In the news, State visit not a junket, say legislators:Deputy Speaker: ‘I’ve not been inside a store’ while the Inquirer editorial says most congressmen were there as a presidential perk.
Earlier today a very instructive dialogue took place, which ended up being broadcast despite government’s (typical) preference to keep it all hush-hush. In the end, the two parties had to agree to disagree, since Media will still be arrested if police are defied–Puno. I hope a transcript of the whole thing ends up on line.
Main points were three. Jake Macaset pointed out that media and government are classic adversaries. Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro pointed out we belong to a “codal culture,” but that the codification of behavior on both sides isn’t a practical goal. Maria Ressa pointed out whichever way the government slices or dices what took place at the Peninsula -a “hostage situation,” or “terrorism,” or whatever- she can find an identical scenario covered just as aggressively by media abroad, and no democratic government anywhere did to journalists what our government did here at home.
My Arab News column resumes this week with Impatience With Colonial Legislation, comparing the reliance of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore on colonial laws that are incompatible with more modern notions of the relationship between the governors and the governed (two slight errors: autonomy was in 1935, independence in 1946, not both in 1946 as somehow crept into the article; and the Revised Penal Code dates back to 1930 and not 1933). I’ve been thinking about this since 2004, see my September 12, 2004 column Dangerous articles .An Inquirer editorial from June 24, 2007 explains why, and see, also, past entries in Peryodistang Pinay, San Juan Gossip Mills Outlet, and Red’s Herring.
In The Inquirer Current Blog, John Nery in his entry Dancing in the Senate, refers to his column, The limits of outrage.
And his interesting conclusion(s), reached after examining surveys and what they can tell us. In his column Nery says,
The lesson for regime-changers: Corruption scandals do not prematurely bring down an administration, but proof of something else entirely – brazen fraud, gross impunity, lewd dancing in the halls of the Senate.
And in the blog, he points out,
This also suggests that suspending the high-profile Senate hearings on the ZTE case, where revelations not only of corruption but of obvious duplicity or gross arrogance were a real possibility, was a strategic mistake on the part of the opposition.
My entry in the same blog is A new battle of the epistles, where I put together open letters and statements from students and teachers from the Ateneo and De La Salle, on the Peninsula caper.
In his column, Manuel Buencamino argues that,
The argument about means and ends does not apply to the exercise of a people’s sovereign will. The universally accepted principle and practice in that area is “by any means necessary.” Witness the American and Philippine revolutions and the struggle of the Israelis to establish their own country, to cite a few examples…
Thus, it’s a waste of time to argue over the righteousness or immorality of the course of action chosen by Trillanes and Lim. They had a right and a duty to act. And they did.
Agreeing on the form of government that will replace Gloria Arroyo and uniting behind that vision will better serve the public welfare.
I didn’t go to the Peninsula Hotel that Thursday because I saw Trillanes and Lim surrounded by junta advocates. I am against juntas.
An unelected government run by a coalition of ideologues and men in uniform, no matter how pure of heart they may be, is not my idea of a democracy.
Besides, ideologues have no qualms about sacrificing the principles that set apart civilized societies from barbarians–the rule of law, due process, human rights, and civil rights and liberties–on the altar of doctrine…
It would have been nice if Trillanes and Lim called for the ouster of Mrs. Arroyo followed by a snap election. That would have erased all doubts about their commitment to a democratic way of life. Unfortunately, they chose to be vague about the type of government they envisioned.
Be that as it may, I applaud Senator Trillanes and General Lim for their courage and patriotism. They may not have triumphed, but they didn’t lose. There are no losers among those who fight fearlessly for what’s right.
Gloria Arroyo can bully cowards and weaklings, but the courageous and the stouthearted will always remain defiant, undefeated and unbowed.
As for my thoughts on where we are and what to do, please take a look at this comment I posted earlier today.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, ideas, law, media, military, philippines, politics, president, society, surveys
MLQ3 — You are from the media, so your bias is understood. But that seemed like a rather one-sided report about today’s “discussions”.
I still haven’t heard anyone convincingly argue against the following:
In a siege situation — wherein the police have surrounded armed criminals — the police will establish a “police line” (usually with yellow tape), across which no one should pass. That’s a law in the books.
If this particular (and atypical) event, the media were ALREADY next to the criminals or in-between them and the police. That’s the only twist here. The situation developed rapidly and before clear battle lines were drawn. The media was ‘caught behind the lines”, if you will.
