My Arab News column for this week is The Same Mistakes Eventually. A further reflection on this past entry.
The Inquirer editorial takes a look at Suharto’s legacy. In his column, William Pesek does the same in Suharto’s corrupt legacy lives on in Indonesia, and says a lack of enthusiasm for investing in Indonesia is one of them. See Orde Baru for a timeline of the Suharto years.
Oh: and my gosh, he’s lost! Where in the world is Mike Arroyo? Maybe Austria? Lichtenstein?
A few days ago, Ricky Carandang, in his blog, said that the testimony of a new witness regarding the ZTE affair, would be used as an excuse to declare the leadership of the House vacant, and thus pave the way for a new Speaker. He predicted that the consensus candidate would be Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali Gonzales, Jr.:
When Congress resumes sessions at the end of the month, the Senate is expected to quickly resume hearings on the ZTE Broadband deal. A former associate of Romulo Neri, Jun Lozada, who was brought in by Neri as a consultant on technical matters, will provide more details based on first hand knowledge, about how the ZTE deal was clinched.
The ZTE hearings will be used by members of the House majority as a trigger to the call for a change in the House leadership. It will be recalled that it was the Speaker’s son, Joey, who accused presidential husband Mike Arroyo of intervening in the ZTE deal, thus opening a rift between Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and JDV that never really healed.
Sources tell me that sometime after the resumption of the Senate hearings, a member of the House coalition will take the floor to ask that the speakership be declared vacant. He will supposedly have the numbers.
I’m told further that backroom talks have nearly settled the matter of who takes over from JDV.
In a response to a readers’ comment, Carandang predicted,
He’s in a position to corroborate previous testimony. He has first hand knowledge. I’m not sure what his agenda is, if any.
But whatever he has the Palace is trying its best to keep him from talking.
as I mentioned the other day, scuttlebutt was that if Speaker de Venecia’s removal is in the cards, it’s scheduled for the end, and not the start, of this year. But there are those who’d like to accelerate the transfer of power: Mindanao solons uncloak selves, bare oust-JDV plot. Or do they? It could simply be posturing to extract concessions, or as a rear-guard action to save face.
After all, the Palace could be working at cross-purposes when it comes to congressmen who want to topple the Speaker sooner rather than later. But, as the next portion of this entry suggests, if the pretext for the toppling’s removed, then people have to sound the retreat while still banging the drums.
De Venecia, Nograles draw up battle lines for speakership. Maybe. But what if, as Carandang says, neither one will be the winner?
The news today began with the breaking news, New witness backs off NBN deal probe. This, despite Senate offers witness protection to Lozada. The Philippine Star has to have absolutely the worst -because utterly useless- system for online articles, you can never link anything! So I’ll have to quote from Jarius Bondoc’s column today, without providing a link.
His column, “Lozada was in Palace meetings on NBN,” accuses Sen. Cayetano (Allan Peter) of turning Lozada, who was supposed to be a surprise witness, into a non-surprise and thus, giving the Palace time to put pressure on him. This what Bondoc wrote today:
It’s all the fault of Blue-Ribbon Committee head Alan Peter Cayetano, according to Sen. Panfilo Lacson. Lozada allegedly had wanted to tell all he knows about the deal from which kickbackers would have got $200 million, three-fifths of the contracted price. But then, Malacañang operatives got to Lozada and convinced him to shut up with a combination of death threats and blandishments, Lacson lamented. And how did Palace men find out about Lozada? Well, by Cayetano’s own admission, he revealed the name of the secret witness last weekend. He had to, he said, for transparency, since the subpoena he issued Lozada last month was a public document signed not only by him but also Senate President Manny Villar, and Mar Roxas and Rodolfo Biazon of the two other committees investigating the fraud. Cayetano nonetheless acknowledged to being the leak. He told reporters he purposely had avoided them during the Christmas break so that they wouldn’t force him to break secrecy – until days ago. And so was redefined the meaning of secret witness.
What would Lozada have revealed had he not been put in jeopardy? The answer lies in part in the testimony of Joey de Venecia III, who blew the lid off the $330-million cheating. Roxas had asked him in a hearing in Sept. if he knew a certain Jun Lozada. De Venecia said yes, and that Lozada was present in some meetings with ZTE executives, presidential spouse Mike Arroyo, and then-Comelec chief Benjamin Abalos.
Lozada was no longer mentioned after that. But Lacson and Roxas apparently continued to receive more info. Word reached them that Lozada was conscience-stricken seeing Joey and other whistleblowers lay their lives on the line while he who knew more about the high crime was comfortably silent. And so Lozada decided to talk.
The first senator Lozada approached to tell his story was not of any help. If at all, it only proved to him that some opposition figures have been co-opted, although it’s not readily seen through their pretentious posturing. That senator allegedly told Lozada to not bother testifying because the tri-committee already was wrapping up the probe and drafting a report. (Cayetano said Monday he definitely will set more hearings if new evidence turns up.)
Lozada reportedly then prepared an affidavit of what he knows. The most telling segment allegedly is about a meeting in Malacañang on Apr. 19, 2007, two days before Arroyo witnessed the signing of the DOTC-ZTE deal in China. (That’s also the day then-Economic Secretary Romy Neri told me he nearly resigned due to unconscionable terms of the telecom supply.) Luzon’s main water source would have been sacrificed, along with soldiers’ housing, just to accommodate the overpriced deal.
What else is in the affidavit, the few remaining truly opposition senators prefer that Lozada himself say under oath. They’d rather not jump the gun. Too often have witnesses recanted testimonies freely given, because Palace fixers also got to them.
This is all very tantalizing, but now moot and academic -as it has been, since Cayetano gave the Palace a free pass by wrapping up the hearings before the holidays. We shall have to see if Senate to order arrest of Lozada, Neri has any effect, and how many in the Senate will stand by their institution or cave in to the Palace.
