Siguro’y lipas na ang pakikibaka, minsa’y nasa isip mo. Wala nang lugar para sa protesta dahil nagbalik na ang demokrasya.

Ano nga ba naman ang batayan ng pagmamartsa sa kalsada? Popular na ang kasalukuyang Pangulo. Katanggap-tanggap sa publiko ang mga naitalagang Kalihim ng Department of Justice (DOJ) at Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Bentang-benta sa marami ang desisyon ng Pangulong hindi gumamit ng sirena o blinker sa kanyang araw-araw na pagbiyahe. Ang kanyang pagsunod sa batas-trapiko, lalo na ang paghinto ng kanyang convoy kapag pula ang traffic light, ay nagsisilbing magandang halimbawa sa lahat na sumunod sa batas.

May dahilan para magbigay ng papuri. May lugar pa nga ba para magbato ng puna?

Kahit na sabihing may limang aktibistang pinaslang sa unang 12 araw ng panunungkulan ni Pangulong Benigno Aquino III, sinabi naman ng huling hindi katanggap-tanggap ang anumang porma ng paglabag sa karapatang pantao. Sabi ni Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda, “We have no policy of extra-judicial killings. We will not countenance any extra-judicial killing. Our policy is we will not tolerate extra-judicial killings.”

Para sa iba, sapat na ang pahayag na ito para hindi sisihin ang kasalukuyang administrasyon. Kung sabagay, puwede namang sabihing ginagawa ito ng ilang elemento sa militar para hiyain ang mga nasa kapangyarihan. At para sa mga galit sa komunista, malamang na mauulit na naman ang walang-batayang akusasyong kasalanan ng New People’s Army (NPA) ang nangyayaring pagpatay sa kasalukuyan.

Madali namang isisi ang lahat sa mga komunistang ang simbolo ay pula. Kung ang pulang bandila’y sumisimbolo sa militanteng pakikibaka, lahat ng mga nagmamartsa’y inaakusahang komunista. Dahil pareho ang kulay na ginagamit at pagsusuring sinasambit, hindi na raw dapat pinaghihiwalay ang legal at hindi legal, ang pagkilos sa larangang parlamento’t armado. Ang pula ay pula, at lahat sila’y lipas na.

Panahon na ng dilaw ngayon. Simbolo raw ito hindi ng karuwagan kundi ng alternatibong paraan ng “pakikibaka.” Ang pagbabagong ipinapangako ng kilusang dilaw ay mapayapa, hindi tulad ng mga naniniwala sa armadong pakikibaka. Hindi raw kasi maiiwasang dumanak ang dugo sa pamamagitan ng pagyakap sa pula, kaya mainam at ligtas na alternatibo ang sumuporta na lang sa kasalukuyang administrasyon.

Napakadaling isuko ang sarili ngayon. Ang sinasabing “daang matuwid” ay mabenta sa mga taong nawalan na ng pag-asa o pagod na sa pakikibaka. Para sa maraming yumayakap sa dilaw, binubuo na ang bagong Pilipinas na direktang kabaligtaran ng nakalipas na administrasyong Macapagal-Arroyo. Para sa kanila, walang dahilan para hindi suportahan ang kasalukuyang administrasyon. Si Noynoy ay hindi si Gloria, at ito ay sapat na!

Hindi naman masisisi ang maraming Pilipino kung umabot na sa ganito kababang pamantayan ang katangian ng pagsuporta sa isang Pangulo. Dahil nanggaling tayo sa karumal-dumal na kanasan ng tiwaling pamamahala, natural lamang na ikatutuwa ng lahat ang maliliit na desisyon tulad ng pagsunod sa batas-trapiko. Basta’t walang rekord ng pagnanakaw sa kaban ng bayan, ang mga itinalagang opisyal ng gobyerno ay nagiging katanggap-tanggap dahil na rin sa nakaraang sitwasyong kahit ang manikurista’t hardinero ni Gloria ay nabibigyan ng posisyon sa gobyerno. Kung ikukumpara nga naman ang desisyon ng kasalukuyang Pangulong huwag bigyan ng anumang posisyon ng pamahalaan ang kanyang mga kamag-anak, hindi nga ba’t lumalabas na santo si Aquino?

Pero kahit na sabihing magiging matagumpay ang kampanya ng kasalukuyang administrasyon laban sa korupsyon, may makabuluhan bang pagbabago sa iba pang mahahalagang larangan?

Nakaparaming tanong sa kasalukuyan: Makakaya bang ibasura ng mga nasa kapangyarihan ang makaisang panig na mga kasunduan tulad ng US-RP Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)? Makikita kaya nilang kontra sa interes ng mamamayan ang mga globalistang pakataran tulad ng Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act at ang Electric Power Industry Reform Act na pawang nagreresulta sa pagtataas sa presyo ng langis at singil sa kuryente? Magkukusa kaya silang ibalik sa kontrol ng pamahalaan ang serbisyo ng tubig at kuryente para hindi na pagsamantalahan ng mga pribadong negosyante ang mga batayang serbisyong ito? Magkakaroon kaya ng pulitikal na kakayahan ang pamahalaang magbigay ng legislated wage hike para sa lahat ng manggagawa? Maipapatupad kaya ang tunay na repormang agraryo, kasama na ang Hacienda Luisita na pag-aari ng mga Cojuangco’t Aquino?