But when the police requested the media to pull back behind the police line, some refused. That’s the crux of the problem.
Since the media didn’t heed the police, the media was henceforth considered as having crossed the confines of the police line. I.E. they are on the wrong side of the (in this case, hypothetical) yellow line. If they were not hostages, they were with the criminals. That would be a reasonable (though, in this case, incorrect) judgement.
This understanding is the norm in every country in the world. Why not here?
I thought the authorities even went out of their way today to say that they weren’t out to suppress the press, but that this kind of thing can’t happen again and again. It’s too dangerous for everyone. Get behind the line; stay safe. Maybe an embedded press person is OK. But this cannot reccur; it’s wrong.
On a personal level, today’s meeting was the first time I ever thought that Maria Ressa was full of BS. I respect her a lot. But not today. The media looked more irresponsible than ever.
geo, oddly enough i thought hers was one of the voices of sanity in that roundtable -and gilbert teodoro, while standing his ground, wasn’t trying to insult anyone’s intelligence unlike puno with his “we love freedom every bit much as you guy media people” total hooey.
there was no police line, virtual or real. there was a “we’re gunna go in, guns a blazin, warny warny fellahs” and when media held its ground, then they got even by ganging up on the media afterwards. there’s no arguing with your argument, because if you believe the primary duty of media is obey the authorites, then if they disobey the go ahead and shoot them and take the consequences. government wouldn’t risk it though, would it? they’d only risk beating up on people *after* they won, but at which point, what was the point, except the kind of satisfaction bullies get from stomping on someone’s face when they’re safely on the ground.
and geo, obviously if civilains won’t see the obviousness of it all then of course media has to stand its ground, since what the public wants to do is be angry at certain stations, while holding their fire on, let’s see… the bbc, nhk, reuters, associated press, abc5, net25…..
and why wasn’t anyone from the irate middle class tuned into the government station nbn???? i mean from the moment the coverage of gma7 and abs-cbn pissed you off, why didn’t you get your news from your tax-subsidized media?
i make this point because while people like ces were inside the hotel, in the studio of anc, it was wall-to-wall government spokesmen round the clock, personally making appearances so there was no shortage of rebuttal time or clarification time, etc. i bet if you timed the appearances of everyone -media, rebels, officials- you’d find the officials got the most air time.
I don’t know, MLQ, about this line:
“there was no police line, virtual or real. there was a “we’re gunna go in, guns a blazin, warny warny fellahs†and when media held its ground, then they got even by ganging up on the media afterwards”.
What does that mean? The police have armed criminals surrounded and then advise the media to get out of harm’s way as they are about to storm the position. What do you mean the “media held its ground”? What ground? Whose ground? Against whom?
You do realize that the law says that the media should get out of the way, yes? In every country in the world? I don’t understand your problem with this fact.
I have a few questions right off the bat regarding the Manila Pen stand off — from afar, it’s very difficult to see the wood from the trees.
1. Was the Manila Pen SEIZED by armed rebel faction of the AFP? Is there any corroborating evidence pointing to this? Seized meaning that its owners, staff, guests at the point of the gun and its guards were disarmed as in a real hostage situation.
2. Was there a ‘formal’ declaration to that effect, i.e., takeover by force of the hotel, by Messrs Trillanes and Lim or any of those uniformed people in their company?
3. Did the owners of the Manila Pen or its managers at any given point make known to the group and their companions including the members of media that they ought to vacate Manila Pen?
4. What was or were the reactions of the paying guests? Did they object to the presence of Messrss Trillanes and Lim, their company and the members of media who were there to cover the event?
5. Who in fact caused material damages to Manila Pen? And while I’m at it, why is there a military tank in the middle of the great hall at Manila tank (saw the incredible pics in Mlq3’s and Tongue’s blogs)?
6. If we are to go by media reports, the threat to life and limb of innocent lives and bystanders realistically came from the “forces of peaceâ€Â, i.e., police than from the Trillanes and Lim group who after all were, in my opinion, merely holding a PRESS CONFERENCE calling for the ouster of Gloria.