The Business Mirror editorial points out that Congress has abandoned trying to hold the budget hostage, because it only enabled the executive department to spend without congressional oversight by doing so:
Time was, not too long ago, when lawmakers tried to put the squeeze on the Executive branch by prolonging their budgetary deliberations. Opposition senators, in particular, made the debates and discussions drag on–if only to press the point that the legislature possesses the power of the purse. Unfortunately for them, the dilatory tactic tended to backfire.
Instead of being intimidated by Congress’s authority to withhold funds, Malacañang simply resorted to realigning the previous year’s appropriations. The Executive prerogative to adopt “reenacted” budgets merely gave the Palace a free hand to dig into the national coffers–then spend billions of taxpayer pesos as it saw fit, with members of Congress unable to do anything about it save for rant and rave before the media.
As one pundit pointed out, a reenacted budget is nothing more than a huge pork barrel that Congress–intentionally or otherwise–gifts to the incumbent administration. During an election year, in particular, congressional dereliction of its duty to produce a budget often left the Palace crying all the way to the bank.
This time, Congress has managed to pass the national budget pretty much on time. Along the way, the editorial points out that one tangible benefit of the appreciation of the Peso was freeing up 16 billion that would otherwise have gone to foreign debt payments. It also praises Senators Trillanes and Lacson for saving the government 300 million pesos, the amount of the pork barrel they gave up.
But there remain some causes for concern, as these stories indicate: Budget OK ‘pleases’ Palace, but realignment veto looms. From the same article, a glimpse into the revenue-raising problems the government faces:
[S]enators put the burden on the government to boost revenue collection in order to bankroll the recently-ratified P1.23-trillion budget for 2008.
Senators cautioned that the P1.226-trillion national budget bill ratified by both chambers of Congress Monday night relies heavily on the state’s ability to finance the annual spending measure through more efficient revenue collection.
Stressing that a key element of this is “the capture of tax lost to smuggling,” Sen. Francis Escudero, Senate ways and means committee chairman, noted that “budget funds can only flow if the tax leaks are plugged.”
In order to finance the spending measure, Escudero said government must raise the corresponding amount in tax, plus P10 billion more, as the total cash budget of the government for the year is actually P1.236 billion.
According to him, the P10 billion is the projected cost of the planned 10-percent hike in the basic pay of 1.1 million national government workers that takes effect July. This amount, while factored in this year’s public expenditures, was not included in the budget. “This means that government must raise an average P3.386 billion daily to finance its operations,” he added.
The burden of raising this amount would fall on the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which is targeting to collect P844.9 billion, or 68.3 percent of total requirement, and the Bureau of Customs, whose assigned target of P254.5 billion makes up 20.6 percent of overall, or a combined P1.099 trillion.
And P75-B stimulus plan OK’d in principle; DBM balks. According to the article, Albay Gov. Joey Salceda is the guy behind the President”s stimulus package, meant to help overcome whatever economic challenges will arise from the Subprime contagion (by the way, Manuel Buencamino in his column distills what the whole mess overseas is all about):
The country’s economic managers and Albay Gov. Joey Salceda, the President’s economic adviser who presented the proposal to the President and her Cabinet that day, will meet on Thursday to study the feasibility of such a scheme and to see how it can fit into the administration’s fiscal framework.
This, amid contradictions in principles between the budget secretary and the stimulus-package proponent, Salceda…
…Salceda’s package includes P16 billion in tax rebates for middle-class working families and P8 billion in power rate discounts for those consuming a maximum of 200 kilowatt-hours per month; and increased spending for agriculture (P15 billion), food-for-school projects (P6 billion), education (P6 billion), health (P4 billion), housing (P4 billion) and infrastructure (P16 billion).
He said among the funding sources mentioned were the privatization of the remaining shares of the government in San Miguel Corp., Food Terminal Inc., and other government assets; and, for the power rate discounts, the government royalties from Malampaya…
…The proposed package is suited for a “sharp but short” US recession, he added…
…Salceda said former President Estrada took the same tack to minimize the impact of the Asian crisis on the country by releasing P40 billion for priming activities in 1999; Mrs. Arroyo released P60 billion for the same purpose to help the Philippines cope with a US recession.
“They were very successful in reversing a growth slowdown into an acceleration,” Salceda said. But Andaya said such schemes had also led to the ballooning of the budget deficit beyond what was expected: in 1999, the target deficit was P17 billion but swelled to P114 billion because of pump-priming activities; in 2002, the target was P40 billion but the deficit at year-end was over three times higher at P150 billion.
See also In rare moment, Tetangco cites fiscal concerns.
You might have noticed, above, that Salceda proposes that Malampaya royalties be put on hold. He has backing for this: Competitiveness council wants Malampaya royalties halted. To do so, however, would further endanger the precarious situation local governments are finding themselves in, because of gerrymandering.
In his column today, Quagmire rule, Juan Mercado not only says “I told you so” (he’s been a long-time opponent of creating new provinces and cities motived by gerrymandering) but points to the very real fiscal problem city governments are facing:
Mayor Celestino Martinez prints new letterheads for Bogo City in Cebu. The bill is dumped on others, including next-door Toledo City. Instead of a P307-million IRA check, Mayor Arlene Zambo will get P277 million — a hefty P31-million cut.
From Iloilo to Davao and Jolo, IRAs are being castrated sans anesthesia. Puerto Princesa in Palawan is hemorrhaging from a P144 million cut. Instead of receiving P146 million, Mayor Edward Hagedorn may get only P1.7 million. This is a policy for upheaval.
He asks, how did it happen? By juggling the figures and granting exemptions too freely and too often:
How did we stumble into this quagmire? We, Filipinos, have a nasty habit of meeting high performance standards by lowering them instead, noted Viewpoint (Cebu Daily News & Inquirer, Feb 12, 2007 ). Thus, Congress “exempted” 16 towns from criteria that other cities met.
