous sign, I think you can easily detect what’s wrong with the sign below which I found a few hours ago today (January 18) on the second floor of Balay Kalinaw. (A fellow journalist who is aware of my “funny signs” project called my attention to this as we waited for an activity to start.)

I’m sure it’s not the intention of whoever prepared this sign to tell people that they can smoke anywhere except on this area, probably on the roof! If a smoker were to obey this sign, he or she can smoke in the area where it’s posted, but not on it. Did you get the mistake in the use of prepositions?

That’s all for now and I hope you enjoyed the funny signs and the crash course in English.

N.B. - As early as last November, I had been commissioned to write a study on the effects of the Human Security Act on journalism for the Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project. Its website was launched today (January 18) at the Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman, Quezon City. Please find below the full text of my study.

The Human Security Act (HSA) only came into force only recently and yet already various national and international groups have denounced the law and called for its repeal. Why so? Why is the law not being given the chance to work? This paper seeks to analyze the weaknesses of the HSA as written and how it directly affects the practice of journalism.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act (RA) No. 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007 last March 6 and it took effect four months later on July 15.

During the March 6 signing ceremony, President Macapagal-Arroyo said that the HSA was an “institutional landmark of the 13th Congress” and would help the authorities to prosecute the ‘war on terror.’

“Now that we have more legal teeth in this fight, we shall continue to sharpen the intelligence and operational capabilities of the Armed Forces and Police, modernize and further professionalize them, and broaden the domestic and international alliance that will give us the edge to win and prevail,” she said.

The 35-page Human Security Act (HSA) states clearly that “(i)t is declared a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations” (Section 2, paragraph 1).

A person is said to commit the crime of ‘terrorism’ if he or she engages in piracy in general and mutiny in the high seas or in the Philippine waters; rebellion or insurrection; coup d’etat, including acts committed by private persons; murder; kidnapping and serious illegal detention; and crimes involving destruction.

Section 3 seeks to qualify acts which are to be considered acts of ‘terrorism’. To earn the label ‘terrorist crime’ acts should result in “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”

The HSA explicitly states that journalists and their sources will not be subjected to “surveillance, interception and recording of communications” (Section 3, Paragraph 2) However, Raul Gonzales, secretary of the Department of Justice, was quoted in July as saying essentially that while existing law forbade the tapping of journalists, the HSA supersedes everything else.

“If you are a journalist, you are free from wiretapping because the law says that journalists and their sources of information cannot be subjected to wiretapping. The fact that your source is a terrorist does not make you a terrorist per se. But if the journalist is now a suspect, then he can be wiretapped. You have first to be a suspect,” he said.

The opposition to the HSA mainly rests on the law’s broad definition of who is a terrorist. The so-called “condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic” among the people that may result from the identified crimes is so broad that anything and everything can be interpreted as such.

This prompted Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez to brand the law as dangerous. “The anti-terror law will lead to greater tumult, especially when used to deal with those who do not agree with government’s thinking.”

What proves to be questionable is not only the law’s broad definition of terrorism, but, more importantly, the proscription of terrorist organizations. The full text of Section 17 reads:

“Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall, upon application of the Department of Justice before a competent Regional Trial Court, with due notice and opportunity to be heard given to the organization, association, or group of persons concerned, be declared as a terrorist and outlawed organizations, association, or group of persons by the said Regional Trial Court.” (Italics mine)

Clearly, even legal organizations can be branded terrorists if, in the conduct of their activities, they create “widespread and extraordinary fear and panic” among people. The inclusion of the seemingly harmless word “or” can make Section 17 susceptible to the interpretation that the acts do not necessarily have to be crimes identified in Section 3 (such as possession of explosives or piracy), but other acts that result in fear and panic with the end-view of coercing government to give in to an unlawful demand.