7. On the material destruction of parts of The Manila Pen: What I don’t understand is why a tank should ram the doors of Manila Pen… There are a number of entry and exit points at Manila Pen through which the so-called elite of the PNP could engage police maneuvers, i.e., drop teargas projectiles, if they had really wanted to solve the problem without putting the lives of innocent bystanders… that would be common sense. So why didn’t they? Why did they decide to destroy the main entrance door of the hotel with a police tank?
I have more questions, but that will be all for the moment. My point is that the Police, in my opinion as a layman, are totally responsible for the damages caused to the hotel and not Messrss Lim and Trillanes… in my book, there was NO “rebel military faction” takeover or hostage situation at the Manila Pen that required Police to cause so much destruction in the hotel.
I do believe that Puno’s pride was titillated but his reaction to the entire episode was that of overkill, completely devoid of common sense, laughable and incredible.
Hoping that we could finally put to rest this “rebel takeover thesis†that’s going around):
MBW:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No. The Pen’s managers begged for the armed criminals to enter their place of business so that it would shut down for a few days.
4. The guests checked out, or at least escaped, as quickly as possible.
5. The courts will ultimately decide who will be responsible for “damages” the Pen incurred. Cancellations included.
6. It was a press conference…yes. But a press conference by escapees, with guns (and grenades), calling for the overthrow of the government, while hijacking private property and resisting arrest. That’s not like a photo op event for a book release or something.
It wasn’t a “rebel military faction takeover”? OK, then what was it?
geo, what law? let us assume though, there is a statute that says, “if the police tell media to stop coverage, media must comply without question,” you still have the question of precedents. in similar situations in the past, government neither demanded nor expected, for media to get out the way. they found a way around the situation. and, when peril was obvious, media decided what risks to take. remember when jessica soho got shot, i believe it was in the kiester, during the 1989 coup?
like i said, having the full power not only of the law but of possession of arms, government can decide to uniliterally change the rules of engagement, but that doesn’t mean people will or ought to comply. the alternative was what? everyone gets out. government moves in. with no obstacles to violence, people are killed “resisting arrest,” but guess what -no one can figure out if it was a legitimate reason or not. of course government would have the satisfaction, perhaps even shared by the public, of hauling out rebel body bags, but i wonder if that wouldn’t turn a ridiculous situation into a truly serious one.
again, without media, look at the allegations of police looting in the pen after victory was achieved. some pen employees have been brave enough to say so, but do you think they will risk releasing cctv footage that would prove or belie these accusations? with cops like we have? so now, we have a bit of testimony, but never as much as would be necessary to settle the issue either way, and so much for all the chest-beating about “rule of law” and “respect the authorities,” even if -wow- they turned out to view the property trillanes and co. are criticized for trampling, as though they were a conquering roman army.
you watched the proceedings between govt and media. so go through ressa’s catalog of examples, which she claims represents every permutation of what the government claims the peninsula takeover was, and debunk her argument that in no similar case, abroad, were media hauled off en masse for “processing.”
if memory serves me right, the secretary of defense, etc. said they ought to haul off the media people for “processing,” because the rebels might try to hide among them and pass themselves off as media people. as far as that goes, that was a legitimate concern but what gets my goat is that you saw how the apprehension and initial processing was done, and it basically revolved around frogmarching people around then whisking them off without even really giving them an idea of what to expect, and without even a fig leaf of common sense.
you think there are rebels lurking among the media, and so, you haul off the women? you could have hauled off the men. you could have contained them in the lobby or outside the lobby, demanded their editors and news desks vouch for their bonafides, meanwhile let them cover to show you’re not interested in liquidating people, and you can even send a posse of spokesmen to lecture them live on air. but it was only after public opinion started castigating the media that government jumped in and remembered they could be pissed off because government had defied their order for everyone to clear out, so over a thousand troops could go in and have a chance to liquidate 30 odd rebels. and if you think that was improbable you’ve never paid attention to our trigger-happy cops, who make our military look like paragons of professionalism and self control.
As to all this hype about a coup, failed, botched, attempted, so forth and so on: Technically, there was no coup d’état  holding a press conference in Manila Pen even by a civilian senator despite his being once ex-military along with a star ranking officer who’s technically in capitivity, calling for the ouster of Gloria Macapagal, does not fall in the category of coup d’état. NO WAY!