Alam nating lahat na imposibleng maipatupad lahat ng mga kailangang gawin sa loob ng anim na taon dahil sa patong-patong na problemang kinakaharap ng Pilipinas. Pero dapat na nakikita ng lahat ng mamamayan ang mga inisyatibang patungo sa direksyon ng makabuluhang pagbabago. At ang mga inisyatibang ito’y maaaring magmula sa direktang pahayag ng mga nasa kapangyarihan kung ano ang kanilang paninindigan. Kapansin-pansin sa kasalukuyan ang pananahimik ng Pangulo’t iba pang opisyal sa mga susing usapin ng kinakailangang pagbabago para mapaganda ang kalagayan ng nakararaming mahihirap.

Sa kontekstong ito, may sapat na dahilan para manatiling kritikal. Para sa mga taong may malalim na pag-unawa sa mga nangyayari sa lipunan, hindi nakakagulat na patuloy pa rin silang yumayakap sa kanilang paniniwala. Patuloy pa rin ang pagwagayway ng pulang bandila sa pagpapatuloy ng kultura ng protesta.

Iba man ang administrasyon, kabaligtaran man ito ng tiwaling gawi ng nakaraan, ang paninindigan nito’y patuloy pa ring nagsisilbi sa interes ng iilan. Nagbago man ang komposisyon ng mga nasa kapangyarihan, nabibilang pa rin sila sa nakatataas na uri ng lipunan. Natural lamang na ang kanilang itinataguyod ay ang interes nila. Kung mayroon mang pakinabang ang mahihirap, malamang na ito ay pabalat-bunga lamang at hindi bumabangga sa interes ng mayayaman.

Kaya nga sa kabila ng panunungkulan ng dilaw, patuloy pa rin ang pakikibaka ng pula. Iba’t ibang kulay ang tunggalian na siyang pinagmumulan ng personal na agam-agam. Ang pagsuko’y para sa napapagal,  ang pagdududa’y para sa naguguluhan, at ang pakikibaka’y para sa kasaysayan.

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

How can one prove that the culture of impunity still exists in the Philippines? Consider this: Five killings of activists in seven days, the first one on the fifth day of the new administration.

Benigno Aquino III assumed the presidency armed with a promise that he will put a stop to the killings. Less than two weeks before he was sworn in as the 15th President of the Philippines, Edwin Lacierda (who eventually became Presidential Spokesperson) said, “(Aquino’s) family has been a victim of human rights violation so it’s natural for him to ensure that the rights of everyone, especially the members of the media.”

Aquino’s promise of a “serious pursuit of justice” was done in the wake of media killings last month which left a carnage of three dead in just five days. In a statement, 32 professors, 14 staff, the college student council and 14 college-based student organizations of the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication (UP CMC) made this analysis: “That three journalists were killed in one week is by itself sufficient evidence that the outgoing Macapagal-Arroyo administration has utterly failed to provide an atmosphere conducive to a free press. Even if there is no evidence to prove that any high-ranking government official actually pulled the trigger and consequently killed journalists Desidario Camangyan (June 14), Joselito Agustin (June 15) and Nestor Bedolido (June 19), the Macapagal-Arroyo administration remains accountable for the killings since 2001.” (Disclosure: The author is a signatory to the statement.)

As regards the recently slain activists, the culture of impunity is also apparent due to the brazen manner in which the murders were carried out.

According to a news report, “A lone gunman repeatedly shot (Fernando) Baldomero, (61), early morning of July 5 in front of his residence in the capital town of Kalibo in Aklan as he was about to take his 12-year-old son to school. The gunman fled on board a motorcycle driven by an accomplice.”

The same case applies to the second murder that happened last July 9, as a report states, “Pascual Guevarra, 78, head of the local Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (Arba) and Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid na Nagkakaisa 3100 (Almana 3100), died from bullet wounds in the chest.His grandson, Ronnel Viloria, 18, tried to help his grandfather but the gunman shot and wounded him, said Senior Insp. Almario Evaristo, the town police chief.”

Preliminary reports from reliable sources on the murder of the third activist show the same pattern: “On July 9, armed bonnet-wearing men killed Mark Francisco, (27), of ACT Teachers Partylist in Sitio Umawas, Brgy. Malabas, Palanas, Masbate.”

According to another news report, Francisco was not the only supporter of ACT Teachers Partylist who died on that day: “Edgar Fernandez, 44, another public school teacher from Barangay Central, Masbate City, Masbate, was shot dead by unidentified men on his way home…Fernandez and a co-teacher, both riding a motorcycle, were fired at by an unidentified man. Fernandez died immediately but his co-teacher survived with a bullet wound.”

