It is easy for all Philippine presidential candidates to claim that they are advocates of press freedom. Who would dare impose restrictions on media whose favorable coverage they are trying to court? Why would candidates repress media and at the same time promise to protect and uphold democracy?

The political rhetoric, however, is oftentimes the opposite of what is actually done. What comes from the mouth does not necessarily originate from a well-meaning heart but from a sinister mind.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for example, had repeatedly claimed her alliance with the media in the struggle for press freedom. She argued in the past that the people’s uprising in 2001 called EDSA Dos ushered in a new administration, a direct opposite of the one under her predecessor Joseph Estrada. One of her promises, quite predictably, is to uphold the constitutional guarantee of press freedom.

It was under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration, however, that the biggest number of journalists was killed. Who could forget the massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao last November 23 where at least 30 journalists were murdered with impunity and whose primary suspects were administration allies? Who wouldn’t see the irony of imposing a state of national emergency in February 2006 (the 20th anniversary of the people’s uprising in 1986) which resulted in the repression of an opposition newspaper and the cancellation of an award-winning radio program?

Even if the presidential candidates are expected to make general statements pertaining to press freedom, it is still best to ask them probing (and even confrontational) questions. Through such queries, could all have an idea of where they stand and how much they know about the workings of the press.

1. Do you think the constitutional guarantee of press freedom requires an enabling law? If so, what would be its salient points?
2. Where do you attribute the unabated killings of journalists? What do you think of empirical evidence proving that the most number of journalists killed since 1986 was under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration?
3. If elected President, how could you help bring the perpetrators to justice? How could you help solve the culture of impunity that gives rise to the killings of journalists?
4. What is your concept of public information? What is its role in your presidency? What do you think are the necessary reforms in the current public information system of the government?
5. In relation to the previous question, what will happen to NBN, IBC and RPN under your presidency? What changes in management, if any, will you do to NBN? Will you continue the government’s control of IBC and RPN especially with regard to their news and public affairs programs?
6. What will happen to Executive Order No. 464 if you become President? Will you continue to implement it even if there are criticisms that it deprives the journalists in particular and the public in general of important information?
7. Do you think the proposed Freedom of Information Act will benefit journalists? Please explain your answer.
8. What is your stand on the proposed Right of Reply law? Do you think this compromises freedom of the press? Please explain your answer.
9. How could you help ensure self-regulation in journalism and media work? Will your adherence to media self-regulation go to the extent of abolishing the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB)? Please explain your answer.
10. Assuming that you are in favor of media self-regulation, what would you do to government officials who are found guilty of violating press freedom (e.g., depriving journalists of publicly available information, harassing and intimidating journalists and media workers).

These are questions that require direct answers from all presidential candidates. Indeed, the challenge for them is to present a comprehensive media agenda which should include specific policy measures on how they could fulfill the general promise of what they would claim to do.

JAKARTA, Indonesia (February 15) — An interesting development in the massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao (Philippines) which claimed the lives of at least 30 Filipino journalists is the decision of the widows to bring the case to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) whose secretariat is based in this city.

In early February, lawyers Harry Roque and Pete Principe who represent the 14 widows of the journalists killed last November 23 said that they already filed a complaint at the newly-established ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).

While the ASEAN was established in August 1967, it was only in December 2008 that its charter took effect. Article 14.1 of the ASEAN Charter states: “In conformity with the purposes and principles of the ASEAN Charter relating to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, ASEAN shall establish an ASEAN human rights body.”

The terms of reference of the AICHR clearly state that it is a consultative body. As regards its relations with other human rights bodies in the ASEAN, the AICHR is said to be “the overarching human rights institution in ASEAN with overall responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights in ASEAN.”

Whether or not the AICHR could help shed light on cases of human rights violations like the Ampatuan massacre remains to be seen. The ASEAN could help make other member-countries aware of the sorry state of human rights in the Philippines. But is it be possible for the ASEAN to help in the attainment of justice which remains elusive to the human rights victims through the years?

To be fair, the ASEAN has facilitated some degree of unity and solidarity among the 10 member-countries. It has also given those aware of the ASEAN’s existence a “regional identity” which is important in the formation and development of their national identity. There exists a sense of belonging as an ASEAN member, at least in the context of being Asian. Interestingly, the name of the association is very close to the name of the continent where the 10 member-countries belong.

Part of the ASEAN’s plan is to fully establish the three pillars (security, economic and socio-cultural) of its community by 2015. Given the uneven level of development among the ASEAN member-countries and the unresolved border disputes among some of them, the plan may be impossible to achieve.

Just like other international organizations, the ASEAN has also had its share of missteps. For one, the thrust towards economic integration via globalization has proven to be detrimental to underdeveloped countries like the Philippines. Initiatives like the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and ASEAN Investment Agreement (AIA) are essentially meant to fast-track the processes of liberalization, deregulation and privatization ahead of most deadlines imposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO). It must be stressed that even if it is not explicit in the policy pronouncements of the ASEAN, the latter is biased for globalization as economic thrust. The kind of integration it wants is removal of protection and other trade barriers which may be necessary for underdeveloped countries like Myanmar and the Philippines to industrialize.

Indeed, the ASEAN should reorient itself in a way that would protect instead of “globalize” the region. It should protect the 10 member-countries from the onslaught of globalization.

As founding member, the Philippines should take the lead in promoting self-sufficiency and sustainable development but its credibility in doing so can only be apparent with a change in administration and even economic direction. In the context of protectionism, the Philippines could present itself as a case study of wanton globalization and the consequent underdevelopment due to such economic thrust. Even if it is currently “championing” human rights in the region, there are issues about its moral ascendancy owing to the culture of impunity prevalent in the country.

