MANILA, Philippines—Malacañang on Tuesday criticized as “unfair” a report from a New York-based media watchdog listing the Philippines as among the world’s most dangerous places for journalists due to many unresolved murders since 1998.
At least 24 killings of Filipino journalists have remained unresolved since 1998, said the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The CPJ called on the government to prosecute and punish those behind the murders.
In its latest “Impunity Index” report, the CPJ ranked the Philippines No. 6 in a list of 14 countries with high numbers of unresolved killings of journalists against the size of the population.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said it was not true the government had ignored these killings in the country, saying 26 of 31 cases were now either being tried in lower courts or under prosecutors’ review.
“We view with discomfort the manner the Philippines is once again put in a bad light on its commitment on the promotion and protection of human rights,” Ermita told reporters.
“The allegation by the CPJ is an unfair depiction of what is happening based on measures that are inadequate. These incidents have all been properly attended to.”
No quick convictions
The retired military general said at least four people had been convicted and 26 others were facing charges for the murder of at least 31 Filipino journalists since 2001.
“The low conviction rate has been misconstrued as a slack in the country’s justice system. This is a misconception because we always conform to the rule of law. The government will not force quick convictions simply for the sake of announcing achievements,” Ermita said.
The CPJ said it was standing firm on its “impunity index” because the data-based report “belies the claim of an exaggeration.”
RP peacetime democracy
“What is striking is that the Philippines is one of the only countries in the top half of this list that is a stable and a peacetime democracy,” the CPJ said.
Iraq, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Sri Lanka remained at the top of the list, but these states are virtually in a state of war, the CPJ added.
Local media groups said about 78 to 100 of more than 130 journalists killed since 1986 died while doing their job. Only five of those cases led to the conviction of gunmen—but not to any alleged mastermind.
In a statement Tuesday, a mission from the Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) that visited the country on March 21-24 expressed fears that the killings of media people in the Philippines could spread to other countries in the region.
“We believe that the culture of impunity that is deeply rooted in the Philippines could be replicated in other countries in the region unless there is a common effort to dismantle it in the Philippines,” the group said.
SEAPA noted an increase in violence against journalists and media workers in Malaysia and Thailand last year. This includes harassment, mob attacks on journalists and media premises, killings and legal sanctions to suppress free expression.
The alliance also feared an escalation of the killings of media people in the Philippines as the 2010 election nears.
SEAPA called on President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo “to take the steps necessary to prevent that unfortunate development.” With reports from Alcuin Papa and Reuters
WHEN a senator or representative delivers a libelous accusation against another person, he incurs no liability because of his parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate within the halls of Congress. The usual recourse of the supposed victim is to challenge his detractor to repeat his charges outside the legislature so they can be litigated before a court of justice.
If the solon does not respond, the public will conclude that his charges are true except that he does not have the evidence to prove them. That is in fact the reason for his parliamentary immunity. But if he decides to accept his target’s demand, he then allows himself, at his own risk, to be subject to judicial action. If he is unable to prove his accusations, he will then be liable for civil damages or imprisonment and/or fine; otherwise, he will have established the truth of his remarks.
Sen. Claro M. Recto successfully employed this device to remove a high government official during the administration of President Elpidio Quirino. Not that it would have done him any good, but that person did not have the facility offered by the right to reply bill recently passed by the Senate. President Macapagal-Arroyo has already threatened to veto it although it has not yet even been approved by Congress.
Under this bill, any person attacked by the media, through the press, television or radio, is given the right to reply, in the same medium and with equal prominence, to deny or explain his side. The purpose is to enable him to refute the effects of the accusation upon his name, good or bad. The trouble is that this opportunity would normally be barred at the present time, given the power of the press over easily cowed judges and the expenses and other inconveniences of litigation.
The result, it is argued, would leave the accusation unpunished and the reputation of the innocent subject tarnished for lack of denial or explanation. In many cases, the barrel of the gun is the final answer against the accusing journalist, who is presumed by the bill as biased and with an evil motive when in fact his only purpose was to expose the wrong and reveal the truth.