The danger also lies in the fact that under Section. 19, mere suspicion of being involved in acts of terrorism, whether real or imagined, could result in detention. The first sentence of Section. 19 states:

“In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest.” (Italics mine)

What then are the parameters for determining an imminent terrorist attack and how is this proven? While the three-day maximum detention requires a written approval from the authorities, why are suspects being subjected to it? One should not take consolation from the fact that the Macapagal-Arroyo administration initially proposed a 30-day maximum detention and that it is now reduced to three days. This is not an issue of numbers, but the fundamental principle of people being detained on mere suspicion of involvement in a terrorist attack that is yet to happen, if at all.

Under the HSA, it also becomes possible for a person’s right to travel to be restricted. He or she may also be subjected to house arrest and be held incommunicado. The full text of Section 26 states:

In case where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.

He/she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her usual place of residence.

While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cell phones, e-mails, computers, the internet or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court.

The restrictions abovementioned shall be terminated upon the acquittal of the accused or of the dismissal of the case filed against him or earlier upon the discretion of the court on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused. (Italics mine)

Mere suspicion of involvement in acts judged to be ‘terrorist’ in nature may then result in the restriction of one’s right to travel or even house arrest if he or she is entitled to bail. If a person is under house arrest, the HSA prevents him or her from communicating with other people outside his or her residence. According to human rights groups like Karapatan, this provision deprives people of their civil and political rights, particularly the right to travel.

In addition, a person “suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism” could result in the examination of one’s bank “deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records.” (Section 28) This means that a suspect’s enshrined right to privacy can now be violated under the HSA.

Section 39 also makes things worse not only for suspects but also for those associated with organizations that are deemed involved in ‘terrorist’ activities. This particular provision allows the seizure, sequestration and freezing of one’s assets. Its first paragraph states:

The deposits and their outstanding balances, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records in any bank or financial institution, moneys, businesses, transportation and communication equipment, supplies and other implements, and property of whatever kind and nature belonging: (1) to any person suspected of or charged before a competent Regional Trial Court for the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism; (2) to a judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons; or (3) to a member of such organization, association, or group of persons shall be seized, sequestered, and frozen in order to prevent their use, transfer, or conveyance for purposes that are inimical to the safety and security of the people or injurious to the interest of the State. (Italics mine)

This provision not only implies guilt on the part of the accused. It also makes people guilty of association because their properties could be seized, sequestered or frozen just for being members of outlawed organizations (the proscription of which is also questionable).

As stated, authorities should undertake preventive measures to ensure peace and order. But detention premised on suspicion of involvement in a future crime is unacceptable in a supposedly democratic society that operates, among others, on the presumption of innocence among those accused. Restricting the suspects’ right to travel and depriving them of their right to privacy also do not bode well for a government that is supposed to protect and uphold civil rights of all people, including those charged with crimes. What proves to be worse is people being presumed guilty by association and consequently penalized by seizing, sequestering and freezing their assets.

Analyzing the questionable provisions of the HSA, one therefore does not take solace from the fact that there are “safeguards” in place like the penalty for being wrongly accused of terrorism. The first paragraph of Section 50 states:

Upon acquittal, any person who is accused of terrorism shall be entitled to the payment of damages in the amount of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) for every day that he or she has been detained or deprived of liberty or arrested without a warrant as a result of such an accusation.

That a wrongly accused person detained for a maximum of three days, for example, shall receive P1.5 million in damages does not erase the fact that his or her civil and political rights have been violated. No amount of money can compensate for the deprivation of one’s rights.

Perhaps even more importantly however is that Section 50 may not actually provide a safeguard but could conceivably result in an increase in extrajudicial killings. Given the culture of impunity in which the killings of activists and journalists happen, the authorities could be prompted to just summarily execute the wrongly accused so that they do not have to pay the P500,000 penalty for every day of detention.

HSA amid the culture of impunity

The HSA was enacted at a time when extrajudicial killings and other forms of human rights violations are said to be rampant. The recent report of Philip Alston, the United Nation’s (UN) Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, on his mission to the Philippines from February 12 to 21, 2007 maintained the Philippine military was involved in the killings. “The military is in a state of denial concerning the numerous extrajudicial executions in which its soldiers are implicated,” Alston said.