It is indeed hypocritical for the Philippines to take a leading role in the creation of the ASEAN human rights body. The current administration under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is notorious for rampant human rights violations, even exceeding the number of those who were killed and abducted during the dark days of martial law. Even journalists have been targeted by the powers-that-be since 1986 when democracy was supposedly restored through a people’s uprising.

In the context of human rights, the ASEAN’s principle of non-interference could render useless ASEAN bodies like the AICHR. The best that the ASEAN could do at present is to lend a voice in the protection and upholding, for example, of human rights. Indeed, it has become hard for the ASEAN through the years to hold member-countries accountable for not adhering to various regional agreements.

Despite the socio-political and cultural differences of ASEAN countries, the 10 member-countries adhere to the definition of human rights as enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Even if the protection of human rights leaves much to be desired (as in the case of Philippines and Burma), the ASEAN and the international community could take erring countries to task through legal courts like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT).

The ASEAN’s principles of non-interference and mutual respect are good on paper but these make the ASEAN practically helpless in imposing sanctions. While there are dispute settlement mechanisms, these are seldom resorted to as even the ASEAN encourages bilateral settlement. Reading the pertinent provisions of the ASEAN human rights body in the new ASEAN charter, the terms are vague in terms of ensuring the protection and upholding of human rights in the ASEAN region.

The AICHR should have a clear mandate to take the member-countries to task for violating human rights and should serve as an intermediary in filing cases before international courts. It is only by actively monitoring and filing the appropriate cases that it can make itself relevant.

And now that 14 widows of the murdered Filipino journalists have filed a complaint at the AICHR, the ASEAN is now given an opportunity to prove that its claim of promoting and upholding human rights is not empty rhetoric.

Filipino-American Jason Ivler now stands trial for the November 18 murder of the son of an undersecretary after his arrest this morning (January 18), exactly two months after the crime of which he is the suspect.

The presence of media during the raid on his house in Quezon City apparently helped in ensuring that everything is done by the book. Ivler reportedly engaged elements of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in a shootout, resulting in the wounding of two NBI agents and Ivler himself who had to be operated on at the Quirino Memorial Medical Center. While the two NBI agents are already out of danger, there were reports that Ivler was initially in critical condition but is now stable as of this writing.

No journalists were reportedly injured during the gunfight. TV camera people managed to get footage of the ensuing gunbattle and TV and radio journalists immediately reported the event as latebreaking news. Concerned social media account users also posted the news about Ivler’s arrest in social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

That public interest on the issue has not waned since November 18 may be attributed to the media’s reportage of related events, particularly the detention in Qatar and deportation of first-time overseas Filipino worker (OFW) Jason Aguilar who was mistaken to be Ivler. Public opinion was on the side of Aguilar as he became an unwitting victim to Ivler’s decision to go into hiding, as well as the slow response of the Philippine government to clear Aguilar’s name and to give him the necessary support while incarcerated. It wasn’t Aguilar’s intention to be in the limelight but he indirectly helped in fueling public interest, not to mention public anger, on his fugitive namesake Jason Aguilar Ivler.

In the interest of objectivity, media organizations are expected to continue publishing or airing Ivler’s side, in the same way that his mother Marlene Aguilar’s much-quoted appeal for him to surrender if he is indeed guilty, as well as the claim that Ivler sent an email to her stating that he has already fled to the United States, were duly noted by the media.

Probing questions, however, must be asked not only to Ivler and his relatives but also to the concerned government agencies. The challenge also remains for media organizations to properly analyze the issue in the context not of the culture of impunity that prevails among the rich and powerful like the Aguilar-Ivler family.

1. How was Ivler able to evade arrest from 2004 to early 2010 when he was a suspect in a vehicular accident that killed presidential adviser on resettlement Nestor Ponce?
2. Why were the two police officers (one of them Ivler’s relative) who escorted Ivler as he attempted to board a ship going to Malaysia in 2004 not charged criminally? Why is it that they were cleared for “failure to prosecute” when they were charged administratively? Why are they still on active duty?
3. Did Ivler have a valid driver’s license when he was allegedly involved in a road rage that led to the November 18 murder of Renato Ebarle, Jr.? If so, how was he able to get a valid driver’s license?
4. Given that Ivler reportedly does not have any firearms registered in his name, how was he able to get hold of high-powered firearms and armor-piercing bullets that he used against NBI agents? Who owns these firearms?

If media could provide answers to these questions, the public will greatly benefit from the information as they can better contextualize the crime as not an isolated incident done by a spoiled rich kid but a reflection of the kind of culture existing in the Philippine elite.

Why is there resistance in the Philippines to a technology that is widely used in many countries like South Korea?

Starting this year, the Land Transportation Office (LTO) requires the installation of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags in vehicles. Various transport and cause-oriented groups have called on the government to stop its implementation, arguing that the technology is being used to raise funds for the coming elections and to “spy on organizations perceived as left-leaning.”

Just like other countries, the Philippines requires an annual registration of vehicles. In the past, the LTO’s only requirements for vehicle registration are payment of the registration fee, a passing mark in emission testing and an insurance for the vehicle.

According to the LTO, vehicle owners will be charged an additional PhP350 (US$7.65) for RFID stickers which must be prominently displayed in the vehicle’s windshield. Through the introduction of the RFID technology, the LTO expects to generate an additional PhP2 billion ($43.74 million) in revenues.

How did the LTO arrive at this figure? Official data show that in 2008, there were 5,891,272 motor vehicles (MVs) registered with the LTO. Multiplying the number of MVs by 350, one gets 2,061,945,200. Considering an annual increase of 3.72% and 6.53% in 2007 and 2008, respectively, it is likely that the number of registered MVs in 2009 will reach six million so the income from RFID could be more than what is projected.

