N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (Feb. 22, 10:17 p.m.) where I write a weekly column (Philippine Fantasy).

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.