In the context of the culture of impunity and the media situation, he said, “Journalists are killed with increasing frequency as a result of the prevailing impunity as well as the structure of the media industry.”

While the killings of both activists and journalists are happening in increasing frequency under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration, Alston stressed that these appear to have different causes. In the case of the journalists, most of the killings are said to have had “local roots.” Alston said:

Some killings had been perpetrated to prevent journalists from exposing information related to the crimes and corruption of powerful individuals. Other killings resulted from local disputes in which the journalists had participated by publicly promoting one side or the other. This problem is exacerbated by the structure of the media industry. Many broadcasters are “block-timers” who purchase airtime and then pay for this airtime and seek a profit by selling advertising. Sometimes they also earn money through so-called “AC/DC” journalism – “attack, collect; defend, collect”. Approximately three quarters of journalists killed are broadcasters, and nearly half of these are block-timers. Needless to say, however questionable the practices of some journalists may be, these do not justify murder. There is a lamentable degree of impunity for murders of journalists.

The culture of impunity prevailing in Philippine society is manifested not only by the increasing number of activists and journalists killed. Even if the numbers are very significant, the manner in which the killings have happened also needs to be considered.

Unlike in the past where human rights violations are done clandestinely, the killings and other forms of human rights violations often happen in broad daylight, in full view of acquaintances and bystanders. Journalists like Edgar Damalerio and Marlene Esperat, for example, were killed in full view of their relatives and other witnesses.

The killings apparently happen with impunity because those responsible wield considerable power and influence. The perpetrators apparently intend to make examples of those killed so that no one else will follow in their footsteps. While there are varying levels of professional competence and adherence to ethical standards of those killed – in the same way that there are varied reasons for their killings – one cannot deny the complicity of those in power. The evidence can be seen by analyzing the character of identified suspects, statements of witnesses and, more importantly, the manner in which the killings have been carried out.

While nobody in the government would state that the undermining of human rights is government policy, there are clearly provisions which inherently violate civil and political rights. The Machiavellian attitude towards solving the problem that is ‘terrorism’ – the definition of which is already flawed – cannot be an excuse to violate the rights of the innocent to achieve a goal, no matter how well-meaning one may think about it.

Given their line of work, journalists can be “fair game” in the government’s anti-terrorist drive. It is inherent in their daily job, after all, to talk to different kinds of people, even those branded as terrorists or belonging to the so-called outlawed organizations.

HSA and the chilling effect

Just like the killings, the HSA has a chilling effect on journalists since it could discourage them from pursuing the “hard news,” particularly issues and concerns that would require them to get the side of those opposed to the government.

Despite the provision that states that communication between journalists and their sources will not be wiretapped, it remains possible for journalists to be subjected to wiretapping, arrest and detention even on suspicion of ‘terrorist’ activities. Even if they become entitled to bail, their right to travel could be restricted and they could even face house arrest and be held incommunicado in the process. Even their assets could be seized, sequestered and frozen.

Such restrictions resulting from “mere suspicion” of a “terrorist act” that is so broadly defined can deprive journalists of going about their job of providing information that the people need in the shaping of public opinion. A crucial component of news reporting is data gathering, of which communication is absolutely necessary to acquire primary sources of information.

It would be impossible for journalists to do their jobs if their right to travel were restricted and if they were prevented from communicating with people outside their residence in the event of house arrest.

The broad definition of terrorism makes it hard for journalists to fulfill their responsibility to their audiences as they need to be periodically in touch with sources having varied political and economic backgrounds.

There could also be discouragement among journalists in writing about issues and concerns that could result in widespread fear and panic among the people. In order to adhere to the HSA, the journalists’ coverage of demands of cause-oriented groups would most likely be done in a way that gives it little attention. A worst-case scenario would be the journalists’ decision to do away with the side of those deemed to be terrorists altogether.

Reaffirming objectivity in journalism

With the HSA, the government has redefined, even if unintentionally, the tenet of objectivity in journalism. The powers-that-be have created a condition in the mass media that discourages an exhaustive research on issues and concerns by limiting the sources of information to those who are not in the terrorist list.