Interestingly, the fees collected by LTO for the registration of MVs in 2008 amounted to PhP785,492,574 (US$17.18 million), a mere 7.11% of the total revenue collections amounting to PhP11,048,015,054 (US$241.59 million).

In analyzing the argument of the Pinagkaisang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator Nationwide (PISTON; Unified Association of Drivers and Operators Nationwide) and other groups that the funds from the RFID technology might be used in the May 2010 elections, it must be remembered that they are not referring to the total estimated PhP2 billion but mainly the collections from January to April.

As regards allegations that the Philippine government might use the RFID for surveillance, one only needs to be aware that the Soviet Union has used radio waves as early as 1945 to spy on its perceived enemies. For its part, the Allies during World War II used a similar technology like the transponder during World War II to identify friendly or hostile aircraft.

But what cannot be denied is that other countries are using RFID to facilitate cashless transactions. In South Korea, for example, the T-money (described as “pre-paid RF smartcard embedded with CPU to enable self-calculation”) is being used in public transportation like trains, buses and taxis. The T-money basic card can be bought by anybody over-the-counter so it cannot be used by the Korean government to monitor the movement of a specific person.

The RFID has helped South Korea manage its transportation system. For example, it is able to allocate bus routes and control bus intervals. The discounts provided by T-money (e.g., a subway fare of KRW1,000 amounts to only KRW950 when using T-money) also reportedly help motivate Koreans to take public transportation.

Then again, the situation in South Korea greatly differs in the Philippines. The concern of cause-oriented groups as regards the RFID can hardly be called subjective paranoia.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who is currently running for a seat in the House of Representatives is deeply unpopular and not trusted by majority of Filipinos. Aside from being widely regarded to be pushing for charter change to perpetuate herself in power, she is being held responsible for the increasing number of extrajudicial killings, abductions and other forms of human rights violations.

Under her watch, the  Human Security Act (HSA) was passed in 2007 which is widely perceived to be repressive as it allows, among others, the wiretapping of conversations and the freezing of bank accounts of people suspected to be involved in terrorism, a term so nebulous that legitimate protests may be construed as such.

It is in this context that a supposedly beneficial technology becomes a bane to human rights, particularly a person’s right to privacy. No wonder the RFID is being met with opposition in the Philippines as other countries embrace it to improve the people’s lives and livelihood.

Note: US$1.00 = PhP45.68 (based on OANDA’s Currency Converter as of January 11, 2010)

Maniwala ka. Hindi ako katulad mo. Hindi mo dapat gamitin ang salitang “kasama” tuwing kinakausap ako.

At kung ikaw ay isa pang estudyante, mas kailangan mong malaman ang isang napakahalagang bagay: Hindi mo dapat sundan ang mga yapak ko. Oo, marangal na mga propesyon ang pinili ko – ang pagiging propesor at peryodista – at patuloy kong pinaghuhusay ang aking kakayahan sa dalawang larangang ito.

Katulad mo, pinipilit kong maging makabuluhan ang aking buhay. Pero ang misyon mo ay higit pa sa akin. Kung may ambisyon kang maging propesor at peryodista, kailangan mong tandaang puwede mong gawin ang pagtuturo’t pagsusulat pero sa iba’t mas mataas na antas.

Sadyang ibang-iba ka sa akin kahit na masasabing pareho tayong progresibo. Kung ako ay nagtatrabaho, ikaw ay kumikilos. Kung ako ay pumapasok sa opisina’t nakatakda ang mga dapat matapos, ikaw ay napapadpad sa kung saan-saan para gumampan ng iba’t ibang gawain. Kung ako ay mistulang alipin ng oras, ikaw ay mistulang tagapagsilbi ng sambayanan at mahirap na tawaging alipin ninuman.

Pero sa kabila ng ating pagkakaiba, may mga ipinaglalaban akong pareho ng sa iyo. Siguro’y sang-ayon ka rin sa karamihan ng mga opinyon ko. Posible ngang isa ka sa ilang aktibistang nagsabi sa akin noong namulat dahil sa pagbabasa ng ilang sinulat ko.

Kung sakaling namulat kita sa ating parehong interpretasyon ng katotohanan, maraming salamat. Kahit paano’y napapagaan nito ang mabigat na trabahong hatid ng paggampan ng dalawang propesyong pinili ko. Ikaw ang malinaw na ebidensiyang dapat ko lang ipagpatuloy ang klase ng progresibong pagtuturo’t peryodismong ginagawa ko, sa kabila ng hirap na dulot nito.

Pero ang sanaysay na ito’y hindi tungkol sa akin, kundi tungkol sa iyo. Sa panahong ito, iba ang pagtingin ng publiko sa aktibistang katulad mo. Sa mata ng mga nasa kapangyarihan, salot ang mga katulad mong dapat puksain at ubusin. Para sa nakararaming mamamayan, kapansin-pansin ang pagkawala ng kultura ng protesta dahil sa mga institusyong ang pangunahing layunin, lantaran man o hindi, ay protektahan ang kasalukuyang panlipunang kaayusan.

Ang kultura ng protestang nagsimula noong panahon ng dayuhang pananakop ay napalitan ng kultura ng karahasan laban sa mga naninindigan para sa makabuluhang pagbabago. Maraming aktibista’t peryodistang pinatay sa mga nagdaang taon, at malinaw sa mga estadistikang ang pinakamalaking bilang ay sa ilalim ng administrasyong Macapagal-Arroyo.

Sadyang nakakalungkot ang pagdating ng balitang may mga tinakot, dinukot o pinatay sa hanay ninyo. Aminin mo man o hindi, maaaring pinagmumulan ito ng away sa pamilya hinggil sa buhay na tinahak mo. “Anak, ano ka ba naman? Gusto mo na bang magpakamatay? Hindi kita pinalaki para lang sirain ang buhay mo sa mga bagay na walang katuturan!”