And just last July 12, Josephine Estacio, 42, another member of ACT Teachers Partylist, was killed. According to a preliminary report, “(U)nidentified motorcycle-riding men shot dead…Estacio…shortly before the start of classes in Tenejero Elementary School. (She) died on the spot after she was shot at 6:45 a.m. in Tenejero village in Balanga City in Bataan.

Baldomero was provincial chair of Bayan Muna (People First) Partylist in Aklan. Guevarra, on the other hand, was chair of the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association and Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid na Nagkakaisa 3100 (Almana 3100) and worked closely with the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP, Peasant Movement of the Philippines). Francisco, Fernandez and Estacio, meanwhile, were affiliated with ACT Teachers Partylist which won a seat in Congress, just like Bayan Muna and AnakPawis (Toiling Masses), the latter being supported by the KMP.

As if the five murders were not enough, there was also news that a journalist was “wounded when two unidentified men shot him in Nabua, Camarines Sur” last July 9. The report continues: “Miguel Belen, 48, was shot by two unidentified gunmen in Barangay San Jose at around 8:45 p.m…The victim was on a motorcycle and was tailed by his attackers, who were also riding a motorcycle…Belen was returning home from work as a field reporter of the dwEB-FM radio station of Filipinas Broadcasting Network based in Nabua. The shooting took place in a secluded part of San Jose, just three kilometers from the town proper…Belen sustained gunshot wounds in the neck and torso and remained in critical condition at the Doña Josefa Hospital in nearby Iriga City.”

Belen’s case highlights the fact that media killings are indeed the highest form of censorship in the country. In the same vein, the killings of activists serve as a way to permanently silence dissent. For the journalists and activists left behind, the murders provide a chilling effect and give a stark reminder of what would happen if they continue to be critical of the powers-that-be.

It is ironic that the murders continue and that the mayhem persists. To quote from the UP CMC statement, there is indeed a need to be vigilant of the future as “the culture of impunity knows no administrations as the violence knows no bounds.”

A student from the Ateneo de Manila University asked me 10 questions on media coverage in war-torn areas. Please find below my answers.

What is the importance of media coverage in war-torn areas?

Aside from providing the necessary information to the public, media could serve as a deterrent to abuses that are wont to be committed by groups that are at war. Theoretically, non-combatants are assured of their safety and prisoners of war (POWs) are treated more humanely if the parties concerned are made aware of media’s presence.

What are the roles fulfilled by war journalists?

At a time of war, journalists should still practice accuracy, objectivity and fairness in their reportage. They should, at the same time, exercise extreme caution in going about their work. In particular, they should know when to pull out if ever the situation becomes too volatile or the group they are covering suddenly becomes extremely hostile to their presence. They should remember the age-old saying in journalism that “no story is worth dying for.”

Do you think media coverage in such areas should be restricted? Why?

Restrictions in media coverage are acceptable only if the authorities and journalists agree that media presence could jeopardize an operation and unnecessarily endanger the lives of combatants and non-combatants. Despite their duty to cover the war, journalists cannot allow themselves to be part of the news, as in the case of ending up, albeit unwittingly, as “human shields” or, most likely willingly, as “negotiators” during a standoff, for instance.

Do you think censorship conceals the truth? How come?

Censorship is unacceptable even if media organizations should maintain the highest professional and ethical standards. The truth should be reported, keeping in mind that journalists must remain critical of the official statements they get. They must always compare what they get from sources with what they observe on the ground.

Is it the public’s right to be able to view the reallity of the war through media? Why?

The public has the right to be informed, especially during a time of war. It is understandable for media organizations to sometimes fail in the delivery of news due to circumstances beyond their control. But they should try their best to get their message across, even if delayed.

How is society affected by the media coverage of war?

Media play a pivotal role in the public’s perception of the war, which is why they should be able to explain the context in a manner that is comprehensive and understandable. They cannot afford to give a “sports-like” coverage of the war where people become preoccupied with “who’s winning” and the “latest score” of casualties and injuries.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of media coverage in war-torn areas?

I cannot think of any disadvantages of media coverage in war-torn areas given media’s role in the shaping of public opinion. Media, in this context, should be allowed to fulfill their obligation to the people.

How can the release of graphic images in war be an eye-opener to society?

Images and footage of war provide evidence of what is being claimed and may also be used to expose the lies of so-called spin doctors who have their own agenda in projecting the war to suit certain interests.

What do journalists get from covering the news in times of conflict?

Journalists get the opportunity to fulfill their obligation in providing timely and relevant information. They put their lives on the line just to ensure that the people know what they need to know.

How can journalists become unbiased and professional toward the issue they are reporting?

Journalists need to have a firm grasp of the professional and ethical standards. They could get it through extensive training, meticulous reading and intensive practice.

The rage is very understandable as the act is obviously condemnable.

