UP CMC to Supreme Court: “Ban” on press briefings should not happen again

Statement of the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication
June 20, 2014

That media organizations denounced the alleged “ban” on live coverage of a Supreme Court press briefing last June 3 (or nine days before the nation celebrated Independence Day) is understandable. The message should be clear by now to the judiciary: It should not happen again.

Although,  in reaction to the spate of media criticism his Wednesday ban on live coverage of his press briefing elicited, he seems to have realized his mistake,  Supreme Court Spokesperson and Chief of the Public Information Office Theodore Te’s statements in the aftermath still leave at least two questions unanswered.

The first of these is whether Te will impose a similar ban in future press briefings. Te did say that there is no policy banning live coverage of Supreme Court press briefings, but that does not mean that, while there is “no such policy,”  he will not ban live coverage when it suits him.  The media need to be informed that the ban will not happen again, and should press Te into making such a categorical statement. But they also have to be ready to oppose it when it does recur.

The second is related to the possible answer to the first.  It is how Te’s Tuesday “ban” will affect the way the media cover the Court—or any other government agency and institution.  Perceived as a hostile, or at least as an unfriendly act, Te’s action understandably upset justice beat reporters. But even more relevantly should it sharpen practitioner awareness of the essentially adversarial relationship between the media, with their public mandate of monitoring and holding public institutions to account, and government, whose relationship with the press is premised on furthering its agenda – and in some instances, managing information and concealing it from the public.

As he was reminding the press, Te has been a free expression and press freedom advocate, having served, for example, as a lawyer of the individuals and groups that filed a suit prohibiting the executive branch from censoring the media during the effectivity of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 and after,  and another suit questioning the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.  While press freedom groups should and do acknowledge that fact, that was in Te’s other life.  The reality is that Te is now in government, and among the people he had warred against in his previous life as a free expression and press freedom advocate. That realization should guide journalists and other media practitioners in their coverage of the Supreme Court, which should be based on mutual respect for each other’s rights and prerogatives.

The justice beat press corps correctly condemned the Wednesday ban as an infringement on  both press freedom and the public right to information.  If  he had no newsworthy information  to reveal, Te could have postponed his press briefing—that is his prerogative—rather than intruding on the editorial prerogative of deciding whether to cover an event live or not.  A press briefing is among those events that the media have a right to assume may be covered live, primarily because it is not only a public event; it is also specifically called to disclose information of public relevance.

But if public interest demanded that he hold a press briefing, while there were valid reasons for withholding part of the information to a later time, as a news source Te could have taken the press into his confidence by so informing them of the latter necessity. He could also have prefaced his briefing with the request that some of the information he was about to divulge is not for attribution to him as the source, or that it is solely for background and may not be cited.

The University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication does realize that public interest at times demands that not all the news can be released all the time, and requires a balancing of the public need for information with the potential harm premature revelation can inflict on the same public. But a ban on live coverage is an arbitrary and often unnecessary means of achieving that end. Te could have done otherwise, and if still true to his commitment to free expression and press freedom, should do better in the future.

SIGNATORIES

FACULTY

1. Rolando B. Tolentino, Dean
2. Danilo A. Arao, Associate Dean
3. Evelyn O. Katigbak, College Secretary
4. Jane O. Vinculado, Chair, Department of Broadcast Communication
5. Ma. Rosel S. San Pascual, Chair, Department of Communication Research
6. Lucia P. Tangi, Chair, Department of Journalism
7. Maria Diosa D. Labiste, Chair, Department of Graduate Studies
8. Elizabeth L. Enriquez
9. Josefina C. Santos
10. Eulalio R. Guieb
11. Ma. Ivy A. Claudio
12. Perlita  Manalili
13. Teresa S. Congjuico
14. Julienne Thesa Baldo-Cubelo
15. Randy Jay C. Solis
16. Sari Raissa Dalena
17. Eduardo Lejano, Jr.
18. Robert Rownd
19. Rosa Maria Feliciano
20. Jose Gutierrez III
21. Christine Anne Cox

FORMER DEAN

1. Luis V. Teodoro

LECTURER

1. Carlo Gabriel S. Pangilinan

STAFF

1.    Ma. Christine Hernandez
2.    Armando H. Hirao
3.    Irene B. Sia
4.    Jamela C. Tolentino
5.    Marianita P. Cinco
6.    Janssen Paulo D. Cusi
7.    Rosalita S. Burlat
8.    Israel Bufete
9.    Jonathan S. Beldia
10.    Janette A. Pamaylaon
11.    Gina A. Villegas
12.    Jacqueline Manalo
13.    Aaron Alexander Noel

STUDENTS

1.    April Anne R. Benjamin
2.    Patricia Isabel O. Gloria
3.    Benedict Opinion
4.    Beata Carolino
5.    Ria Tagle
6.    Clang Ilagan
7.    Judielyn Agua
8.    Kal Peralta
9.    Divine Marie Joanne Endriga
10.    Danica Uy
11.    Mark Lester Oliver
12.    Charlotte France
13.    Bernadette Alegre
14.    Lilay G. Macaventa
15.    Mariel Aguinaldo
16.    Vince Maulan
17.    Mica Maranon
18.    Jenny Ca
19.    Frente Sir L. Melliza