Alam mong kakaunti lang ang nakakaintindi ng konsepto’t esensiya ng aktibismo, kaya nga mabilis na naibebenta ng gobyerno, lalo na ng militar, ang ideyang ang mga aktibista ay komunista.

At kapag komunista, maaaring gawin ang walang pakundangang paglabag sa karapatan, kahit na nangangahulugan ito ng pagpaslang. At kapag pinatay na, maaaring itago sa publiko ang karumal-dumal na krimen sa pamamagitan ng pagtatapon ng bangkay sa mababaw na hukay o malalim na ilog.

Pero sa kabila nito, alam mong kailanman ay hindi maibabaon sa limot ang kasaysayan ng pakikibaka, anuman ang gawin ng mga nasa kapangyarihan. Patuloy na may saysay ang mga aktibistang dinukot at pinaslang dahil mayroon at mayroon pa ring gagampan ng kanilang mga naiwang gawain. Patuloy na babanggitin ang kanilang pangalan at paparangalan ang kanilang kabayanihan. Patuloy na mararamdaman ang kanilang presensiya sa lahat ng porma ng pagkilos.

Kahit na hindi kinikilala ng marami ang klase ng buhay na mayroon ka, alam mong kasaysayan ang maghuhusga sa iyo. Darating ang panahong magiging malaking karangalan ang matawag na aktibista sa lipunang ito. Ipagmamalaki ng iyong pamilyang kasalukuyang hindi nakakaintindi sa iyo ang pagkakaroon ng isang katulad mo.

Sa gitna ng malawakang paglabag sa karapatang pantao, hayaan mong batiin kita ng ”mabuhay” sa matalinghaga’t literal na kahulugan nito.

At sa pagtatapos ng sanaysay na ito, alam kong may posibilidad na ikaw (ang aking seryosong mambabasa) ay hindi aktibista. Kung umabot ka sa talatang ito, ibig sabihin ba nito’y mayroon kang interes sa buhay-aktibista? Sana naman, dahil lubhang kinakailangan sa pagkilos ngayon hindi lang ang pagpapalalim ng isip kundi pagpaparami ng hanay.

Hindi pa huli ang lahat para sumali. At ngayong tapos na ang sanaysay, maaari nang magnilay-nilay.

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

How should journalism be taught at a time when journalists are killed with impunity and the government remains hostile to press freedom?

The following questions need to be answered:

1. Should aspiring journalists be taught to practice “cold neutrality” in handling issues?
2. Is it right for a professor to encourage students to consistently follow the law?
3. Can professors and students just simply dismiss the media situation and just limit the classroom discussions to the theories related to journalistic writing, with special emphasis on grammar, syntax and diction?

The Philippines is said to be the freest press in Asia given the consitutional guarantees of press freedom and various laws that seek to protect freedom of speech and other basic freedoms. There is, of course, a difference between freedom of speech and freedom after speech as journalists and activists face dire consequences for exercising what is supposed to be their constitutional rights.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), in a yearend statement last December 30, stresses that 2009 “will forever be remembered as a year of unprecedented tribulation for the Philippine Press, with the November 23 massacre in Ampatuan town in Maguindanao making its grisly mark in history as the worst ever attack on the media.”

For its part, the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) says, “This has been a year of unprecedented devastation for the world’s media, but the violence also confirms long-term trends… Most of the victims were local reporters covering news in their own communities. The perpetrators assumed, based on precedent, that they would never be punished. Whether the killings are in Iraq or the Philippines, in Russia or Mexico, changing this assumption is the key to reducing the death toll.”

NUJP statistics show that 99 journalists have been killed since Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo became President in 2001, the latest being Zamboanga del Norte-based radio commentator Ismael Pasigma who was gunned down at around 6.30am last December 24. According to NUJP’s Alert (December 31), he “was on his way to work when shot at close range. The motive for the killing is still unknown as of this writing.”

CPJ data, on the other hand, show that at least “68 journalists worldwide were killed for their work in 2009, the highest yearly tally ever documented…The record toll was driven in large part by the election-related slaughter of more than 30 media workers in the Philippine province of Maguindanao, the deadliest event for the press in CPJ history.”

Journalists in the Philippines have been killed with impunity since 1986 despite the end of Martial Law (with the ouster of the late President Ferdinand Marcos) and the supposed restoration of democracy. The NUJP counts 136 journalists killed for the past 23 years, or an average of one killing every two months. The killings have worsened under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration as an average of one journalist got murdered every month from 2001 to 2009.

Going back to the previous series of questions, the answers become clear as one deepens his or her understanding of the media situation in the Philippines.

1. “Cold neutrality” cannot be observed in a situation where the killings of journalists become the highest form of censorship. The stakes are too high for journalists to practice indifference to the culture of impunity that gives rise to media repression. Neutrality actually becomes counterproductive to the shaping of public opinion if one considers that a journalist is expected to analyze and not just present the data. One can even argue that the mere presentation of data — which source to put in the lead, for example – is already an analysis by itself which, to a certain extent, reflects the slant of the article. Suffice it to say that there is a difference between neutrality and objectivity, the latter being the value that responsible journalists should aspire for.
2. While laws are necessary to maintain order in society, there are laws that end up muzzling the media instead of protecting them. It is in this context that various media organizations, for example, had opposed the imposition of Martial Law in Maguindanao and took police and government officials to court for being enemies of the press. The NUJP notes that the December 9 rally at Mendiola was “historic” because it was led by the media organizations themselves and joined in by various non-government organizations. Observing the unity between the media and their audiences in the wake of Ampatuan Massacre, one cannot help but conclude that media killings prompt journalists to become “activists” in their own right.
3. In journalism, there should be no dichotomy between form and content because both of them are important. While effective journalistic writing requires a respectable command of the language, the shaping of public opinion which is the journalist’s primary responsibility cannot happen if a journalistic output is bereft of analysis. The challenge for journalism students is to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge of articulating their analysis in a manner that can be understood by their audiences. And once they venture into their chosen field, this will serve as their everyday challenge as they report on pressing social issues.