That three journalists were killed in one week is by itself sufficient evidence that the outgoing Macapagal-Arroyo administration has utterly failed to provide an atmosphere conducive to a free press. Even if there is no evidence to prove that any high-ranking government official actually pulled the trigger and consequently killed journalists Desidario Camangyan (June 14), Joselito Agustin (June 15) and Nestor Bedolido (June 19), the Macapagal-Arroyo administration remains accountable for the killings since 2001.

That there are now 104 journalists killed from 2001 to the present only shows the magnitude of impunity that characterizes the Macapagal-Arroyo administration. It also proves the conclusion of many local and international media and human rights that the powers-that-be are indeed hostile to press freedom.

As in the past, the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication (UP CMC) joins the local and international media community in condemning this recent spate of violence, and stands in solidarity with all like-minded individuals and organizations in calling for an end to the violence against media.

No words can describe the anger brought about by the manner in which the three journalists were killed. Camangyan was shot dead by an assassin as he emceed a singing contest. Agustin, on the other hand, was shot at least four times while on his way home. Bedolido, meanwhile, was buying a cigarette when he was shot. As regards Bedolido’s murder, a police officer was quoted as saying that the assassin just “casually walked into a waiting motorcycle driven by another unidentified man.”

The treachery is very apparent, and images of the aftermath of the Maguindanao massacre last November 23 which left a carnage of at least 57 deaths, including that of 32 journalists, come to mind. The violence against media is by itself condemnable based on two factors: (1) the sheer number of deaths under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration – an average of one killing every month from 2001 to 2010 – and; (2) the manner in which the killings were carried out, usually either in broad daylight or in full view of witnesses.

Then again, the anger and condemnation intensify as one remembers the thousands of activists who have fallen prey to the culture of impunity. According to human rights group Karapatan, the victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances from January 21, 2001 to March 31, 2010 numbered 1,190 and 205, respectively.

Aside from that, there are countless other incidences of human rights violations, as in the case of the arrested health workers known as the Morong 43 who continue to be detained under questionable circumstances. The UP CMC considers itself directly involved in the issue and lends its voice to the cry for justice. One of the 43 health workers arrested, Ms. Jaqueline M. Gonzales, was a UP CMC student and she was even elected chair of the CMC Student Council during Academic Year 2004-2005.

In this context, and on the occasion of the 7th month of the Ampatuan massacre on June 23, the UP CMC denounces not only the ongoing violence against media but also the continuing violations of people’s rights. Much as the UP CMC considers as a political victory the rejection of most of the allies of the Macapagal-Arroyo in the recently concluded elections, the College remains vigilant of the future. The culture of impunity, after all, knows no administrations as the violence knows no bounds.

Dr. Roland Tolentino, Dean
Prof. Luis Teodoro, Former Dean
Dr. Georgina Encanto, Former Dean
Dr. Elena Pernia, Former Dean and Chair, Department of Communication Research

College Executive Board

1. Dr. Lourdes Portus, College Secretary
2. Prof. Rosa Maria Feliciano, Chair, Department of Broadcast Communication
3. Prof. Marichu Lambino, Chair, Department of Journalism
4. Dr. Jose Lacson, Jr., Chair, Department of Graduate Studies

Full-time Faculty Members

1. Prof. Danilo Arao
2. Prof. Libay Linsangan Cantor
3. Prof. Yvonne Chua
4. Ms. Roxanne Girlie Cipriano
5. Dr. Ma. Lourdes De Ocampo
6. Prof. Alfonso Deza
7. Dr. Elizabeth Enriquez
8. Dr. Eulalio Guieb III
9. Prof. Roehl Jamon
10. Prof. Ma. Theresa Jazmines
11. Mr. Cenon Palomares
12. Prof. Juno Paruñgao
13. Prof. Ma. Cristina Rara
14. Prof. Josefina Santos
15. Ms. Lourdes Simbulan
16. Prof. Randy Jay Solis
17. Ms. Lucia Tangi

Lecturers

1. Ms. Eleanor Agulto
2. Ms. Marinela Aseron
3. Mr. Nick Deocampo
4. Ms. Melba Estonilo
5. Prof. Ma. Yumina Francisco
6. Ms. Lisa Carmelita Justiniani
7. Ma. Amor Olaguer

Staff

1. Gina Villegas, Administrative Officer
2. Raquelita Bacarra
3. Irene Balucos
4. Jonathan Beldia
5. Fernando Borjal
6. Marianita Cinco
7. Clarissa Concepcion
8. Armando Hirao
9. Luz Ileto
10. Janette Pamaylaon
11. Romy Perdigon
12. Teresita Santos
13. Jamela Tolentino
14. Berinice Zamora

CMC-Based Student Organizations

1. UP-CMC Student Council
2. DZUP Radio Circle
3. Interdependent Student-Centered Activism
4. PR and Advertising Society
5. Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP-CMC
6. Union of Journalists of the Philippines-UP
7. UP Broadcasters’ Guild
8. UP Cast
9. UP Cineastes’ Studio
10. UP Cinema
11. UP CommResSoc
12. UP Journalism Club
13. UP Mass Communicators Organization
14. UP Samaskom
15. UP-CMC Broadcasting Association

Students of communication, media and journalism should properly contextualize the unabated media killings in the Philippines.