As to why Esperon kept mum all throughout the event: Esperon couldn’t, didn’t want the risk of sending a military faction to Manila Pen even if only to negotiate as was their tack before because a move of that kind could have have ignited what he truly dreaded and wanted to avoid at all cost: the risk that sympathizers from an armed military component that he will be sending to negotiate could trigger a real coup d’état…
In that Trillanes-Esperon duel, Esperon, ever the coward, backed down because he knew that he had an effing chance of losing the Armed Forces of the Philippines to a Lim-Trillans tandem!
Geo,
Re: “It wasn’t a “rebel military faction takeoverâ€Â? OK, then what was it?”
I think you will find that the takeover in terms of destruction to materiel and number of troops was efected by the police.
The hotel is a “public place” of sorts — that the group of Trillanes and Lim decide to hold a press conference cannot be equated to a rebel military faction takeover because from where I sit and according to media who fortunately were present to witness, the hotel, management, staff, hotel security guards, guests and bystanders were NOT SEIZED at the point of a gun.
In military or para-military parlance, that is not a military faction takeover, rebel or not.
“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” — Dr. Joseph M. Goebbel, Nazi propaganda minister
“…from where I sit and according to media who fortunately were present to witness, the hotel, management, staff, hotel security guards, guests and bystanders were NOT SEIZED at the point of a gun.”
No? They left the “public place” because they liked the guns? And the owners of this “public place” applauded? This is a ridiculous argument — that a nice group of patriots innocently got together and ventillated a bit…to no one’s discomfort, except for the Gestapo.
It’s this tranparent type of BS that inflates the ranks of the anti-anti-GMAs. Talking nonsense hinders, not helps.
MLQ3,
The examples being cited (by you/Ressa) are when the media covered an event from BEHIND police lines. no? Pls edify me. Thanks.
geo, that’s why i’m hoping a transcript of the dialogue will be posted, you and i can comb through it. my impression was, listening to her, that she was looking for approximations to whatever scenario the government wanted to compare the event to (terrorism? hostage taking? rebellion? etc.?) and that she claimed she could find a corresponding real-world event overseas for each, where media wasn’t picked up. the logical assumption is that in at least most of these cases, it would have been a scenario where the media actually pissed off government by making things inconvenient for the authorities. otherwise, if these were all cases where media was at the rear of the authorities, they wouldn’t be useful comparisons.
it’s significant that what the officials kept pointing out was the idea of “embedded” journalists. but even that concept has come under criticism since the iraq invasion because it’s turned out to be propaganda rather than real reporting.
“No? They left the “public place†because they liked the guns? And the owners of this “public place†applauded? This is a ridiculous argument  that a nice group of patriots innocently got together and ventillated a bit…to no one’s discomfort, except for the Gestapo.”
Geo,
Let’s not get caught in useless rhetorics OK? The contention is whether there was a forcible entry and armed capture of Manila Pen, management, their guests, etc. by Lim and Trillanes.
Which was it? (Remember there were witnesses: media) If I were to interpret what you say, you say the hotel guests and others escaped, do you mean to say that they were technically seized by Lim, Trillanes and their supporters in the presence of media or could it be they all left, including curious bystanders who from all accounts by media were not seized at the point of a gun but instead left because the Police came with their hundreds of troops armed to the teeth and announced that they would come in with tanks to put down Lim and Trillanes and co?
Which is it?
BS that comes from people who are pro-Gloria and who buy Puno’s shit and firing rhetorics from all directions is what muddles issues.
Re: Mlq3’s media holding their ground — easily understandable. Media was doing its job. FULL STOP.
Besides, from their vantage point, who was in a better position to know what was really taking place than media, eg., that Lim and Trillanes weren’t in the hotel to blow up the hotel with its occupants.
As a reporter I would’ve done the same as my colleagues in Manila: Would have held my ground and done my job especially if I knew that Lim and Trillanes didn’t pose a threat to my life.
MWB —
“The contention is whether there was a forcible entry and armed capture of Manila Pen, management, their guests, etc. by Lim and Trillanes”
I guess you believe there’s a legal way to carry firearms into someone else’s property, uninvited, and claim that the lack of resistance indicates compliance.
Let’s let the courts decide. In the meantime, let’s see what the owners of the private property will say/do. Fair? After all, neither you and I can speak for them, can we?
“Let’s let the courts decide. In the meantime, let’s see what the owners of the private property will say/do. Fair? After all, neither you and I can speak for them, can we?” — Geo
Agree!