In my view, the presumption of the bill is that all adverse criticism of any person, especially public officials who are often the object of journalistic attacks, is per se untrue and motivated by evil designs. This is unfair. It debases freedom of expression itself that Justice Sutherland described as “one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves.”
The bill dishonors the great writers who came to be known during the French Revolution as the Fourth Estate for their powerful influence in opposing the decadent aristocracy. It is an insult to our own freedom of expression that sustained our struggles to be free with the fiery words of Rizal, Plaridel, Lopez Jaena, Jacinto, Mabini and other heroes of our race. They did not need a right to reply bill to moderate their courage against the foreign invaders.
It is true that there are so-called journalists in this noble profession who would pollute it with their tabloid career of blackmail and extortion. But they constitute only a small percentage of its worthy membership. The great majority of its practitioners are dedicated to the pursuit of truth as their only goal even at the risk of their safety and the cost of their lives. Their accusations serve as a useful warning to the public against the persons they criticize and their suspiciously illicit operations.
The press should be given its full measure of encouragement and freedom in the dissemination of “matters that touch the heart of the existing order.” If vital news is suppressed to accommodate a senseless defense from the offended party, this will intrude not only upon the media’s editorial policies but also on their property rights to the space they have to reserve for the required statutory reply. This may placate the private person’s ego but not the general public that paid for but will not receive the needed but excluded information.
There should always be a proper balance between private rights and the public interest. It is true that under the Bill of Rights, the lone individual should be regarded as a majority of one against the entire, united nation. But in the case before us, it is hard to sustain this questionable right against freedom of expression—“at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright consummate flower of all liberty”—as a correct exercise of the police power of the State.
Fortunately, the proposal is still only a bill and has yet to be debated in the House of Representatives where it is likely to be scrutinized and rejected if only because it is the approved act of its traditional rival and frequent antagonist. Even if the measure should also pass there, there is still the final deliberation of the conference committee on the still unresolved differences between the two chambers that may yet kill the controversial measure.
And, yes, even if the bill should reach Malacañang, remember that President Arroyo has already announced she would veto it. The only hitch is that she also promised in 2003 that she would not run in the 2004 presidential election but did.
FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa Updated March 08, 2009 12:00 AM
All the talk on the right of reply is focused on its “attack on freedom of the press”. At first glance, it seems a conflict between politicians and journalists. But dig deeper, and you will find other issues. It is not black and white but with many colors.
Something is amiss. Just as important, if not more important, are different players like poorly paid journalists (one of the lowest in the region), the owners of the media (media oligarchs) in which they write and broadcast, and politicians aspiring for power and just as avaricious. It looks more like a mélange of interests elbowing for advantage.
They tell the same story of how democracy operates on the ground. It is certainly not black or white. Neither is it between freedom vs. responsibility of the press. It is my opinion that the debate on right of reply goes beyond all this. There are factors that may not be obvious to the naked eye or to the conformist mind but are as relevant, if not more relevant than the issue of freedom vs. responsibility of the press that others make it out to be.
Did the leaders of Congress have any choice but to back down from further discussing and approving the Right of Reply bill? If they did not they might have to swallow more than they bargained for. Better to stay on the side of “the prudence of conformity” than face the substantial problem at stake. It’s a cop-out.
* * *
Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia announced to media that the RORB has been overtaken by events. What events? “Congressmen don’t want to touch it, it’s now frozen.” See what I mean? There will be no plenary in the House even if the Senate has already approved the bill. By all means consult with media groups, that’s part of the democratic debate.
On the other hand Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., the bill’s principal author, says he’s open to compromise to make it more acceptable to media. “It’s balancing the freedom of the press with the right of the people to defend themselves,” he said.
As for journalists carrying their protests in the streets. (Ok din yon! ) Whenever I have a chance I tell colleagues that in a trip to South Korea I asked journalists how much they were paid. I was told that their pay follows the rate in other industries. Maybe that is where members of media can focus their efforts — that they get better paid commensurate to their ability and the risks they take.