In order to be effective, the teaching of journalism should therefore remain critical of the forces that perpetuate media repression. But in the event that professors fail to deliver, it is incumbent upon journalism students to acquire not just the nose for news but also a critical eye. To assuage their hunger for information, they should not only read but also observe the reality around them. They should also consider taking part in mass actions especially when it comes to media-related issues.

Just as improvement of one’s grammar greatly depends on the actual practice of writing, journalism students should not expect to be taught the nuances of critical analysis inside the classroom. Their line of thinking, after all, can only be sharpened by the consistency and longevity of their social involvement.

Some journalists reportedly went overboard when they mobbed the primary suspect in what is now known as the Ampatuan massacre which resulted in 57 deaths, including that of 30 journalists.

Escorted by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) after his preliminary investigation on the charge of multiple murder, Datu Unsay Mayor Andal Ampatuan, Jr. was on his way out of the Department of Justice (DOJ) building in Manila last Friday (December 18) when he was mobbed by angry journalists. They allegedly “shouted invectives at Ampatuan” and shoved pictures of mutilated bodies of the November 23 massacre victims at his face. “Here are the people you killed,” they said. In another news report, a photographer reportedly “struck Ampatuan in the head with his camera.”

Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Leila de Lima criticized the concerned journalists for their behavior. “Expression of outrage can be done without physically harming the object of outrage. Without rule of law and restraint, we will all descend to a society where atrocities and vigilantism become a way of life.”

While the CHR is expected to be concerned about the rights of everybody, including that of the accused like Ampatuan, a few questions must be raised at this point: Was there physical harm on Ampatuan because of the “mobbing”? Was his life threatened in any way?

The concerned journalists who shouted invectives and carried pictures of the carnage obviously did not cause physical injury to Ampatuan.

As regards the photographer who allegedly struck Ampatuan in the head, it is necessary to establish first if it were intentional or accidental. As any experienced journalist would attest, photographers and camera people sometimes accidentally and unintentionally hit or elbow each other as they jostle for the best position in taking pictures or footage of unfolding events. Yes, news sources like Ampatuan, and this could be one of those rare instances, are sometimes on the receiving end of such jostling.

But even assuming for the sake of argument that the concerned photographer hit Ampatuan on purpose, did this result in any serious head injuries? There were no reports of Ampatuan being rushed to the hospital because of the attack. His head was apparently not bleeding and, with the exception of his dignity, he survived the attack unscathed.

And now for the visceral: Did the journalists do anything unethical? The Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics clearly states that a journalist “shall conduct (himself or herself) in public or while performing (his or her) duties as a journalist in such a manner as to maintain the dignity of (the) profession. When in doubt, decency should be (his or her) watch word.”

Under normal circumstances, I would be the first to criticize the journalists for being “undignified.” They should, after all, objectively report events and maintain independence from their sources. In other words, being part of the news is simply unacceptable. That they staged a symbolic protest at the DOJ last December 18 makes them part of the news already.

But the situation in the Philippines and in some parts of the globe are far from being “normal.”

When Iraqi reporter Muntazar Al-Zaidi threw his shoes at President George W. Bush at a December 2008 press conference in Baghdad to protest the US-led war in Iraq, international press freedom organizations like Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said that they “did not agree with…Al-Zaidi’s method of protest but the journalist should be released for humanitarian reasons.”

The IFJ put in context Al-Zaidi’s action: It reflects “deep anger at the treatment of Iraqi civilians during US occupation over the past four years of which journalists have been major victims…It is no coincidence that the protest comes only days after the United States refused to release a detained journalist, despite an Iraqi court order that he should be set free. When the US appears to defy the rule of law in Iraq, it is no surprise that journalists will look to other ways to make their protest over injustice…This journalist was expressing his own deeply-felt views and we cannot condone his actions…but after years of intimidation, mistreatment and unsolved killings at the hands of US soldiers, it is no surprise that there is anger and resentment among journalists.”

In the case of the Philippines, the unabated killings of journalists since 1986 and attempts by the government to muzzle the press have unwittingly forced media organizations to become directly involved and to take the government to task for its perceived shortcomings.

Concerned journalists have taken it upon themselves in the past years to seek redress of grievances through legal means like the courts. When the country was put in a state of national emergency in February 2006, selected media organizations filed a suit against the police and other government officials. They had no choice but to become part of the news they cover. In an Eye on Ethics article I wrote in September 2008, I also mentioned that journalists filed two cases in January 2008 – one with the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) where I was a signatory, the other with the Supreme Court (SC) – “against the government for the arrest of more than 50 journalists who were covering the siege at the Manila Peninsula in November 2007.”

The Ampatuan massacre, not surprisingly, also prompted the “messengers of news” to also deliver the message themselves through various protest actions nationwide. The message is very clear: Journalists, just like other concerned sectors of society, want to end the culture of impunity that gives rise to the senseless killings.

These are therefore very tumultuous times in the Philippines where journalists are forced to go beyond their basic duty of delivering the news. They are, after all, already part of the statistics of human rights violations and, unless they want the atrocities to continue, silence can never be an option. As they try to shape public opinion, they should not only publish or air relevant news but to also fight those who remain hostile to press freedom.