This is an issue between the media and the government, let them solve it, but as for me (TV viewer), I will not criticize media based from arguments that was based from the information given to me by the same media I am criticizing. In the vernacular:
“ginigisa sa sariling mantika”
MLQ3 —
I’m not sure, but I thought Ressa’s cases did NOT specifically entail a scenario wherein the media was IN-BETWEEN the police and the bad guys (or when the media had crossed the yellow line).
Ressa et al seemed (to me) to be hell-bent on focusing on the post-event arrests…but never really clarified whether or not they agreed with THE LAW — that they are to pull back upon request of the authorities.
That’s the part I’m stuck on.
It seems the law is pretty clear and rather universal.
Does everyone agree with that or no? I don’t think that was solved today.
“Let’s let the courts decide. In the meantime, let’s see what the owners of the private property will say/do. Fair? After all, neither you and I can speak for them, can we?† Geo
Very well. Given the circumstances, I agree that neither you and I can speak for the hotel owners, management, their staff and their guests.
But I maintain that based on various reports there were indications that Messrs Lim and Trillanes did not commit in military or para-military parlace, a takeover of the hotel. It would be good to have the opinion, reaction of the guests too.
From where I sit, I do accept that Messrs Trilanes and Lim acted unjudiciously and recklessly but to say that they had tried to cause serious bodily harm to the civilians around them is a big question mark. Members of media would be more credible as witnesses than the police who forced entry in the hotel with their tanks.
“that they are to pull back upon request of the authorities.” — Geo
In my experience, authorities hardly ever ‘request’ media to pull back. They demand.
Ok, let’s make another scenario. The police ordered the all members of the Media to vacate the Pen as they are about to come in and arrest or confront the “rebels”. Then, smoke and gun fires and when everything cleared, everybody remaining down, the police with regret explained that they group resisted arrest and they are grateful nobody on government side suffered casualty. No media personality left inside the Pen or if there was, he or she or them among the the “downs” thereby no witness to the resistance, no evidence, case closed…
“In my experience, authorities hardly ever ‘request’ media to pull back. They demand.” –ViM
And according to my understanding, the law clearly allows that. It is supposed to be obeyed. The BBC’s own internal “rules” showed their own acceptance of this, I believe.
So…is that the law or no?
Geo, No. To my knowledge, there is no distinctive law that makes it illegal for members of media not to obey authorities to “pull back” in a situation that police authorities believe to be a threatening situation. Otherwise, you’d find prisons all over the world filled with reporters but I could be wrong.
In the Manila Pen incident, I am of the opinion that presence of media prevented a possible bloodbath.
ViM — And yet I heard Puno repeatedly refer to such an existing law in the books.
I have also heard it quoted from other countries’ jurisprudence. So is it or isn’t it the law? I’m pretty sure it is.
geo, we’ll have to hope a transcript can resolve our differences in what she meant or said.
as in the comments above, government can give an ultimatum. and it’s up to government if it will then target media or not if they defy the ultimatum. my view is that it’s in government’s interests to have pesky journalists around, that is, if we assume government’s primary objective was *not* to liquidate people.
i guess that’s my assumption -that government on the whole wanted free rein to wind things down without bloodshed- and to that extent, accoustic warfare by means of trundling apc’s around was damned effective but even more so was pumping the hotel full of tear gas. i mean, isn’t it better to smoke ’em out rather than shoot ’em out?
but if you think government ought to have had free rein to blow up the hotel and every rebel in it, then yes, you can argue that media ought to be rounded up and strung up from the lamp-posts, but not even in wartime do most governments think this is something worth doing.
again, the immediate justification was not that there should be a penalty for getting in the middle of the action, but that media had to be “processed” because you know, a rebel might be masquerading as ellen tordesillas or pinky webb.
i think it would be fruitful for you to inquire with the bbc, if they intend to dismiss their correspondent for being in the hotel to the bitter end.
In discussing rules of engagement by the Press, it should not be assumed that the authorities are always the ‘good guys’. Coward’s scenario above is very possible given our situation.
There surely are several provisions in the law that call for public order to be respected and which can be interpreted in such a way that will include members of media but as to a specific law or provisions in the law specifically making it illegal for members of media to stop doing their job so that police authorities could do theirs, that I don’t know.
I suggest we wait for Mr Puno to divulge the provisions in the said law or laws.