This wont for self-delusion infects other sectors. Juggling statistics on class sizes “solved” the shortage in classrooms. Flunkers in National Elementary Achievement Tests wrestled the passing mark down to 50 percent. That wasn’t low enough. So, they wangled a “bonus” of 60 points. “This meant the criterion passing score was 37.5 percent,” Philippine Human Development Report notes. “Whom are they kidding?”
Many lost count in the frenzy to set up city halls. In 1991, we had 60 cities, many of dubious viability. By 2003, that had ballooned to 114. “National government’s ability to finance such local government units… is strained,” the World Bank and Asian Development Bank cautioned. “The small size of LGUs prevents them from generating their own resources.”
Finally, Mercado points out something long a-borning:
Migrants swap rural penury for urban penury. In 2005, six out of every ten Filipinos lived in urban sprawls. By 2030, urban residents could crest at 85 million.
In the 1980s, Rigoberto Tiglao had already theorized that the “surrounding the cities from the countryside” Maoist strategy of the CPP-NPA was doomed to fail, because even then the majority of Filipinos were urban and not rural dwellers; he ended up leaving the party because of his challenge to its political orthodoxy. I point this out because to my mind, gerrymandering and the atomization of the provinces is a grave problem.
A very curious story in Nonong Guyala’s column, Poetic justice.
And for the record, the gist of the petition various people (including myself) filed before the Supreme Court: Media ask SC to stop gov’t threats, arrests: 70 journalists sign petition vs top gov’t execs. The rationale of the case in Maria Ressa’s statement, “We Have Press Freedom or We Don’t. There is No Middle Ground.”
Technorati Tags: Blogging, economy, House of Representatives, ideas, philippines, politics, president, Senate
The crusade to seek the truth about the NBN deal suffered another blow. Lozada cant be blamed. He fear for his and his family’s life.
lozada backing off? baka wala ring bayag katulad ni neri. metaphorically speaking that is.
Whoever silenced Neri and Lozada must be very powerful, that one is most obvious. But the delay in the investigations have again caused people to lose interest. Nakalimutan na naman! This issue needs another round of media hype to fly.
Just some comments on the SC petition:
At best, what the government is doing is all bark, no bite. They’re just ‘threats’. Once these ‘threats’ are externalized (put into action), thats the time you file the case.
In criminal law, there are ‘threats’ which are crimes by themselves. If someone will threaten another with a criminal act, the threat itself is a crime, even though the intended criminal act isn’t done yet.
What the government is barking out is a proposed legal governmental action. A legal, valid right on its part
This is not a matter of which is right or wrong. This is a battle of which right should prevail – the government’s, or media’s.
The writ of prohibition aims to stop an act which is being done already and continuing, or an act which has begun.
If the initial act is all talk, its not covered by the writ of prohibition.
Granted that talk is an initial act of several acts to follow, but there’s no situation yet, no actual event that would put in jeopardy media’s right to report and right to inform the public
The SC case is premature.
Though it can be argued that the ‘threats’ are a form of censorship, of prior restraint, it can also be argued that there is no actual event yet to report, to cover, to write about, so what is there to suppress?
Besides, the ‘threats’ are not a blanket censorship over everything and anything the media can cover/report – just events like the Manila Pen circus where media people can be in the cross-fire. Even though they are not at the site personally, nothing prevents them from reporting/writing/commenting about it (yun nga lang, second hand info na. pero as if naman media had no experience acting on second hand info)
But a civil case for damages suffered by media people arrested during the Manila Pen circus is an entirely different case.
By the way, the 72-hour TRO is no cause for celebration. Because government can still resume its barking at the 73rd hour onwards. Whats 3 days of waiting for them? Besides, there is no event like the Manila Pen circus yet.
@ Anthony Scalia
Maybe the utility of the TROs and the cases filed against Government and its agents isn’t the exactly the reason for media’s suits, but its symbolic effect: that the Fourth Estate can DO this to the First.
From what I understand about how the law operates, precedents are everything. And since a TRO, nevermind if only for 72 hours, can be got by Media to make Government “back off”, then it can be done by Media again.
At least now, Media knows the extent of the legal remedies it can get.
I kind of agree with many of the things you pointed out, though ^_^ But that’s a personal, gut-level thing. I’m still reflecting on Maria Ressa’s rather black-and-whitish statement on Full-or-None freedom of the press.
Hmmm,
MIke Arroyo probably had to do an ‘account balance’.
Otherwise, maybe some hunters mistook him for wild boar.
Scalia,
I think you fail to grasp the concept of chilling effect or the deterrent effect. it is all subjective you know and the fact that some media persons are not cowed does not mean that no one else is cowed by the threats. But then again, i think you also fail to see an emerging pattern of threats or attacks against the media and it did not begin with the Manila Pen incident.
And once again, the government does not have rights, it only has powers and duties and one of its basic duty is to follow the law as its first option and not to explore its possible limits. If at all, that is a last recourse.
“By the way, the 72-hour TRO is no cause for celebration. Because government can still resume its barking at the 73rd hour onwards. Whats 3 days of waiting for them? Besides, there is no event like the Manila Pen circus yet.” – Anthony Scalia
The 72 hours TRO is the time needed to determine the judge who will handle the case by a raffle. After the judge is known, the said judge will have to “weight things” if he will issue a preliminary injunction that will enjoin the concerned government officials from making threats of arrests against journalists until the case has been decided.
ngayon poporma ang senado kung kelan tapos na ang boksing. ano to, attempt to reclaim lost glory? attempt to reclaim public sympathy? lokohin nyo lelang nyo! mabulok kayo lahat sa kangkungan sa sunod na eleksyon!