This perspective will reveal another player in this conflict of interests that has remain unscathed despite the damage it has caused to our country’s nation-building. That player is called big business with the money and clout to use media to advance or protect their interests.
Flawed media in the Philippines has not gone unnoticed by other countries in the region. Moreover irresponsible media, unlike corruption in government has escaped blame precisely because freedom of the press is invoked whenever it is called into question.
Yet few will deny that the same freedom of the press can be a licentious corporate tool and one of the reasons why the Philippines is unable to match the progress in other countries in the region. “Freedom of the press” covers a multitude of sins, one of them is how it has brought about a weak state in the Philippines.
Media oligarchs use “freedom of the press” to block reforms or worse attempt to bring down governments if these go against their interests. Big businesses look to owning a newspaper, radio or television as an advantage over their competitors.
I have often been asked by colleagues in other countries in the region why media in the Philippines is “too involved” in high level politics at the expense of community issues more relevant to the reading public.
* * *
Admittedly it is not just about ownership of media that often distorts responsible reporting. Deadlines and space restrictions, ideology, balance and impartiality, PR agencies — all interweave in media play in the Philippines. Guardians of the freedom of the press are loathe to admit that often the independent journalist has to maneuver through this shoals of difficulties just to be able to be published. Neither is the Philippines the only country with problems on the ownership of media.
It is true the world over that corporations rule over media. While there are intrepid investigative journalists, they are often limited to mega deals and profits that do not affect their owners.
The problem with flawed media is it restricts critical thinking. And it can be just as partisan as the politicians they deride.
Journalists like to think they have a sense of mission but are stopped by what a wise analyst called “relentless tabloidization”, meaning to give only the kind of journalism that sells.
As for time and space, some newsrooms are filled with young, inexperienced journalists without backgrounds on the articles they write, with no time to read yet to obliged to multitask and meet merciless deadlines. They work 12 or 14 hours a day for meager salaries. Do you wonder why the envelope is hard to refuse even with the best of intentions?
I remember that while on exile in London, I read about a unique newspaper that did not oblige their correspondents to send stories every day. They had to absorb the essence of the society of the country in which they were assigned, live it and know the people that inhabit it. That way when a newsworthy event breaks out, they will report accurately and wisely.
As to balance and impartiality these have been thrown out of the window. For example, the reading public has come to accept it is difficult to find media reports on anything good about the Arroyo administration. It has long been demonized and therefore cannot do good and this with the help of surveys calculated to promote hatred against it. All this, and the campaign for 2010 has not even formally begun.
MANILA, Philippines — The controversial right of reply bill pending could be an “undue intrusion” into the rights of media, Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chairperson Leila de Lima said on Thursday.
Instead of passing a bill that would require media outfits to publish the reply of parties offended by reports or commentaries, lawmakers said the media should be allowed to “self regulate.”
“I always believe that it should be self-regulation by media, no legislation is needed. Self-regulation is the best tack,” De Lima said at a press conference in Camp Crame.
But De Lima refused to provide more details of the CHR’s stand on the issue, saying they will be releasing an official statement on the matter soon.
Media organizations and outfits on Monday launched a campaign against the passage of the bill, calling it an “act of terrorism against the media” and a violation of the Constitution.
The Senate passed its version of the measure, principally authored by Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., last year, while House Bill 3306 filed by Bacolod Representative Monico Puentevella is pending in the lower chamber.
Both bills seek to require that media publish or air the reply of a party offended by a news story in the same space and with the same prominence as the offending story and carry sanction, including hefty fines and, in the House version, jail time, for those who fail to comply.
For his part, Philippine National Police (PNP) Director General Jesus Verzosa said they respect the code of ethics practiced by the media.
“But also we must have to consider also the wisdom that is being forwarded by our legislators as to why they came up with that proposed bill for the right of reply, so we will wait for the outcome of the processing of the proposed bill of the right of reply,” he said.
No democratic country in the world has ever passed legislation that requires the media to provide equal space and time to the replies of citizens offended by news stories.