MLQ — Your responses seem emotional. Let’s get back to the basics — the verifiable data.
What is the law in the Phils, US, EU, Asian countries?
Can the police draw a yellow line or not? Can they insist (and legally support) a demand for a clearance of the specified area? What is the law???
If you are labeled as “authorities” and you did something, then try to explain it but reasonable people seems not to understand or agree with what you are saying or have done, then your not worth it being in authority.
“…a specific law or provisions in the law specifically making it illegal for members of media to stop doing their job so that police authorities could do theirs, that I don’t know.”
Whoah! That’s a whole other proposition!
Nobody said “stop doing the media’s job”, the question is whether or not the media can be restricted to staying behind the “yellow line”. In one scenario, the media is recording…in another scenario, the media is one of the actors. That’s a big difference.
Missed you, hope you feel better;
it wasn’t serious, was it?
“Can the police draw a yellow line or not? ”
They can and should — it’s done in most countries. In theory, the yellow line is aimed at preventing all individuals (member of media included) who do not belong to the police from entering the quarantined zone.
But in the Manila Pen context, those members of media who are with Lim and Trillanes are already inside the quarantined zone, doing their jobs. If there was no threat of violence or death on their persons by Trillanes and Lim, members of media could and should continue doing their work. I would.
Again in the Manila Pen context, it would seem that the threat to the lives of members of media present inside Manila Pen came not from Lim and Trillanes but from the police’s special anti terrorist action group.
“Whoah! That’s a whole other proposition!”
Geo, I was only answering your question.
geo, i asked a lawyer and the lawyer replied, apropos of your question, “that obstruction of justice law but nothing specific, PD 1829 section 1e.” The PD (and personally, I am loath to cite any presidential decree as a democratic basis for any legal argument) is at:
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1981/pd_1829_1981.html
And Section 1 (e) is, to wit,
“Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts…
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal’s offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;”
Which, as you can see, is a bit of a stretch in this case. So as far as Philippine laws are concerned, anyway, it seems this is all Puno, martial law relict that he is, had to stand on.
Another lawyer I asked who focuses on constitutional law, says there’s no Philippine law that specifies what you asked: “”No there is none. Its always been on a case to case basis. The closest thing to where media presence was regulated was the embedded reporters with the US army during the Iraq invasion.”
Well, if a zone exists..and a law exists…then we’re really talking about the unique situation (unlike those cited by Ressa) wherein the media has found itself WITHIN the “quarantined” area.
Seems like a gray area that should be discussed between all relevant parties…sans criminals, of course. 🙂
Isn’t it logical to expect the media to get out of such zones…especially when requested by police? When it is the law? Why would the media WANT to get in the way, anyway??? What would be the objective?
mitch, i had the mother of all tonsil infections, they needed 3 kinds of antibiotics and prior to hosp. i was feverish for 4 days, in hospital another 4, and woozy for 4 more days after that.
geo: because the cops swooping in to rub out people that embarrassed them is an all too familiar scene in this country. and again, you assume there was a law and that it was broken, when what can be argued is that the authorities stretched a law to try to justify its orders after the fact, but it’s such a stretch that it could just as well be argued that the order wasn’t lawful in the first place, and that it made no sense anyway.
government fulfilled its responsibilities by issuing a warning and could have left it at that.
addendum from the lawyer: “If they did [have a law authorizing them to penalize media for disobeying] police will not hesitate to file a case against them. I think the reason there is such confusion is that despite what they say, there is no standard operating police procedure when it comes to journalists already on the ground covering an event.”
“government fulfilled its responsibilities by issuing a warning and could have left it at that.”
Agree.
MLQ3 — No offense, but try another lawyer…maybe someone who usually disgarees with you. 🙂
Puno cited a very specific law today. I heard the actual verbiage. Maybe I heard wrong, but — to tell the truth — I was surprised about how relatively unequivical it was.