Beancurd,
Look, what is ‘threatened’ is media’s presence in a place the government calls ‘cross-fire’ and the media calls ‘assignment’
Media are not prevented from writing about and reporting on the event. The government just wants them to steer clear of the cross-fire/assignment.
Media are not threatened to be shut out of writing/reporting altogether – just stay away from the cross-fire/assignment
Sorry to say, the government has rights. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the exercise of the government’s rights. Government only has powers? Exercising those powers requires a right to exercise them.
qwert,
No injunction can be issued against the ‘threats’ because the government is just exercising its rights. take note, government just wants media people to be out of the danger zone. Media are not prevented from writing and reporting about the event.
And if ever an injunction is issued, that injunction is only on the making of ‘threats’. Forcibly keeping media out of the danger zone will not be covered by the prohibition
Rob’ Ramos,
“Maybe the utility of the TROs and the cases filed against Government and its agents isn’t the exactly the reason for media’s suits, but its symbolic effect: that the Fourth Estate can DO this to the First”
The fact that media can is already a given. The Bill of Rights gives media freedom of expression.
“From what I understand about how the law operates, precedents are everything. And since a TRO, never mind if only for 72 hours, can be got by Media to make Government “back offâ€Â, then it can be done by Media again”
Only Supreme Court decisions are precedents – meaning, RTCs are obliged to follow SC decisions. But an RTC judge is not obligated to follow another RTC judge’s decision.
“At least now, Media knows the extent of the legal remedies it can get”
Media already know that. What makes the case interesting is that media are not prevented from writing about and reporting about an event. They are simply sought to be kept out of the danger zone. If the Manila Pen circus happened all over again, media can still write and report about it, they just have to be out of the cross-fire.
On Quagmire rule.
Since the creation of cities can’t be avoided provinces should be abolished and replace with regions. To reduce opposition to abolishing the provinces the new regions must be given the power to collect personal income tax and to organize a police force. Maybe after several decades the regions will become states in a federation between the Philippines and Indonesia.
MLQ3,
If you guyz lose the suit, you will nonetheless all be famous for trying. And the court won’t reject it outright, but will give enough for the headline writers to declare victory but once more change the subject, even if anthony scalia is persuasive enough for me, above.
Is the gov’t “making threats” to enforce the Law? The SC ought to cough that up like a hairball. You can’t TRO the authorities for “threatening” to enforce the Law against journalists who get in the way of police operations.
Heck, look at any statue of Lady Justice. See that sword. That’s what I call a Threat!
But if you guyz do lose the suit, you will have damaged and not defended press freedom by chipping away at the only thing that keeps journalism afloat:credibility with the public.
Since ordinary citizens instinctively obey lawful authorities (though not blindly!) they see the journalists now as a bunch of spoilt brats trying to claim a space way above the same law that normally towers over the common tao.
The crusade to seek the truth about the NBN deal suffered another blow. Lozada cant be blamed. He fear for his and his family’s life. – balatucan
Gee, then why did he come up with an alleged affidavit then detailing among others, via Jarius, who-receives-what of the bribe?
Surely, he’s not stupid to think that whatever perceived threat imposed on him BEFORE his senate appearance will not appear AFTER his appearance had he decided to testify.
inodoro ni emilie: hindi “walang bayag”. “sinungaling” is more apt.
In light of the above, I liked this particular discussion on the difference between rights, authority, and power:
http://www.patbratton.com/Rights.html
a more academic discussion on natural rights is in:
http://jim.com/rights.html
and if you want to refer to one of the classics (which one ignores at one’s own peril, as such thinkers are at the core of our constitutional setup and the law), there’s tom paine’s “common sense”:
http://www.bartleby.com/133/index.html
i’ve cited this discussion on whether there’s a difference between freedom of expression and freedom of the press:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1
for this, the doctrine of prior restraint is what goes to the heart of the particular rights the press enjoys:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html#1
the question is who is imperiled in the sort of situations the government has in mind, in issuing its policy “warnings.” and then, what are the legitimate actions the government can take if, in its views, such a peril exists.
it’s clear that what is imperiled, from the government’s point of view, is its freedom of action. it prefers to be unencumbered by oversight of any sort, which is what reporting is. it says it wants this freedom of action, for the supposed safety of its personnel, and of the press, never mind whoever the government’s targets might be (which could be justifiable or unjustifed targets).
government, possessing the police power, is in the best position to protect its own. the press is not a threat not least because it’s busy doings its job, and ample precedents exist as to the means the government can use, to prevent the reporting of details potentially injurious to public safety (for example, in the 1897 and 1989 coups, media was asked not to report troop deployments and movements, and complied).
however, considering the nature of the job of the press, it is in the best position to judge when its people are imperiled, and in the exercise of their freedoms the government can counsel but shouldn’t compel. to do so could very well be a form of prior restraint, as would be government directives that impose restrictions on the press that are not within government’s province to impose, unless an ironclad basis for it is secured
(emergency powers, requiring an act of congress, for example; censorship at a time of war, as declared, again by congressional resolution). but not purely on a bureaucrat’s say-so.
as these readings suggest, individuals have rights. governments have powers. rights of the people limit the powers government can exercise. if a government were to have rights, it would place an intolerable -because rendering it essentially meaningless- limitation on the ultimate right of the people to overthrow their government if it harms and no longer guarantees their rights. to say otherwise is to grant to government a right -that of self-preservation- that only individuals have.
djb,
media loses if it doesn’t petition the courts, because what the government wants to do is impose prior restraint, and deny the public any kind of meaningful oversight over its functions, by means of whatever goes on being reported and not just manufactured by ex-post-facto press releases.
the sc can determine if the law being cited justifies the actions made policy by the government. there could be no such law, or it could possible be blown up beyond all reasonable proportion, and infringe on a right government cannot modify except if it secures some sort of broad support by means of a declaration of war or state of emergency and emergency powers authorized by congress. but not by the say-so-of a cabinet official or officer on the ground.
if the suit is lost, then the inevitability of what government wanted to, would have been delayed at least.
don’t think bernas is the only voice on these issues and i really have to wonder why two specific freedoms -of expression and the press- have to written in; but there they are, and in the end its with ink and paper that this will be fought out, precisely because no one should want this settled by bullets.