The members of Congress have taken the lead of reinventing Philippine democracy by initiating legislation that claims to expand freedom of the press while pretending to ensure fairness to citizens who are victims of some news reports or commentaries. Their initiative takes the form of Senate Bill 2150, and House Bill 3306. Both would require the media to publish or broadcast the reply of a party offended by a news story on the same space and with the same prominence as the offending report.
This provision is at the heart of the controversy over the right of reply bill. In practice, it is offensive to the freedom of the press and leads to its curtailment.
On closer examination, the bill amounts to a legislated censorship as pernicious as the muzzling of the press by totalitarian dictatorships. In effect, the bill constitutes prior restraint on the exercise of that freedom by editors in the selection of stories they publish or broadcast.
I am arguing from the operational effects of the bill on the media, not from the legal point of view of its constitutionality. In that context, strong arguments can be mounted against the legislation.
I am referring to the 1974 decision of US Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger who said the choice of material to go into a newspaper, the decision as to the size and content of the paper, and on the treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. Concurring with the majority opinion, Justice Byron Raymond White emphatically held that a newspaper or magazine is not a public utility subject to “reasonable” government regulation on matters affecting the exercise of editorial judgment as to what shall be printed. He said that prior compulsion by government in matters going to the very nerve center of a newspaper — the decision of what copy will or will not be included in a given edition — collides with the freedom of the press clause of the (US) constitution.
US jurisprudence on freedom of the press has been a model and inspiration of Philippine Supreme Court decisions on the issue. From the vantage of the purely operational consequences of the legislated right of reply, I can see the havoc it would wreak on the media industry. We are facing a possible nightmare of disruptions in media operations.
First, let us examine who can, under the bill, compel the media to publish their replies. These are parties “criticized by innuendo, suggestion, or rumor for any lapse in behavior in private or public life.” This provision unlocks the dikes to a flood of demands, converting the media into dumping grounds for all sorts of complaints arising from reports they have published or aired.
The bill appropriates, through legislative fiat, premium newspaper space to these demands for publication of replies on the same spot and same length as the offending story. This requirement is worse than Pravda’s during Stalin’s times. It restricts the media’s choice of stories to use. It prevents editors from touching space pre-allocated to replies. It encroaches on their editorial judgments and independence, which are essential to a free press. It ignores the quality of the stories and gives equal weight to stories regardless of whether they have substance or are full of nonsense. This puts in the same category idiotic and intelligent stories, a parity that does not ensure fairness to offended parties.
The front page of a newspaper is so designed that it reflects the view of the world, as evaluated by editors trained to assess important news. The notion of pre-allocated space, mandated by legislation, distorts social and political reality unfolded by dynamic events. It replaces this empirical reality with an artificial construct built on replies of offended citizens to negative stories.
It would be hard for editors to put out newspapers with these restrictions on choice and placement of stories. They don’t have all the space to accommodate such replies, which tend to create their own cycles of endless replies. One reply leads to another reply, a process which makes it hard to accept Sen. Aquilino Pimentel’s claim that his bill could expand freedom of the press. Freedom to publish of nonsense would be a better word for it.
The most obvious beneficiaries of the bill are the politicians, especially legislators, who can use the right of reply to settle scores with their political adversaries and critics and to protect and promote their own private interests. They are bound to become the foremost users of the right.
Among the members of the political class, legislators, with their privilege speeches, are ahead of other public officials in using newspaper and broadcast space. They need the right of reply more than businessmen, military men, bishops, civil society activists and bureaucrats. This is why Pimentel cannot claim his bill will expand press freedom.
Impressionistic evidence indicates that the privilege speech and parliamentary statements made under cover of legislative immunity are often the source of demands for the right of reply. Private citizens slandered and attacked by privilege speeches seldom seek redress in the media, because it does not help them. They have no use for the Pimentel bill. Reply in the media to privilege speeches can only invite swift retaliation from legislators shielded by parliamentary immunity.
Thus, the right of reply bill is another bludgeon legislators can use to reinforce their parliamentary immunity.