While they should know the facts surrounding the murder of three journalists in June 14, 15 and 19, they should also make sense of the statistics regarding media killings from 1986 to the present.

For those who are not familiar with Philippine history, the year 1986 is used as a reference point because the restoration of democracy happened in February of that year when the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted through a people’s uprising (popularly known as EDSA 1 as the mass action happened along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue).

In a June 20 statement, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) said, “The murder of Nestor Bedolido of the weekly Kastigador in Digos City, Davao del Sur, on Saturday night brings to 140 the number of journalists and media workers killed since 1986, 103 of them under the Arroyo administration alone.”

This simply means that in the past 24 years, one journalist was killed once every two months. But if we were to analyze the media killings from the start of the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2001, it would appear that, on the average, one journalist was murdered monthly.

To paraphrase an old saying, however, numbers tend to numb. In this case, one is led to think that three journalists killed in less than a week is irrelevant or a non-issue especially when comparing the sheer number of journalists killed in the November 23 massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao. The massacre, after all, resulted in the death of 57 people, including 32 journalists. Judging by the numbers alone, recent media killings are wont to pale in comparison to this single act of violence.

The statistics therefore provide only a dimension of analyzing the issue of media killings. Equally important is knowing the manner in which the murder was carried out. Based on various news reports, it appears that Desidario Camangyan was shot dead last June 14 by an assassin as he emceed a singing contest. Joselito Agustin was shot at least four times last June 15 while on his way home. Bedolido, meanwhile, was buying a cigarette when he was shot last June 19. As regards Bedolido’s murder, a police officer was quoted as saying that the assassin just “casually walked into a waiting motorcycle driven by another unidentified man.”

The impunity becomes apparent as all of these murders happened in full view of witnesses. Those behind the murders apparently wield so much power and influence that they could get away with such heinous crimes. It is in this context that the term “culture of impunity” is used to describe the Philippine socio-political situation that allows such crimes to happen.

It must also be stressed that media killings should also be analyzed in relation to the human rights situation in the Philippines. The rise in media killings is reflective of the high incidence of human rights violations. Data from the human rights group Karapatan show that from 2001 to 2010, the number of extra-judicial killings reached 1,190; and  the number of enforced disappearances, 205.

This means that for a period of nine years under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration, an average of 132 activists were killed every year. Those who disappeared, on the other hand, reached about 23 annually.

It is interesting to note that an activist was also murdered on the same day (June 14) that Camangyan was killed. In a June 16 statement, the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan, or New Patriotic Alliance) stressed, “Last June 14, a member of Bayan Muna and Karapatan, Benjamin Bayless, was shot dead in Barangay Suay, Himamaylan City, in Negros Occidental. Last May 19, Jim Galez, a member of the regional secretariat of partylist group Bayan Muna was shot while was driving his motorcycle on the road to Barangay Little Panay in Panabo City in Davao.”

One cannot therefore assume that media killings are isolated incidences because they happen in the larger context of wanton human rights violations. That the Macapagal-Arroyo administration is being held responsible for the killings should be seen in the context of its failure to bring to justice those who are responsible for the crimes.

As the nation commemorates the 7th month of the Ampatuan massacre on June 23, it comes as no surprise that media and human rights groups will once again take the issue to the streets to remind the public of the impunity that needs to end, as well as to remind the powers-that-be of the blood they have in their hands.

Alam ko. Huli na ang lahat para itanong kung sino ang binoto mo para Senador. Naiproklama na ang 12 nanalo at hindi kasama sa mga ito ang dalawang pangunahing personahe ng progresibong kilusan – sina Liza Maza at Satur Ocampo.

Inasahan mo ba ang kanilang pagkapanalo? Nalulungkot ka ba sa nangyari? Kung nangampanya ka para sa kanilang dalawa, nanghihinayang ka ba sa lahat ng pinaghirapan mo?

Kung naaalala mo pa ang unang pagsabak sa pulitika nina Maza at Ocampo bilang party-list representatives noong 2001, mapapabilib ka sa puwersang ipinakita ng grupo nilang Bayan Muna (BM). Sa una nitong pagsabak sa party-list election, nanguna ito sa 162 grupong tumakbo. Batay sa ulat ng Commission on Elections (COMELEC), nakakuha ito ng 1,708,253 boto o 11.30 porsiyento ng kabuuang boto para sa party-list. Sobra-sobra ang boto ng BM sa anim na porsiyentong kailangan para makuha ang maksimum na tatlong upuan sa House of Representatives (HOR).

Sa sumunod na party-list election noong 2004, nagdesisyon ang mga progresibong grupong subuking makaupo sa HOR ang iba pang sektor bukod sa BM – kababaihan (Gabriela Women’s Party o GWP), manggagawa’t magsasaka (AnakPawis o AP), kabataan (Anak ng Bayan), migrante (Migrante Sectoral Party) at ang mga Muslim (Suara Bangsamoro).