Fundamental Freedoms
Under our own Charter we are guaranteed these
Fundamental freedoms: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Subject to Section One of the Charter, Limitations to the Rights and Freedoms: and for the Freedoms is subsection (b) that would be the Hate Crime Law, under the Criminal code, the Libel and Slander under the Common Law (tort)and other than that, the Rights of Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of the Press and other Media of Communication is For All to enjoy…
@Manolo,
Don’t you agree that media is privileged on certain ways with regards to the access it gets? This privilege is rooted on the right of citizens to be informed, correct? With this logic, the rights of media men is an extension of the rights of the people, but they are given “special privileges” not afforded other citizens based on the economics of space… You can’t simply allow everyone to go to Malacanang to listen to presidential announcements, now could you?
Media men take it upon themselves to inform the public because the public needs to know but media does not have rights that go beyond the rights of ordinary people. In hazardous situations when the police need to be in control, the police have the authority to “force” people out of harm’s way and for other reasons including the one cited by the police during the Peninsula incident, that the media had to get out of the way.
Ha. This is common sense but I keep hearing politicians talk about their political survival as if it’s their right to have a political career. During the time when Kings truly ruled, life and power may be taken as one and the same for rulers but not anymore. There is Imelda to prove that losing one’s power does not mean losing one’s life. Heck, she is even maintaining her old lifestyle. We are such a forgiving nation towards people of power that there is no excuse whatsoever for the power-hungry attitude that we have been.
mlq3, my compliments to you for your nice ‘nutshell’ treatise on individual right of press freedom and expression. no discussion of “rights”, however, can be complete without mention of “responsibility”. in a civilized society of laws, no right is absolute, not even that of the ultimate earthly source of power – the people. anything and everyone must answer to a higher authority, i.e., the Law.
in almost all democratic societies i know that recognize press freedom, prior restraint by the government on its exercise is proscribed by constitution. however, this precept is not without limitations. thus, “irresponsible” or “abusive” exercise of free press and expression are unprotected. among these are exercise that violates laws on national security, libel, health and safety, morals and public order.
maria ressa’s doctrine of absolute freedom or none at all is irresponsible, dangerous, naive and arrogant. a business for profit built on the generic “people’s right to know” must always be suspect.
i do agree with you that the controversy must be settled in a court of law, not with bullets. but to cite just one example of the danger of absolutism, people thoroughly aggrieved by a libelous, yet unpunishable, media account to the point of despair could turn to guns and bullets to avenge the loss of honor or livelihood. i believe this is already happening, albeit (apparently) in the local political arena.
Hmmm,
If this Manila Pen event happened, every second of it,here in Europe, I (naively) think there will be no case at all. They will probably question the journalists as eyewitnesses, but that’s all.
So I wonder.
i don’t think you know what you’re talking about. law enforcers, even in europe, have the duty and responsibility to enforce the law. they can only ignore it at their own risk.
@mlq,
“it prefers to be unencumbered by oversight of any sort, which is what reporting is.”
This is a fallacious argument, I think. Usually, it is committees that do oversights. I mean, people sitting down and discussing points. The police telling you to get out of the way isn’t really a process of “overseeing,” is it?
I think media is wrong, knows its wrong but doesn’t want to give government the momentum in a very, very tense environment.
One thing is clear, Manolo, Maria Ressa, et al. The people are not going to give you the same power the politicians are enjoying right now, i.e. the power to think of yourselves as having more right than the rest of us. I know your jobs are sometimes dangerous and you need to protect yourselves from enemies of press freedom, including the police and the military. But for Gods sakes find another way that will not cost ordinary people.
Media and media men are already too powerful in this country and they are feared. People, ordinary people, fear media just as much as they fear politicians, the military and the police. What the hey!
OK, correct that. Page kept loading and it skipped and so did my reading.
The full quote:
Ever since becoming a senator, like many before him, Peter Alan Cayetano had lost his voice but found his “true” calling.
J. Cruz,
It’s almost unbelievable how the likes of Joker and Peter can suddenly turn like that. Maybe they have something up their sleeve. Maybe they are working as double-agents, pretending to be pro-GMA or a semi-neutral pol until the opportunity arises to save the people arises.
@bencard,
those 70 journalists have not broken any law.
i don’t understand the logic here: if they fear for their lives, why won’t they just stand up and deliver. if they think that they’d find themselves 6 feet under later on, they might as well bury themselves while still alive and talking. or are they really gonna talk now? i-youtube na ninyo!
mlq3,
“Freedom of speech” applies to all persons. but Press Freedom refers to ORGANIZED free speech, as newspaper, tv or radio. As such Press Freedom is a Right of Commerce with the Duty to comply with the laws.
Journalism is, Constitutionally speaking, a commercial enterprise–the industry of buying and selling information. (The Public must BUY the information from organized free speech outlets called the media). Broadcast journalism is strictly regulated by the Franchise laws.
Journalism is NOT “pubic service” under the constitution. Being a cop is.
Journalism is not there for oversight on govt. It is there to gather and scatter information. About everything. including what telecomm load to buy, which starlet is pregnant, and yeah what antonio trillanes is trying to do at a luxury hotel.
But I assert to you that the rights of a gossip column are EXACTLY the same as the rights of the Front Page.