The symbolic protest at the DOJ last December 18 should therefore be seen in this context. Journalists should not be faulted for sending a strong message that they will continue to seek justice for their slain colleagues.

Students know fully well the consequences of submitting a badly written paper. Too bad the same can’t be said for the powers-that-be in the Philippines.

Rushing to beat the 48-hour deadline arising from the imposition of martial law in Maguindanao last December 4, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives on the night of December 6 her report on Proclamation No. 1959. (Warning: This contains graphic images of violence.)

The 20-page report was submitted to the House of Representatives (HOR) at 8:58 p.m., or just two minutes before the 9:00 p.m. deadline. The Senate received its copy at 9:11 p.m.

You don’t have to be a professor to know if a paper is haphazardly done. The tell-tale signs are obvious – existence of logical fallacies, dearth of citation, preponderance of errors both grammatical and typographical.

Based on Proclamation No. 1959, there are two official reasons for the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao: (1) “[H]eavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land to maintain public order and safety”; and (2) “[P]eace and order in the province of Maguindanao has deteriorated to the extent that local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning; thus, endangering public safety. If the objective of the report to Congress is to justify the declaration of martial law, the focus of the 20-page report should be on important information related to these points.

Instead of giving insight into these important points, what Macapagal-Arroyo presented is a mish-mash of adjectives (“lawless”), adverbs (“horrifyingly”) and superfluous phrases (“formidable group of armed followers” and “duly verified information”) that do not contribute to knowledge and instead highlight certain situations that are  ambiguous, exaggerated or imagined.

There is no denying that the Ampatuan massacre is the worst-ever election related violence in the country.The facts regarding the carnage speak for themselves: 57 deaths, of which 21 were women, and of which 30 were journalists and media workers. To be fair, the President’s report has important data, but these are already public knowledge due to the extensive media coverage worldwide.

A report does not need to repeat, rephrase and sugarcoat the obvious; more facts are expected to be supplied. A cursory reading of the President’s report yields no new facts or even a fresh insight into the massacre that happened and the events leading to the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao.

The justification for martial law is nothing but an appeal to the emotion, the subtext of which is that there will be murder and mayhem in Maguindanao unless the military and the police take over. For example, the report states that “the Ampatuan group has consolidated a group of rebels consisting of 2,413 heavily armed men, with 1,160 of them having been strategically deployed in Maguindanao.” However, there is no attribution as to the source of the information, not to mention exactly when this had been documented, if at all.

Throughout the report, it is noticeable that the Ampatuan group is also referred to as rebels, an apparent move to justify the charge of rebellion against selected members and supporters of the Ampatuan clan. The alleged existence of these “rebels” is the basis of the government’s verbose argument that there is “a public uprising against the duly constituted government and against the people of Maguindanao, for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the Government or its laws, the province of Maguindanao, and likewise depriving the Chief Executive of her powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety, to the great damage, prejudice and detriment of the people in Maguindanao and the nation as a whole.”

What the government sees as “rebellion” could also be assessed as “multiple murder” where the suspects are considered armed and dangerous. There is no public pronouncement from the Ampatuans, after all, that they are revolting against the system and that they are trying to secede from the government.

Vital facts are also ignored, particularly the initial statement of the military that there was no need to declare martial law. In the words of Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Spokesperson Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner last November 30, “We now have a level of normalcy in the province of Maguindanao primarily because of the occupation by our government forces and our law enforcement agencies of the seats of government.” Even if the government can argue that there has been a qualitative change in the situation in Maguindanao, it is still necessary to explain the context in which such change happened.

The President’s report proves to be silent on a senator’s claim that “during the raids conducted by the military and police forces, the raiders discovered and confiscated ballot boxes containing election documents.” There are arguments that the imposition of martial law has to do with the alleged threat of the Ampatuans to reveal what they know about the cheating that happened in the 2004 elections, and that the military is being used to ensure that the evidence the Ampatuans have would be secured by the government.

A general denial of accusations does not help the President any, especially now that her unpopularity prompts the general public to doubt her every word and her every move. In order to persuade the people that there is nothing irregular about the declaration of martial law, she should answer the allegations directly, providing the necessary evidence to debunk the opposition’s claims.

Then again, you may ask: Does the government have any factual basis for the declaration of martial law last December 4? Is the report a mere compliance with a legal requirement, given that the House Speaker has already given his full support for Proclamation 1959?

Just as the Ampatuan massacre highlights the state of human rights in the Philippines, the President’s report to Congress is a reflection of the administration’s disregard for the law and how it only goes through the process of giving legal justification, no matter how outrageous the arguments are. At this point, the impunity of the powers-that-be knows no boundaries as they do whatever they want even if the law is not on their side.

Indeed, the President’s report deserves an “F” as there is utter failure in justifying what is undeniably a questionable proclamation.

“F” obviously stands for “Fail” even if there are people who are wont to use another, albeit unprintable, four-letter word that begins with “F” to describe not just the President’s report, but the entire administration altogether.

Thirty journalists were killed last month in the worst act of election violence ever in the Philippines. Their deaths are another way of restricting freedom.

There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom after speech. Filipino journalists know this all too well.

Unlike other Asian countries, Filipinos and Koreans are said to enjoy freedom of the press. However, even if colonialism helped shape the nature of journalism in the two countries, there is a marked difference in the practice of journalism in the Philippines and Korea.

Many journalism schools highlight the Philippine press as the freest in Asia. Major textbooks on the history of Philippine journalism stress that this is due to the constitutional guarantees of basic freedoms, as well as other laws that uphold press freedom like the Shield Law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources.

Even international organizations recognize the freedom Filipino journalists have. According to Freedom House, the Philippine media is “among the freest, most vibrant and most outspoken in Asia.”