Sa kabila ng kabiguan ng Anak ng Bayan, Suara Bangsamoro at Migrante na makakuha ng minimum na dalawang porsiyento ng kabuuang boto sa party-list para makakuha ng kahit isang upuan lang noong 2004, ang pinagsamang boto ng anim na progresibong party-list group ay umabot ng 2,694,356 (o 57.72 porsiyentong pagtaas kumpara sa 2001). At kahit na sabihing medyo bumaba ang boto ng BM sa 1.2 milyon noong 2004, napanatili pa rin nito ang pangunguna sa 66 na party-list group na tumakbo noon.

Pero ang nakakabilib sa masa ay nakakabahala para sa iba. Mula nang manungkulan bilang Pangulo si Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo noong 2001, naging biktima ng paglabag sa karapatang pantao ang maraming miyembro ng BM at iba pang progresibong party-list groups.

Ayon sa datos ng Karapatan, may 142 miyembro ng BM na pinatay at 12 naman ang dinukot mula Enero 21, 2001 hanggang Marso 31, 2010. Sa kaso naman ng AP, 49 ang naitalang pinatay at pito ang dinukot. Samantala, dalawang miyembro ng GWP at Kabataan Partylist ang pinatay noong panahong iyon. Sa hanay ng Suara Bangsamoro, dalawa ang pinatay at dalawa rin ang dinukot. Bagama’t walang pinatay sa hanay ng Anak ng Bayan, isa naman sa miyembro nito ay nawawala pa rin hanggang sa kasalukuyan.

Sa gitna ng intimidasyon, pinili ng mga progresibong party-list group na ipagpatuloy ang pagtakbo noong 2007 at nitong nakaraang eleksiyon. Kahit na maraming pinatay sa hanay nila, nakaya pa rin nilang makakuha ng mga upuan sa HOR. Pero kapansin-pansin noong 2007 ang pagbaba sa kabuuang boto para sa kanila nang 14.1 porsiyento.

Kung susuriin ang estadistika nitong nakaraang eleksiyon, medyo nakabawi ang mga progresibong party-list group na nagtatag ng koalisyong Makabayang Koalisyon ng Mamamayan (Makabayan) bago ang aktuwal na kampanya. Batay sa partial at hindi-opisyal na bilang ng GMA 7, umabot nang 2,879,800 boto ang nakuha ng anim na miyembrong organisasyon ng Makabayan. Maliban sa Katribu, ang lima sa kanila ay tinatayang makakakuha ng upuan sa HOR. (Tingnan ang Talahanayan)

Sa unang pagkakataon, sinubukan ng BM na lumahok sa senatorial election sa pamamagitan ng pagpapatakbo kay Ocampo. Si Maza naman ay tumakbo bilang independent. Kontra sa paniniwalang naging miyembro sila ng Nacionalista Party (NP), kailangang linawing guest candidates lang sila ng nasabing partido.

Dahil sa limitadong pondo, hindi nila nakuha ang sapat na boto para mapabilang sa 12 nagwagi. Sina Maza at Ocampo ay nasa ika-25 at ika-26 na puwesto. Ang kanilang botong halos apat na milyon lang (batay sa partial at hindi-opisyal na bilang ng GMA 7) ay hindi sapat para maabot ang boto ng mga nagwagi na umabot nang mahigit siyam na milyong boto. Ang nangunang si Sen. Ramon Revilla, Jr., halimbawa, ay nakakuha ng 17.8 milyong boto! Sa aking palagay, walang masyadong naitulong ang pagiging guest candidates ng NP dahil hindi rin nakapagbigay ng sapat na boto ang huli para kina Maza at Ocampo.

Lumalabas sa mga datos na kakaiba ang sitwasyon nina Maza at Ocampo kumpara sa ibang kandidato ng mga nangungunang partido. Ang bulto ng kanilang boto (na halos tatlong milyon) ay mula sa mga organisadong progresibong grupo. Batay sa naging karanasan mula 2001, sapat ang mga boto para makakuha ng mga upuan sa HOR, pero malayo pa ang kailangang habulin para sa isang pambansang labanan.

Nakapanghihinayang man para sa maraming aktibista ang hindi nila pagkakahalal sa Senado, hindi pa rin sayang ang pinagpaguran dahil maraming makukuhang aral mula sa mga hirap na pinagdaanan.

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

Analyzing the statistics of the 2007 and 2010 party-list election, there is reason for the Philippine government and other anti-communist elements to highlight the so-called dismal performance of erstwhile 2004 topnotcher Bayan Muna (BM) in the last party-list election.

One cannot deny the fact that BM’s 695,283 votes in the recent election (based on a partial, unofficial count of more than 90 percent of election returns) is much lower than its 979,189 votes in the 2007 election. Not surprisingly, its ranking fell from 2nd in 2007 to 7th in 2010.