I don’t think the topic was “obstruction of justice”, I think it was about the duties and rights of the authorities in a hostage/siege/etc situation. Sounded like the police could say “back off” (ha-ha) with little refutation.
geo, that’s two lawyers. where are yours?
there’s also marichu lambino who you won’t like,
http://marichulambino.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/legal-opinion-on-obstruction-of-justice-the-media/
and to refresh your memory, here are the angles officials were pursuing:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/11/30/reporters.covering.manila.hotel.takeover.detained.html
direct quotes from puno also, abroad (deutsche presse agentur wire service):
http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=124072
a) rebels might be masquerading as media (including women reporters)
b) obstruction of justice.
which means if they’re pursuing other legal lines, it’s something that occured to them after the fact. don’t you think that what matters is not what the authorities decide was a useful law a week after the fact, but what they said, at the time they decided to take people into custody, was the basis for doing so?
incidentally, this is a good blog entry on the whole thing:
http://mikosamson.blogspot.com/2007/11/because-press-must-be-free.html
Feels like we’re getting warmer…
So…just maybe there IS a law that allows the police to draw a “yellow line”. Makes sense to me.
This actually was a rather unique situation, though…the media was already inside.
As an intelligent, caring, thoughtful group of people…what should we do about that? Let the media do that every time? Or come to an agreement about how to handle these situations?
“Isn’t it logical to expect the media to get out of such zones…especially when requested by police?”
Logical? Depends on whether a police command is logical or not. I find police commands are not always logical.
If I were covering an event from outside Manila Pen, I would continue to do my job despite police remonstrances but would make sure that my own actions would not put the lives of innocent bystanders at risk. If I were already in the “quarantined zone”, the logical thing to do would be to continue doing my job and faithfully cover the event.
Wait, MLQ3. Those links seemed out of date.
Do you have the laws cited today by Puno? That’s the relevant info.
Meanwhile, are you confusing the two issues?
Issue #1 — Is the police allowed to erect a yellow line (virtual or not) and restrict (with penalty of law) access?
Issue #2 — Is the police allowed to arrest the media after a stand-off such as last Thursday’s Pen Adventure?
I’m still trying to figure out #1…..
ViM — No offense, but what you think is different from what the law is.
If you disregard the law, if you think you are above the law, if you think you know better than those who made the laws…you’re screwed. Welcome to civilization.
geo, i don’t give a rat’s ass what puno cooked up today, because as i said, if you’re going to “process” someone, what matters is what you tell that person and the world at the time, was the reason and legal basis for your doing so. this is an elementary principle, don’t you think? i can’t swoop down on you and say, “come with me, we shall frisk you,” and when you ask “why?” i’ll say, well, on the basis of pd 344456677 sec. 45 and also, for bla bla bla reason, only for me to have you go through the whole rigamarole, and then say, wait, we actually detained you on the basis of ra 44556667788 sec. 4, and yaddah yaddah yaddah. in other countries you could end up suing the state for doing that.
your issue 1 is inappropriate. no one ever questioned media having to keep out, once the police surrounded the hotel and trundled apc’s around, never mind on the basis of law, but of might makes right (although the police i seem to recall, even faciliated the entry of other civilians, which, if you were a media person monitoring what’s going on as reports were being made from within and without the hotel, would you then take the cops’ bluster seriously?). the question is, for the media who were there way before the cops got there, should they have vacated the premises on the government’s say-so? my contention is, it was up to media, not the government. they could insist people leave, but there doesn’t seem to be a law cited at the time, that justified a penalty for not doing so.
your issue number 2, if the police want to “process” people (they insisted they weren’t actually intent on arresting media), you look at the arguments they used as a justification for doing so. the arguments were bogus. they’ve been compounded in terms of their bogus nature by puno’s ex post facto assertion of other laws.
I find this bewildering — The media was willing to take the risk of getting shot, hurt and killed to remain in the venue and cover the standoff but they are not willing to be detained for processing and clearance?
david, i think media would have submitted to reasonable, on-the-spot or near-the-venue processing, properly explained, without the need for frogmarching people or manacling them. and you’re dealing with an institution, the police, that has a reputation for taking people into custody and then dropping them off in bodybags at the end of the custodial process. and also, “processing and clearance” at the end of this sort of event was an innovation and went against ample precedents of government not doing so in the past, so of course people will object.
Geo, MLQ,
These media men, if they’re serious they’d cover every time policemen don’t read suspects their Miranda rights, which, I assume, is every time they make an “arrest.” Does law enforcement even remember there are rights? They are thugs, basically, and the only people who keep them from bludgeoning to death every suspect that irritates them are the politicians. The relationship between police and pols is symbiotic. If our police were anywhere as civilized and as law abiding as they should be, the pols won’t enjoy the privileges that they enjoy now (i.e. living like kings in a land that is democratic on paper).