Journalists who are worth their salt should not be affected by the enactment of the HSA and should continue the advocacy to promote and uphold freedom of expression. Such an advocacy makes it imperative not to call for amendments to the HSA, but to demand its repeal.

Just like other social sectors’, journalists’ civil and political rights are violated in the government’s so-called anti-terrorism campaign. But unlike other professions, journalism is directly affected given the inherent and absolute need to maintain contacts with people from all walks of life, including those involved in the underground.

In the context of the practice of journalism, government apparently has a skewed sense of the workings of the press and sees the journalists’ interview with rebels as either a sign of sympathy or worse, conspiracy to commit terrorism.

In the past, the government considered some segments of the mass media as “enemies” that must be dealt with. The military’s slide presentation in PowerPoint format titled “Knowing the Enemy” listed, for example, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) as among the front organizations of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). In the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Northern Luzon Command’s manual titled Trinity of War, Bulatlat Online Magazine’s series of articles on the agricultural workers’ strike at Hacienda Luisita was considered part of the propaganda campaign of the New People’s Army (NPA) against the government. These are just a few instances where the government, particularly the military, considers selected media organizations as the enemy, which can be therefore fair game.

Exposing the HSA’s wordplay

The HSA is clearly packaged by the powers-that-be to hide its inherent character of violating civil and political rights. “Human security” is now being used to make what used to be described as “anti-terrorism” law more acceptable to the people.

Yes, there are also safeguards put in place to supposedly check against abuses by the authorities in implementing the HSA. In the context of the culture of impunity, however, these safeguards become instruments of perpetuating human rights violations, particularly extrajudicial killings.

The practice of journalism also becomes severely affected as objectivity becomes redefined to include only the sources considered by government to be “harmless.” While journalists are not prevented from interviewing those deemed terrorists, they could run the risk of being suspected of links with them, making them fair game to the authorities and subjected to various forms of human rights violations. The provision in the HSA which explicitly states that communications between journalists and sources will not be wiretapped is therefore practically useless.

The violent playground that Filipinos are living in right now is indeed replete with bullies who impose their rules. But what makes these particular bullies different is that they have the audacity to package their rules in a way that appears acceptable, attracting those who are easily hoodwinked to obey and even promote.

Journalists, by the nature of their jobs, must not become mere spectators on the issue of the HSA as they are directly affected by its implementation. In their never-ending fight for press freedom, they should work hand-in-hand with other concerned groups and individuals in calling for the repeal of this repressive law euphemistically called the Human Security Act.

N.B. - This was published in Vol. 7, No. 2 (January 16-22, 2008) of Pinoy Weekly (p. 5), the full text of which may also be retrieved from http://www.pinoyweekly.org/cms/2008/01/paalala-bilang-pananakot.

Wala namang masama sa mga babala. Maraming pagkakataong kailangan natin ang mga ito.

Halimbawa, hindi naman siguro minamasama ng mga estudyante ko sa kolehiyo kung paminsan-minsa’y ipinapaalala ko ang mga dedlayn nila kahit matagal nang napag-usapan ang mga ito. Maaaring tingnang may pananakot ang babala, lalo na kung babanggitin ang posibilidad ng pagbagsak sa kursong kinukuha nila sa akin kung hindi nila pagbubutihin ang pag-aaral.

Pero ibang usapin na kung ang isang tinaguriang babala ay pumipigil sa kalayaan ng isang tao. Ano ba ang karapatan ng isang propesor na utusan ang isang estudyanteng kalimutan ang iba niyang gawain at bigyang-pansin lang ang kanyang pang-akademikong gawain? Kahit na kabutihan ng estudyante sa kolehiyo ang nasa isip ng propesor, hindi dapat pinapangunahan kung ano ang dapat gawin ng isang estudyante. Kung tutuusin, dapat ngang bigyan siya ng kalayaang gawin kung ano sa tingin niya ang nararapat.