The president and first nominee of Ako Bicol Political Party, the current party-list topnotcher which got about 1.4 million votes, sums it all up: “Filipino voters are tired of their militant style of `all talk, all shout, no work’ politics.”

How does one make sense of election-related statistics? First, it must be kept in mind that BM is just one of the eight party-list groups that are classified as progressive, or which political analysts refer to as the “nationalist-democratic” bloc in the party-list race. These groups currently belong to a coalition called the Makabayang Koalisyon ng Mamamayan (Makabayan; loose translation: Nationalist Coalition of the People).

Of the eight member-organizations of Makabayan, six participated in the 2010 party-list election. Two of them, ACT Teachers Partylist and Katribu, were first-time entrants. Comparing the 2007 and 2010 data of the four member-organizations, one notices that only BM had a decrease in votes while the rest had increases ranging from 11.3 percent to 70.1 percent. (See Table)

Given that there are 57 seats available in the 15th Congress, Gabriela Women’s Party (GWP), BM, AnakPawis (Toiling Masses), Kabataan (Youth) and ACT Teachers are assured of at least one seat each in the House of Representatives (HOR). It is unlikely at this point for Katribu Indigenous People’s Sectoral Party to land in the top 50. Whether or not GWP and BM will have one or two more seats will depend on the final tally of total votes cast for the party-list election.

What is important in the April 2009 Supreme Court ruling is that the 57 seats must be filled up to ensure representation of marginalized groups in the HOR. This means that the old system of requiring party-list groups to get at least two percent of total votes cast for the party-list election is not anymore applicable.

That the votes of Makabayan-affiliated party-list groups increased by 680,322 may be disappointing for its supporters, but this may also be seen as an achievement by itself. These groups have been the subject of black propaganda in the recent election. There were also various forms of harassment and intimidation during the campaign. The previous years also saw the political persecution of their officers, staff and supporters, resulting in the deaths, disappearances and other forms of human rights violations of many of them, particulaly those belonging to BM.

The so-called dismal performance of BM should therefore be analyzed in the context of the political persecution progressive organizations are currently going through.

The other angle worth looking at is the credibility of the recently held automated elections as allegations of fraud are now beginning to surface. Officials of Katribu, for example, reported that voters in one province were given pre-shaded ballots, preventing their supporters from voting for Katribu. Perhaps this could explain the latter’s votes of only more than 100,000.

Clearly, the powers-that-be can always claim that the progressive groups are losing the support of the people, but the statistics would show otherwise. Despite the political persecution, they remain a strong player in Philippine politics.

Three journalists from the Philippines, Indonesia and Myanmar emailed a few questions about the media situation in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Allow me to share my answers.

What is the overall media situation in the Philippines?

There exists a culture of impunity in the Philippines which gives rise to the killings and other forms of harassment and intimidation of journalists. Aside from extrajudicial killings, the government tries to creatively interpret laws like libel to silence dissent. Some legislators have also tried to introduce laws that suppress media like the so-called “right of reply” which essentially compromises editorial independence in the choice of what to publish or air.

The media situation remains bad. Recently, a journalist (Marites Vitug) received a death threat for a book she wrote about the Supreme Court. A government agency (Movie and Television Review and Classification Board) gave an X rating to two films that analyze poverty in the country and is critical of government policies. The details may be found in the recent statement I wrote titled “Resist the Arroyo-fication of media, culture and the arts.”

How did Philippines media report the Ampatuan massacre which claimed the lives of 58 people, including 32 journalists last November 23?

We saw the complementation of social networking sites (e.g., Twitter, Facebook) with media organizations on the day that the massacre happened as the initial information came from some concerned citizens who were not professional journalists. The days that followed showed interest in the massacre. There were efforts to sustain coverage with the establishment of the November 23 Movement consisting of both mainstream and alternative media, not to mention the activities that were held every 23rd of the month so that people would not forget. Unfortunately, the interest was unfortunately waning as the massacre took its 100th day last March 3. It is hoped that we will not forget about what happened and still fight for justice. Right now, our responsibility is not just to cover events but to also be part of the struggle to end the culture of impunity.

What is the situation of the ASEAN media?

The ASEAN press is as varied as the history, culture, and economic situation of its 10 member-countries. Based on press freedom data from the US-based Freedom House, the ASEAN press may be classified as “Not Free” because the political, legal and economic environments are not conducive to the practice of the journalism profession.

ASEAN journalists are generally repressed. Censorship comes in various forms and may be directly or indirectly done by the governments. The killing of journalists is the highest form of censorship, a situation that happens mainly in the Philippines though Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand had their share of media killings from 1992 to 2009, based on data from the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

You’ve met some journalists from Myanmar. What is your impression of them?

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting young journalists from Myanmar who are dedicated to the responsible practice of the profession. They are also very eager to know the experience of other journalists. If and when they become gatekeepers of information (i.e., as editors or station managers of their media organizations), they could make a difference in professionalizing the media in Myanmar by helping raise the standards of journalism there. It is also hoped that they would also help in fighting for press freedom in Myanmar.