On the other hand, a study by Press Reference (www.pressreference.com) shows that Korea is a “media-rich country,” having 116 daily newspapers, 121 television stations and 209 radio stations. For every 1,000 Koreans, it is estimated that 331.9 have television sets, 177.4 have cable subscriptions, 991.6 have radio receivers, 234.9 have computers and 397.5 have Internet access.

It is not surprising that media-related statistics in the Philippines, a developing country, pale in comparison to Korea. The Philippines only has 42 daily newspapers, 31 television stations and 659 radio stations. For every 1,000 Filipinos, only 44.7 have television sets, 138.8 have radio receivers, 17.9 have computers and 24.1 have Internet access.

In assessing press freedom in both countries, it is interesting to note that the Philippines is rated by Freedom House as “partly free,” while Korea is said to be “free.”

Freedom House grades 195 countries and territories from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) based on a set of 23 questions divided into three categories – legal environment, political environment and economic environment.

Based on its explanation of the methodology, “[a] score of 0 to 30 places the country in the Free press group; 31 to 60 in the Partly Free press group; and 61 to 100 in the Not Free press group.” In its 2009 survey, the Philippines earned a score of 45; and Korea, 30.

It is interesting to note that the Freedom House 2009 study considers Iceland, Finland and Norway as having the freest presses in the world, while those with the worst press freedoms were Burma, Turkmenistan and North Korea.

Just like the Philippines, the Korean press is considered “noisy, vibrant and powerful” and enjoys constitutionally guaranteed freedom. But unlike in Korea, where the modern press traces its beginnings to the waning days of the Joseon dynasty in the 19th century, the Philippine press started during the era of Spanish colonialism in the 16th century.

In its analysis of the Korean press, Press Reference highlights its role in the struggle for independence against colonial rule, even if there were also compromises made with the ruling powers.

“Enlightening the public was the primary objective of the press,” the site writes. “When Japan colonized Korea in 1910, weeklies turned dailies, and privately owned dailies began to play the role of educators and independence fighters. Many of the then reporters and editors themselves conceived of their role in that way. For survival the press learned to compromise with the colonial ruling powers during the years between 1910 and 1945. This legacy served the Korean press very well after Korea’s independence in 1948 and during the subsequent despotic and military regimes in the 1960s through the 1980s.”

Starting with the 19th century publications La Solidaridad (Solidarity) and Kalayaan (Freedom), the alternative press grew vibrant in the Philippines as well, even as the Americans and the Japanese colonized them. The Filipino struggle for meaningful change continued even after 1946 when the United States granted independence to the country. As a result, alternative publications still exist, and some of them have even maximized their use of new media by creating their own Web sites and accounts with social networking sites like Facebook.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution’s Bill of Rights (Article 3) clearly guarantees freedom of the press. Section 4, for example, explicitly states: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Section 7 has a provision that reads, “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”

The killings of Filipino journalists, however, continue unabated despite these constitutional guarantees. This problem is practically nonexistent in Korea. The U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists has no record of Korean journalists being killed since it started worldwide monitoring in 1992.

The CPJ, however, has listed 38 Filipino journalists killed since 1992 as a result of their work as journalists. There are 27 others listed, but the motives behind the killings were not clear. Quoting from CPJ’s methodology, “When the motive is unclear, but it is possible that a journalist was killed because of his or her work, CPJ classifies the case as ‘unconfirmed’ and continues to investigate.”

These data from the CPJ do not include the 30 journalists and media workers who were killed in the line of duty on Nov. 23 in Ampatuan, Maguindanao, located in the southern Philippines. This is said to be the worst-ever election-related act of violence in the country. CPJ said in a Dec. 3 statement, “By far, the killings in Maguindanao have proven to be the worst we have on record, and most likely the worst in the history of journalism.”

This single act of violence claimed a total of 57 lives – journalists were killed with relatives and supporters of a local politician on their way to file his certificate of candidacy as governor; others killed were only motorists who passed by when the convoy was blocked. It has been denounced internationally.

At the start of its annual meeting on Dec. 1 in India, Gavin O’Reilly, president of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, said that the killings were “an act of savagery that has written one of the blackest pages in the history of the world’s press.”

Korean journalists are strongly encouraged not only to write about what happened in the Philippines but also to provide messages of solidarity to Philippines-based media groups. They are also welcome to write letters of concern to the Philippine government demanding swift justice for those who were murdered.

That there are laws protecting press freedom does not mean that all is well in the Philippine media.

While it is true that there exists freedom of speech, freedom after speech is another matter.

*The writer is a visiting professor at Hannam University’s Linton Global College in Daejeon.

by Danilo A. Arao

Baka naman ang kolektibong ahitasyon ay dahil lang sa mapaglarong imahinasyon. Baka naman kailangan talagang magdeklara ng martial law (batas militar) sa Maguindanao dahil sa kaguluhang nangyayari doon.

Mainam na basahin ang buong teksto ng Proklamasyon Blg. 1959 na pinirmahan ni Pangulong Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo noong Disyembre 4 na siyang batayan ng deklarasyon ng batas militar sa Maguindanao (maliban sa mga natukoy na lugar ng Moro Islamic Liberation Front ayon sa GRP-MILF Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities).

Ayon sa proklamasyon, may dalawang dahilan kung bakit hindi na sapat ang deklarasyon ng state of emergency sa Maguindanao na ginawa noong Nobyembre 24 sa pamamagitan ng Proklamasyon Blg. 1946 na kung saan saklaw din ang Sultan Kudarat at Cotabato City.

Una, kailangan ang batas militar dahil sa argumentong “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land to maintain public order and safety.” Ikalawa, matindi na raw ang kaguluhan sa Maguindanao: “(T) he condition of peace and order in the province of Maguindanao has deteriorated to the extent that local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning; thus, endangering public safety.”