What you don’t point out in the little study list is where it discusses the Priority of the Liberties. We are all created equal, but not our liberties
Every specific liberty or kind of freedom is a compound composed a specific Right and a specific duty.
The Right to Life has self-evident priority over the right to find stuff out and tell others about it, which in turn his higher than the right to pursue happiness.
In the case of the right to know the duty of journalists is to gather the information and scatter it later, as a commercial enterprise.
In the case of the right to life, the duty to protect and preserve it is the job of the police, as a public service.
Whose duty must have priority? Well it is the Duty that corresponds to the higher priority right!
Even Tom Paine agrees with this in Common Sense.
Prior Restraint. Ahem. They just want reporters to do their jobs from 50 meters away not 5 inches!
No one is “restraining” them other than when they endanger the lives of the cops, waiters and law-abiding journaists who did obey the cops.
You guys actually look to the grown up public like a very smart student, who knows all the books and big words, but whom common sense is seen by everybody else as having stepped out of line, and just can’t admit it and is now writing reams and reams of eloquent but fallacious essays claiming rights and priorities witth little moral or logical consistency.
That is why the Public has turned a cold shoulder on such an important issue.
You are not advancing Freedom at all, but destroying it the way the Communists like to redefine democracy==ie so it is really communism. Here the Press is claiming to protect Press Freedom. They are really batting for the lawlessness for the elite of liberal fascism.
Every single one of those arrested was an EMPLOYEE of a commercial, for-profit media corporation. Their “right” to be there and exercise “press freedom” is entirely contained in the rights and limitations of those corporations, including especially the Franchise Laws. They cannot wear two hats at the same time as being journalists, they cannot claim to be just ordinary citizens either.
And so, I would say that PRESS FREEDOM refers to a lower order right to free speech than ordinary people, because of the legal restrictions placed upon organized free speech.
So Bernas is only half right. While it is true journalists don’t have more rights than ordinary citizens, the full truth is, they may actually have LESS.
They have free speech less the binding restrictions in the Franchise Law!
The right to sell telecomm load through the air waves is actually a precious and lucrative privilege, granted by the State to private commercial enterprises called radio stations and tv networks, owned and operated by the biggest Media Moguls and Mavens. You cannot be a member of the Broadcast Press unless you are an employee of such a corporation that owns such a franchise. Of course “owning a franchise” actually means accepting the provisions in the Law that establishes the Franchise. These restrictions are clearly limitations on ordinary free speech in exchange for the privilege.
It is an inescapable conclusion. The reason the Constitution distinguishes ordinary freedom of speech from Press Freedom is that the latter refers to a clearly lower order priority right because of the Duties and Limitations imposed in exchange for the right to make money on tsismis and ads and scoops uysing the electromagnetic spectrum, which is wired directly to everyone’s eyes and ears.
That is why BLOGGING, or citizen journalism is a superior form for practicing the Freedom of Speech and satisfying the public’s right to know. Our freedom is not “press freedom” as such, but something much closer to the pure individual right to freedom of expression.
Press Freedom, as organized free speech contains the limits and separations that are familiar also from other forms of organized expression, such as Religion.
The idea that specific freedoms have organized forms that are more restricted is completely natural. They come from the invention of private property, which also placed similar restrictions upon the relations of men to each other.
It is because information is itself a commodity that Press Freedom must by necessity be considered to be a Right of Commerce and NOT fundamental and generic right, like ordinary free speech. Press Freedom is a degraded and highly restrict form of Free Speech.
If we did not recognize such rankings and limits on rights and freedoms, we would never, ever get around to seeing and doing our DUTIES.
Freedom of Religion, which comes right after Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights, is in my view, just like Press Freedom, a derivative right from the fundamental Right of Privacy, which is the Mother of all private rights, including freedom of speech.
Freedom of Speech comes from the concept that our opinion is also our private property, like our bodies, clothes, cars and material possessions.
Thus Freedom of Speech is a right of privacy very much like the right to private property in material form. It’s organized form, Press Freedom is exercised by corporations licensed or enfranchised by the state to exploit the air waves commercially and uhmm journalistically (entertainment, news, views).
“Church Freedom” is the organized form of Freedom of religion–a freedom of assembly of belief as it were.
“Press Freedom” is the organized from of freedom of speech, as I’ve said.
But the organized forms are always more restricted than the individual purely private right to an opinion about God and or the Government.
Otherwise you would have to say that the Catholic Church is like the PDI and ought to be able to go into our bedrooms to check on God’s Right to Know if we are being moral and good and to save our soul–which is their professed purpose. (The Church, not Pdi, silly!)
Just as individual persons
My ideas here professed are not entirely original. They are inspired by a close reading of John Rawls, Harvard Law School, A Theory of Justice, which I highly recommend to all. (National Bookstore, $19.95)
“Justice as Fairness” is a powerful analytical and rhetorical invention of his, a moral and political theory in the best traditions of the English speaking civilizations. Not since Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson has so much sense been made of Liberty, Truth, Justice and Equality applicable even to the bizarre version of democracy found in this here archipelago.
Here the Constitution is treated as a Social Contract, not a Bible or recipe book to be redacted by do-gooders and Utilitarians.
Cheers! Am going mountain biking with a beautiful Igorot Maiden. She’s all titanium steel and carbon composite in a silky aerodynamic skin. I carry my Freedom of Speech in a backpack, where I, and I alone, must keep an eye on it.
I just don’t trust some of the Media any more. My Right to Know, is also my Right to Find Out. I don’t always have to pay someone for it, especially those who don’t seem to respect the Law and are interested in converting me to their Religion.