Simple lang naman ang argumento rito: Ang isang estudyante sa kolehiyo, kahit sabihing bata pa siya, ay may sapat nang pag-iisip para malaman kung ano ang tama at mali. Kung talagang kabutihan niya ang nasa isip, dapat ay hindi pinipigilan ang kanyang kalayaang makapagdesisyon para sa kanyang sarili. Maaaring may gabay na ibinibigay sa kanya, pero hindi dapat pangunahan at tahasan siyang utusan kung ano ang nararapat gawin.

Kung ganito ang akmang pagtrato ng isang propesor sa mga estudyante sa kolehiyo, paano naman kaya dapat tratuhin ng pamahalaan ang mga mamamahayag? May ipinadalang memorandum si Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales noong Enero 11 sa mga organisasyong pang-midya. Nakasaad sa malalaking titik - na tila isinisigaw ang mga salita - ang mensaheng ito: “Please be reminded that your respective companies, networks or organizations may incur criminal liabilities under the law, if anyone of your field reporters, news gatherers, photographers, cameramen and other media practitioners will disobey lawful orders from duly authorized government officers and personnel during emergencies which may lead to collateral damage to properties and civilian casualties in case of authorized police or military operations.”

Sabi ni Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, ang kanyang memorandum ay isa lamang paalala hinggil sa parusang maaaring ipapataw kung may pagkakamali sa pagkober ang mga mamamahayag at iba pang manggagawa sa midya. Pero dapat nga bang tingnan lang ito bilang isang simpleng paalala?

May dahilan ang pagtuligsa ng ilang organisasyong pang-midya sa memorandum na ito bilang panibago na namang pag-atake sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag. Sariwa kasi sa ating alaala ang nangyari nitong mga nakaraang taon na kung saan ipinakita ng pamahalaan ang kawalan ng respeto nito sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag. Ang ilang polisiyang may negatibong epekto sa pamamahayag ay ang Presidential Proclamation 1017 noong Pebrero 2004 at ang Human Security Act noong Hulyo 2007.

Bukod sa mga polisiyang ito, ilang beses na rin nating narinig ang pagkondena ni Pangulong Arroyo sa midya na sinabi niyang may “bad boy image” dahil tinututukan lang nito ang “masasamang balita.” At siyempre pa, hindi natin makakalimutan ang ginawang maramihang pag-aresto sa ilang mamamahayag at manggagawa sa midya na nagkober ng standoff sa loob ng Manila Peninsula noong Nobyembre 2007. (At kailangan pa ba nating banggitin ang katotohanang maraming mamamahayag na pinatay sa ilalim ng administrasyong Arroyo, at hanggang ngayon ay napakabagal ng pagresolba sa mga kasong ito?)

Matatandaang ilang araw matapos ang standoff, tahasang sinabi ni Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno na maaaring maulit ang paghuli sa mga taga-midya. Sa tingin ng mga nasa kapangyarihan, walang pagkakamali sa kanilang ginagawang pagpigil sa mga taga-midya na ikober ang mga pangyayari.

Totoo namang ang batas ay dapat sundin, subalit kinakailangan ding malaman ng mga nasa kapangyarihan ang esensiya ng kalayaan sa pamamahayag. Ang midya ay dapat bigyan ng kaukulang kalayaan para magkaroon ng sariling desisyon kung ano ang dapat gawin. Kung may pagkakamali mang nagawa ang midya sa kanilang mga ulat, ang kanilang pananagutan ay sa kanilang mga tagabasa, tagapanood o tagapakinig. Ang mismong katangian at oryentasyon ng midya ay nagtatakda ng pangangailangang maging responsible sa pamamahayag dahil ang kanilang kredibilidad ay nakasalalay sa kanilang mga pag-uulat.

Dapat isaisip ng pamahalaan na ang mga mamamahayag ay hindi mga paslit na kailangang diktahan kung ano ang dapat gawin. Walang sinumang mamamahayag sa tamang pag-iisip ang magpapakamatay para lang sa isang istorya. Nasa kanilang pagsasanay ang pangangailangang huwag makialam sa mga pangyayaring ikinokober nila.