What are the responsibilities of journalists when the political situation becomes volatile, as in the case of Myanmar and the Philippines?

The media help in the shaping of public opinion mainly through their news and public affairs programs. They serve as the people’s main sources of information in making sound decisions. Journalists must therefore engage in truth-telling at all times. Any changes in the political situation must be reported objectively and fairly as the people deserve nothing less. Their analyses of issues must be based not on hearsay but on facts. They should report in a sober manner and not let their emotions get in the way of the presentation of the issues.

Resist the `Arroyo-fication’ of media, arts and culture:
UP CMC calls on candidates to present Media Agenda

The undersigned faculty members of the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication (UP CMC) view with grave concern what they describe to be the “Arroyo-fication” of media, arts and culture.

Despite government claims that there is nothing irregular with the spate of political appointments which include key positions in the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), National Historical Institute (NHI) and the National Museum (NM), it cannot be denied that most of them are closely identified with the Macapagal-Arroyo administration.

If the latter is sincere in promoting media, culture and the arts, the new political appointments, if indeed necessary, should be based on merit, not political patronage or affiliation.

In the case of the CCP, the five board members who were replaced – Jaime Laya, Nes Jardin, Behn Cervantes, Tessie Luz and Lorna Kapunan – opposed last year the inclusion in the Order of National Artist of Cecile Guidote-Alvarez and Carlo J. Caparas, both of whom are close to the government. That the new CCP board appointees recently tried but failed to oust CCP Chair Emily Abrera shows the intention of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration to use influential positions in culture and the arts to get even with its critics.

Television and film’s vulnerability to the dictates of the powers-that-be becomes more apparent with the recent decision of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) to give an “X (Not for Public Viewing)” rating to two films by award-winning directors scheduled to be shown in ABS-CBN News Channel’s (ANC) AmBisyon 2010.

Even if the MTRCB later changed to “R (Restricted)” its X rating of Brillante Mendoza’s Ayos Ka, the board maintained its “X” rating of Jeffrey Jeturian’s Ganito Tayo Ngayon, Paano na Tayo Bukas? Both films analyze the realities of poverty in the Philippines, the manner of which the MTRCB deems to “undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government” and “defamatory to the good name and reputations of any person.” When the MTRCB reviewed Jeturian’s film the second time, it added that his work “tends to threaten economic and political stability of the state” and “depicts excretory functions in a patently offensive and demeaning manner.”

The “Arroyo-fication” may be seen in the brazen attempts of MTRCB to promote on television and film only one point of view in depicting social realities – that of the government. Anything that toes the line, as in the case of Mendoza and Jeturian, is simply unacceptable to the powers-that-be.

Despite the change in the rating of Mendoza’s work, both films still cannot be shown on television as the MTRCB requires a G (General Patronage) or PG (Parental Guidance) rating.

Even if the word “censorship” cannot be found in Presidential Decree No. 1986 and in MTRCB’s Implementing Rules and Regulations, what the board is doing is exactly that: Making impositions on what is acceptable to the public, even on the discussion and analysis of social issues.

When the MTRCB was established in 1985, it was meant to be a temporary body to help facilitate self-regulation on television and film. Now in its 25th year, its transitional nature has apparently become permanent.

The death threats via text message recently received by journalist Marites Vitug as a result of her book about the Supreme Court (Shadow of Doubt) show a different permutation of “Arroyo-fication,” that of the culture of impunity that emboldens some sectors to harass, intimidate and even kill media practitioners who dare expose the truth. Vitug made the right decision to publicly expose the death threat she received. Just like other media groups, the UP CMC condemns this development and calls on the government to end the culture of impunity that gives rise to such assault on press freedom.

On the occasion of the May 10 national and local elections, the UP CMC calls on the candidates to present a clear Media Agenda which includes a program for self-regulation in the media. They should clearly state where they stand on the continued existence of the MTRCB and how it is used as an instrument to muzzle freedom of expression on television and film. More specifically, they should state how justice can be attained for the victims of the November 23 Ampatuan massacre where 32 journalists were killed, as well as how they could help end the unabated media killings.

While it is laudable for some candidates to denounce the so-called midnight appointments in the culture and arts-related bodies, they should present once and for all a clear Media Agenda. Voters should know who among the current candidates are the advocates of freedom of expression and are opposed to the “Arroyo-fication” of media, arts and culture.

Lastly, the UP CMC joins the other concerned Filipino people in maintaining vigilance and the days, weeks and months to come as there are signs that Macapagal-Arroyo plans to exert power and influence even beyond the expiration of her term as President. Such moves do not just threaten freedom of the press and of expression but also the people’s other basic freedoms.

Initial signatories:

Dr. Roland Tolentino, Dean
Dr. Lourdes Portus, College Secretary
Prof. Danilo Arao, Department of Journalism

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.