The Religion whose Sacred Cow is the right to sell tsismis and telecomm load even if it kills the lowly reporters and photographers. No thanks. I’d rather be a good Rizalist and Mason.
brian, i find it curious when people insist media has no more rights than the rest of the population. in what sense? the ordinary citizen would no more try to find out what’s going on, beyond rubbernecking if there’s some sort of out of the ordinary going-on, than a journalist would try to respond to an emergency to the extent of performing life support on an accident victim. the point being that you will either conduct government business, including law and order, under the scrutiny of the public, or grant government the impunity to do what it wants, always, unlimited by public scrutiny. that is a risk i think most people ought to be unwilling to take -to always have everything be a fait accompli because the best you can hope for, is that government, out of the goodness of its heart, will excplain to you, not only patiently, but thoroughly, what it did and why and how.
and you say, “find a way that will not cause ordinary people” -what? life? limb? tranquility? the evacuation of staff and guests in the hotel was unimpeded by media; there were no risks faced by the police they weren’t prepared to contemplate even if media hadn’t been there.
bencard, harping on the press being profession like any other doesn’t seem particularly relevant as there are many other professions -including the law- that have a public service aspect; you might as well criticize both the police and the military for being composed of people who receive salaries, are concerned about pensions -these things do not make them mercenaries and it does not necessarily reduce the credibility or importance of the press.
and again, consider an alternative where you have no press, or it’s actions are so circumscribed your press is reduced to the level of the present government networks.
No injunction can be issued against the ‘threats’ because the government is just exercising its rights – Anthony Scalia
I was just pointing out the “rules of procedures”…and by the way the TRO can be extended but not exceed twenty days the 72 hours included if the judge believes that the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. Now, if the
case is raffled to Judge Winlove Dumayas (Makati City, Regional Trial Court Executive Judge), I think the TRO will be extended since it was the same judge who issued the 72 hour TRO based on the news report below:
djb, perhaps you can list what the restrictions government imposes on franchise holders are? and whether it can go beyond those pre-set limitations, on the basis of anything other than a declaration of war or state of emergency.
then, whether your 5o meters or 50 inches distinction would really have mattered at the time.
then, whether there was only one way to handle the security concerns that belated emerged to justify frog-marching the journalists and whisking them off for “processing” -or whether a more temperatesince victorious, government could have handled things more rationally.
and third, where your idolatry of national security and its accompanying doctrines hasn’t led people down a path where official butchery that seems strikingly similar to the butchery of maoists and other extremists.
and why, for god’s sakes, your words start echoing mussolini’s:
“Was there ever a government in history that was based exclusively on the consent of the people and renounced any and every use of force? A government so constituted there never was and never will be. Consent is as changeable as the formation of the sands on the seashore. We cannot have it always. Nor can it ever be total. No government has ever existed which made all its subjects happy. Whatever solutions you happen to give to any problem whatsoever, even though you share the divine wisdom, you would inevitably create a class of malcontents…
“How are you going to avoid that this discontent spread and constitute a danger for the solidarity of the state? You avoid it with force –by employing force inexorably where it is rendered necessary. Rob any government of force and leave it only with its immortal principles, and that government will be at the mercy of the first group that is organized and intent on overthrowing it.â€Â
djb, does your believe that freedom of the press is an inferior form of freedom, because a freedom of commerce, represent any sort of consensus view, or is it your personal contribution to philosophical thought?
mlq3,
In a society of 90 million people, how can we ignore the philosophical question of the Priority of Liberties, Rights and Duties, or allow one small sector to claim an unjust and unfair and impossible primacy over all others?
Lookit. Waiters have the duty to serve the Manila Pen’s famous halo halo (P350) because the Guests have the right to the pursuit of happiness by paying for a bit of it.
This is a simple example of a “right of commerce” that is however, “inferior” to the Right to Life of say a policeman trying to do HIS duty should a coup d’etat be attempted in the Pen’s elegant ballroom by armed rebel desperadoes using Media and leftist partisans present as apparently willing human shields.
Likewise the right of commerce that is journalism, which serves the so-called Right to Know part of Freedom of Speech (the right to hear commercial speech!) does not have priority (let’s leave out the emotion-laden word “inferior” with your indulgence) over the duty of the police to uphold public peace and order.
If there is any concensus on these concepts it must be that imposed by common sense.
I claim no other authority than that of English Grammar and Comprehension of a rather old fashioned sort.
In The Limits of Press Freedom in Broadcast Journalism we find this from a typical broadcasting franchise:
SEC. 4. Responsibility to the Public.â€â€The grantee shall provide adequate public service time to enable the government, through the said broadcasting stations or facilities, to reach the population on important public issues; provide at all times sound and balanced programming; assist in the functions of public information and education; conform to the ethics of honest enterprise; and not use its stations or facilities for the broadcasting of obscene and indecent language, speech, act or scene, or for the dissemination of deliberately false information or willful misrepresentation, to the detriment of the public interest; or to incite, encourage or assist in subversive or treasonable acts.
SEC. 5. Right of Government. – A special right is hereby reserved to the President of the Philippines, in times of war, rebellion, public peril, calamity, emergency, disaster or disturbance of peace and order, to temporarily take over and operate the stations or facilities of the grantee, to temporarily suspend the operation of any station or facility in the interest of public safety, security and public welfare, or to authorize the temporary use and operation thereof by any agency of the government, upon due compensation to the grantee, for the use of said stations or facilities during the period when they shall be so operated. The radio spectrum is a finite resource that is a part of the national patrimony and the use thereof is a privilege conferred upon the grantee by the State and may be withdrawn anytime, after due process.
…………………………………………….
Notice that “rebellion” is one of the conditions under which Moussolini, err, the President can exercise certain awesome powers under the Law.
It’s really none of my doing…it’s the genius of a constitutional democracy.
if we don’t think the media are capable of abusing freedom and discretion just like the govt, we are peddling fascism too.