Totoong walang masama sa mga babala. Pero sa konteksto ng panibagong intimidasyon, kailangan itong kondenahin. Ayoko mang isiping ang pamahalaan ay natatakot sa isang malayang midya, lumalabas na ganito ang nangyayari sa ngayon. Ginagawa ng mga nasa kapangyarihan ang lahat para mapanatili sa puwesto, kahit na nangangahulugan ito ng pagsupil sa mga batayang kalayaan. May mga indikasyon ng unti-unting pagsupil sa batayang kalayaan sa pamamagitan ng tahasang pananakot, kahit na ang huli ay ikinukubli sa isang diumanong “simpleng paalala.”

Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.

If I were to include the years I spent with the Philippine Collegian (UP’s official student publication), my involvement in journalism actually spans almost 20 years.

Yes, I am indeed getting old and it took an interview with campus journalists of Ang Pahayagang Plaridel (APP) to remind me of that. Incidentally, APP is the official student publication in Filipino of De La Salle University (DLSU) where I got my master’s degree.

In its 23rd year,  APP published the Luntiang Alab (loose translation: “Green Passion”) issue in December 2007. I actually find it strange that this issue is labeled “Tomo 1 Blg. 1″ (Volume 1, Number 1) when in fact it should be “Volume 23.”

Anyway, you can find my interview on pages 10 and 11 of the article titled “Mga Mamamahayag sa Pagdaan ng Panahon” written by Susan Joan Dejan and Marvin Umandap.

Allow me at this point to cite the highlights of the article:

Tunay na pagmamahal sa propesyon

Halos dalawang dekada na sa kanyang propesyon na pamamahayag si Danilo Arao, isang propesor ng Journalism sa University of the Philippines-Diliman (UP-D) at kolumnista sa Pinoy Weekly. Sa pagdaan ng panahon, marami na siyang naging magaganda at masasamang karanasan sa kanyang trabaho at naging hayagan sa kanyang mga mata ang iba’t ibang suliranin sa kanyang piniling industriya.

Binigyang-kahulugan ni Arao ang malayang pamamahayag bilang isang “sitwasyon na hindi mo nakokompromiso ang iyong prinsipyo sa paggampan ng iyong tungkulin bilang mamamahayag.” Nakatutulong ito sa pag-unlad ng isang estado sapagkat nagsisilbi itong instrumento sa pagpapalaganap ng makabuluhang impormasyon at dahil dito, hindi nararapat na supilin ito ng pamahalaan sa ngalan ng kaunlaran.

“Ang sitwasyon ng midya ay salamin ng sitwasyon ng lipunan,” matibay na pahayag ni Arao. Naibahagi ni Arao na noong panahon ng pamumuno ni Pangulong Marcos, nagkaroon ng tahasang pagsesensura sa mga dapat na gawin ng mga mamamahayag. Bagama’t hindi pa rin umano ito nawawala sa kasalukuyan, hindi na ito naging kasingtindi noon na talagang may batas na nagtatakda ng hangganan ng mga impormasyong maaaring ilabas sa publiko. Batay ito sa kanyang mga karanasan sa mga nakaraang taon.

Ayon sa kanya, maituturing na mas maunlad ang industriya ngayon kaysa dati sa usapin ng teknolohiya at dami ng organisasyong pangmidya. Ngunit may ilang problema pa rin ang mga mamamahayag na nananatili hanggang ngayon tulad ng kakulangan ng sapat na pagsasanay sa pagsusulat, hindi sapat na mga eskwelahang nagtuturo ng kursong pamamahayag, mga maling oryentasyon sa nabanggit na kurso at ang monopolyo sa industriya ng midya.

Sa kabila ng mga suliraning kinakaharap sa napiling propesyon, mananatiling nag-aalab sa damdamin ni Arao ang pagnanais na magbahagi ng mahahalagang impormasyon sa publiko at hindi pagyaman ang mahalaga para sa kanya sa puntong ito. Nagsisilbing lakas para sa kanya ang mga komento, pahayag at sentimyento ng kanyang mga mambabasa upang ipagpatuloy ang makabuluhan niyang mga gawain.