Dahil sariwa sa alaala ng maraming tao ang panahon ng kadilimang dulot ng imposisyon ng batas militar ni dating Pangulong Ferdinand Marcos mula 1972 hanggang 1986, maraming nag-aalala sa posibleng pag-abuso ng kapangyarihan ng kasalukuyang administrasyon, lalo na’t may mangyayaring eleksiyon sa Mayo 2010.

Kahit ang isang lokal na lider sa Mindanao ay nagsabing hindi kinakailangan ang batas militar. Kung ang layunin nga naman ay arestuhin lang ang iba pang miyembro ng pamilyang Ampatuan na hinihinalang nasa likod ng masaker ng 57 katao, kasama na ang 30 peryodista’t manggagawa sa midya, bakit hindi ito epektibong magampanan ng pulisya sa tulong ng militar?

Malinaw sa mga balita ng mga nagdaang araw na nakumpiska na ang mga armas ng mga Ampatuan at ng kanilang mga taga-suporta. Hindi nga ba’t patuloy daw na nakikipag-ugnayan ang mga Ampatuan sa mga awtoridad hinggil sa imbestigasyon ng masaker?

Ito ang dahilan kung kapansin-pansin ang kontradiksiyon sa argumento ni Acting Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera na may rebelyong nangyayari sa Maguindanao kaya kailangan ang batas militar. Kung totoo man ang sinabi ni Armed Forces Deputy Chief of Staff Brig. Gen. Gaudencio Pangilinan na nagsikalat na sa buong probinsiya ng Maguindanao ang mga armadong taga-suporta ng pamilyang Ampatuan, ano ang magiging epekto ng suspensyon ng writ of habeas corpus sa pagsugpo ng anumang rebelyon? Hindi ito malinaw na naipaliwanag ng mga opisyal ng pamahalaan.

Mula sa legal na pananaw, may mahalagang punto si Marvic Leonon, dekano ng University of the Philippines College of Law: “Martial law cannot be declared because the state has failed to prevent massive human rights violations by leaders that the national government itself has nurtured. Martial law cannot be proclaimed to cover up the lack of professional competence in the gathering, preservation, evaluation of evidence and in the arrest and detention of the perpetrators. Martial law is also not the proper legal response to the issuance of a writ of amparo in favor of the Ampatuan family.”

Sa kabila ng dalawang opisyal na dahilan sa deklarasyon ng batas militar sa Maguindanao, patuloy pa ring nagsusulputan ang mga tanong: Bakit hindi makaya ng pulis at militar na gampanan ang trabaho nilang mapanatili ang kapayapaan sa Maguindanao? Kung totoong marami nang armas na nakumpiska sa mga Ampatuan, hindi ba’t lohikal na isiping ang anumang natitirang mayroon ang mga Ampatuan ay hindi kayang tapatan ang armas ng pulis at militar, gayundin ang bilang ng huli?

Tulad ng argumento ni Macapagal-Arroyo na tumakbo siya bilang kinatawan ng ikalawang distrito ng Pampanga para makapaglingkod sa kanyang mga kababayan, ang mga argumentong binitiwan hinggil sa deklarasyon ng batas militar ay nararapat lang na pagdudahan.

Ang “maliliit na bagay” tulad ng hindi paglalagay ng posas kay Andal Ampatuan, Jr. nang inaresto siya ay nagsisilbing repleksiyon ng paborableng pagtrato sa importanteng kaalyado ng administrasyong Macapagal-Arroyo. At dahil napabalitang hindi rin pinosasan ang apat pang miyembro ng mga Ampatuan na inaresto kamakailan, masisisi pa kaya ang maraming mamamayan kung bakit mas nangingibabaw ang pagkadismaya kaysa pagsuporta sa administrasyon?

May empirikal na batayan ang kolektibong kawalan ng tiwala kay Macapagal-Arroyo. Kung susuriin ang Oktubre 2009 survey ng Pulse Asia, lumalabas na 79 porsiyento ay nagsabing siguradong hindi nila iboboto (43 porsiyento) at malamang na hindi nila iboboto (36 porsiyento) ang sinumang kandidatong inindorso ni Macapagal-Arroyo. Sa ginawa namang survey ng Social Weather Stations noong Setyembre 2009, apat na porsiyento lang ang nagsabing si Gilbert Teodoro (kandidato ng administrasyon) ang pinakamagaling na lider na dapat pumalit kay Macapagal-Arroyo bilang Pangulo. Pawang mga kandidatong mula sa oposisyon ang nakakuha ng pinakamataas na rating: Benigno Aquino III (60 porsiyento), Manuel Villar (37 porsiyento) at Joseph Estrada (18 porsiyento).

Para sa isang Pangulong desperado sa kapangyarihan (at nagpakababa pa nga para tumakbo bilang kinatawan), maraming posibleng mangyari sa mga susunod na araw, linggo at buwan. Ang pagsusuri ng maaaring mangyayari ay hindi simpleng spekulasyon kung malinaw ang batayan ng mga argumento at may malinaw na konteksto.

Hindi dapat makalimutan ang mga pagtatangkang ginawa noon ng mga nasa kapangyarihan para baguhin ang Saligang Batas para mapanatili sila sa puwesto, pati na rin ang mga insidente ng pagtatakip sa mga katiwalian. At lalong hindi dapat makalimutan ang libo-libong mamamayang biktima ng karahasan mula pa noong 2001, lalo na ang mga pinatay at dinukot.

Hindi produkto ng mapaglarong imahinasyon ang mag-alala sa maaaring mangyari, lalo na ang pag-iisip ng mga pinakamasama’t pinakamalalang maaaring gawin ng mga walang pakundangan.

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