“It is because information is itself a commodity that Press Freedom must by necessity be considered to be a Right of Commerce and NOT fundamental and generic right, like ordinary free speech. Press Freedom is a degraded and highly restrict form of Free Speech.” – DJB
Hmmm, this it seems succinctly sums up the FUNDAMENTAL flaw in what i perceive to be the hollow-headed rallying cry of the Media in the last 50 years (a rallying cry that, unfortunately, Filipinos simply lapped up over that same unfortunate period).
Information is a necessity that everyone is entitled to. But the Media is a special entity in this regard because it DIRECTLY PROFITS from information. Therefore information as far as the Media is concerned is an ECONOMIC asset rather than an entitlement. It seems to follow then that their efforts to acquire said asset should be governed more by commercial rules rather than ethical standards.
It’s hard indeed to trust an entity that profits from information while at the same time propagating a false impression that it heroically makes said information available altruistically to the public. An oxymoronic stance to say the least but nevertheless a triumph in spin engineering at best.
Media nga naman talaga…
If I, an ordinary Filipino, would want to go to the latest coup and cover it for, say, my blog which anyone with internet access can see, and from which I do not profit, and the cops come in and say I better get the hell out and stop covering the event, can I, an ordinary citizen, refuse and invoke freedom of the press?
Back in the days when coup organisers would hole up themselves in Camp Aguinaldo and government troops would be attempting to storm the camp from the outside, the media — like the bunch of idiots that they are — would be giving blow-by-blow accounts of troop movements over free-to-air TV and radio.
Is that freedom of the press? Or is that just plain stupidity, ignorance, and blatant profiteering?
Go figure.
My point is, if you were a soldier, and you caught wind of some moron compromising your cover — and therefore your life — wouldn’t you be entitled to blow that morons brains out?
if one adopts that logic there is no nobility in the profession of medicine, or of art, they are all pedestrian money grubbing activities.
re: benign0’s question, you would be entitled to blow the person’s brains out if you had no thinking officers in charge to ensure you didn’t shoot first then ask questions later.
the assumptions being made make me wonder if we were all watching the same events unfold. the assumption is, government ought to have used maximum force, that furthermore, media was obstructing the operations, that media then presented a menace to life and limb to heavily-armed troops armed with bulletproof vests, highpower arms, armored vehicles, with air support and the armed forces on standby -that a police action was and ought to have been, on par with operations of the armed forces.
yet if that were the case, then that sort of operation ought to have been the province of the armed forces, but they could not be trusted -so the police were sent in to do the military’s job.
again, return to the justifications of the government. they did their job by warning media of the consequences. they then said media had to be detained, to sort out who was who, then they said someone was helping the rebels, then they said they were going to throw the book at media for obstructing and menacing something or other.
in other words the assertion of powers was made as an afterthought, because not top of mind during the actual events, when cooler heads prevailed instead of the bloodbath some people wanted. to show you the importance of those cooler heads, if a massacre had been conducted with impunity, you would have made a hero and martyr of trillanes. it was because of cooler heads prevailing -in part because the media was there- that the supporters of the president could happily hoot afterwards.
mlq3, you got it all wrong. i’m not criticizing the press and comparing it unfavorably with other professions with “public service” aspect. all i’m saying is that, in our scheme of things, the press or media cannot have a superior (let alone “absolute”) right over that of all the other professionals or individual citizens. all that is asked is that the media should obey the law and rules that everyone else in society is subject to. how could that create a “chilling effect” on the exercise of press freedom?
btw, you have neglected to address the “responsibility” aspect of this discussion that i raised in my previous comment.
Jeg, let me attempt to answer your question if the cops have the authority to tell you to stop covering the events in your blog, as you said you don’t profit..
Profit in this case doesn’t mean just “monetary”. you could also profit by promoting your own belief or ideology and if in your jurisdiction their is a law or a declared emergency decree that prohibits the use of any medium to cover an event considered a Threat to the security of the State, and a Coup is, then invoking the Freedom of Speech and Espression will not absolve you…and if you take note, the Freedom of Speech is guaranteed to Everyone, even to ordinary citizens…
The Press is “membership-only”, isn’t it? Are the board of directors of ABS-CBN considered “members of the Press”?
Profit in this case doesn’t mean just “monetaryâ€Â. you could also profit by promoting your own belief or ideology and if in your jurisdiction their is a law or a declared emergency decree that prohibits the use of any medium to cover an event considered a Threat to the security of the State, and a Coup is, then invoking the Freedom of Speech and Espression will not absolve you…and if you take note, the Freedom of Speech is guaranteed to Everyone, even to ordinary citizens…
Thanks, vic. Let’s eliminate all aspects of profit. Let’s say Im an altruistic sort or just a curious collector of ‘events’ for posterity. I just want to cover the event for my blog. Let’s assume I adhere to all the best qualities of journalism: objectivity, fairness, accuracy, and all that. Our constitution says no law shall be passed curtailing the freedom of speech, the press, etc. I take that to also mean “No ORDER shall be given curtailing the freedom the speech, the press, etc.” Is the police and DOJ’s ‘advisory’ an order? I submit it is not. Was it a warning? If by warning you mean ‘If we ask you to leave and you dont, we’ll arrest you’, then it is a warning, and a pretty reasonable one I think, faced with a situation such as the one at the Manila Pen. The Press can ignore the warning, as is their right, in the pursuit of the story, and fight the arrest in the courts AFTER theyre actually arrested. What they shouldnt do is — forgive me MLQ3 — waste the court’s time with a suit. Use the press to hammer at those who gave the warning and reiterate the resolve to cover all future events in all objectivity, fairness, honesty, and accuracy.
An ordinary citizen doesnt have that power of Big Media. An ordinary citizen has the right to cover the event, but he doesnt have the power to fight the arrest later. Big media has less reason to complain than the ordinary citizen which is why I think the ordinary citizen isnt rallying to support Big Media’s cause.