Tuloy ang laban sa pamamahayag

“Dapat tingnan ‘yung pamamahayag ‘di lang bilang isang propesyon kundi bilang isang commitment,” isa itong mahalagang aral na kanyang natutuhan mula sa pagiging isang mamamahayag. Tunay ngang nananaig pa rin ang mithiing isiwalat ang katotohanan sa kabila ng mga balakid na kinakaharap ng mga Pilipinong mamamahayag ngayon. Patunay lamang si Arao na napapanatili pa rin ang prinsipyo ng mga mamamahayag ang kanilang inuuna bago ang sarili.

Gamit lamang ang kanilang isip at pagmamahal sa propesyon, naisasakatuparan nila ang kanilang layuning buhayin ang kamalayan ng bawat Pilipino sa mga kaganapan sa ating kapaligiran. Kung gayon nga, masasabi nating nawawangis sa kasalukuyang lupon ng mga mamamahayag ang mga katangian ng ating mga bayaning mamamahayag noon. Dahil sa kanila, abot pa rin ng ating sistema ng pamamahayag ang magandang pagkakakilanlan nito.

N.B. - In observance of Bloggers Action Week organized by the Bloggers’ Kapihan crew, please find below a slightly revised version of an essay I wrote in 2004, the original version of which may be retrieved from http://www.librarylink.org.ph/featarticle.asp?articleid=54.

I must confess: While cause-oriented groups and concerned individuals were already at the EDSA Shrine, I spent the whole morning making revisions to my MA thesis proposal on January 19, 2001!

I was supposed to do it the night before (January 18), but I was unfortunately invited by IBC Channel 13 to appear in its special coverage of the impeachment trial. I also failed to finish it earlier since I had to prepare a yearend economic briefing paper I presented at the IBON Birdtalk on January 11. The days after saw media interviews left and right regarding the statements I made, particularly Estrada’s ouster as a prerequisite to economic recovery.

On my way to De La Salle University (DLSU) where I was then enrolled in a graduate program, I heard on radio then President Joseph Estrada’s announcement that he had advised his lawyers to allow the opening of the controversial second envelope.

After submitting my paper to my thesis adviser and panelists at DLSU (and getting the assurance that I will be allowed to submit my thesis next semester), I then proceeded to the EDSA Shrine. As my FX ride reached Welcome Rotonda, I heard on radio the resignation of various government officials and there was also a report that PNP Chief Panfilo Lacson’s withdrawal of support was forthcoming.

“History is unfolding. Go to EDSA now!” I sent this text message to my Journalism students as the FX reached Cubao. Some replied they were already there, while others stated their dilemma of not yet finishing the paper I had required them to submit the next day (January 20).

I told them to temporarily forget about the deadline since their presence at the EDSA Shrine is more important. Upon reaching EDSA — after walking from VV Soliven, negotiating my way through the already mammoth crowd — I immediately went to the UP College of Mass Communication (CMC) tent just beside the EDSA south-bound traffic light. Not surprisingly, I saw most of my students there.

“Times like these bring out the militant in all of us,” I jokingly told a student who admitted being apathetic at first.

I spent the whole night with them, telling stories about EDSA 1 in 1986 and how President Estrada plundered the economy based on the researches I did for IBON Foundation where I was then employed as Research Head.

We also traded various Erap jokes, and we all laughed at the pathetic statement of Erap’s call for a snap election. And then I also remembered all of us cheering after hearing on radio Lacson’s call for Estrada to resign.

For me, EDSA 2 was a sight to behold, as the power of the people is not just manifested by the numbers but by the sheer resolve for social change.

It is unfortunate that, at present, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo does not have the political will to effect social change. The promises of EDSA are conveniently forgotten as the chronic crisis still exists.

If there is one lesson that can be learned as we commemorate EDSA 2, it is the people’s commitment to social change and their resolve to act and contend when necessary.

Indeed, revolution remains an option for those who are deprived, especially in a situation where societal structures and institutions fail to look after the welfare of the marginalized.