In Spain, Arroyo gets Medalla de Oro for defending human rights (stupid comment by ignorant Philippine ambassador, comparing the university award with the US Congressional gold medal; in the study of these things, that would be like comparing a Rotary award with a Royal Knighthood, there’s no comparison). In Mindanao, Catholics afraid of Muslim homeland deal. And in business, Is a deal looming with Danding?
Manila Peninsula files complaint with police over looting by the cops. Overseas, even as Thais wear yellow to mark monarch’s 80th year, read about Thailand’s Royal Shirt Industry.
And After Hugo Châvez’s defeat in a constitutional referendum, where next for Venezuela? A particularly relevant article is Venezuela Is Not Florida, which explains the virtues of the electronic voting system used in Venezuela.
See also an interesting Slate blog entry on how old pros in American politics are abandoning their political careers to become lobbyists.
My column today is The ones who got in the way.
It makes reference to Freedom of Expression: Is There a Difference Between Speech and Press from the Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute website; see also the Wex article on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In Nouriel Roubini’s blog, Financial Crisis and Economic Hard Landing Outlook.
See also ABS-CBN news execs claw at gov’t officials in dialogue and Gonzalez ups pressure on defiant TV networks and the more circumspect report, Media warned of ‘next time:
Puno said under present laws, that appeared not to have been implemented in previous times even during martial law, “mere presence” of journalists in a crime scene may be seen as “obstructing justice.”
But the media executives fired back, asserting that the presence of journalists in a crime scene is in the performance of their “duty to the people” and that journalists are empowered by the Constitution in its freedom of the press clause as well as the Bill of Rights.
In a conflict between the Constitution and laws enacted by Congress or any lawmaking body, according to legal observers, the Constitution always prevails.
Puno mellowed his stand, saying that while law enforcers fully respect the rights of the press, “both sides should recognize that there is a need to strike a balance between the exercise of press freedom and the government’s duty to protect the citizenry from lawless elements such as those behind the Manila Peninsula siege.”
He said the police upholds the right of the press to inform the public “subject to its standard procedures in police operations, that is why members of the media who were brought to Bicutan were immediately released after they were properly identified and no charges were filed against any of them.”
He also asserted the police ‘had not curtailed the right of the press to disseminate information, but only restricted the gathering of information that could compromise ongoing police operations following the surrender of Trillanes and his group.”
Puno also noted that journalists taken to Bicutan “were those who had insisted on surrounding Trillanes, which provided him with a protective cordon even after police officers were already implementing a lawful order to arrest him.”
He added other journalists who left the hotel when the police appealed to them to do so “were allowed to leave the hotel and not taken to Camp Bagong Diwa for processing.”
“Several Magdalo rebels,” Puno said, “took advantage of the confusion that reigned following the surrender of Trillanes by removing their military uniforms and wearing press IDs to elude arrest.”
He noted that under PNP Memorandum Circular 2006-09-01 issued last year, the processing and debriefing following a crisis situation should include all hostages and victims, perpetrators, witnesses and key participants in the incident.
The PNP circular on crisis management likewise states that “the rights and duties of media personalities in collecting information shall cease the moment a lawful order for them to vacate the crime scene is given so that legitimate police operation will be able to step in to solve the incident.”
The circular further states the venue of the processing and debriefing and investigation “shall be at [sic] friendly ground and secured place, preferably at the police headquarters to be determined by the Ground Commander.”
Puno said the above quoted circular was the reason why, instead of immediately releasing the journalists at the scene of the Manila Peninsula siege following the surrender of Trillanes, Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim and their cohorts, the PNP transported reporters to Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan for processing, after which they were immediately released.
Incidentally, the above answers the questions raised by reader Geo in a long discussion we had in yesterday’s entry, one which exasperated reader ay_naku. A veteran’s take on the matter was in the column of Amando Doronila earlier this week. A very eloquent blog entry is by Miko Samson, a student journalist. In his column, Tony Abaya asks why no one went to the Peninsula:
The Filipino electorate has matured substantially. In the 2007 senatorial elections, movie stars fared badly and candidates who spent lavishly were not necessarily elected. Voters no longer attended political rallies to get to know the candidates. Instead they listened to public affairs talk shows on television to see and hear what the candidates had to say about the issues of the day.
Trillanes was the exception that proved the rule. Despite his almost total absence from the talk shows — because he was in detention for the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny — he was elected because he was young, he was good-looking, and he had the credentials of a rebellious underdog, all of which connected him with the generally young electorate.
But after that, he settled into relative obscurity, once in a while issuing predictable statements against the corruption in the Arroyo government, without really emerging as an exciting new force in Philippine politics. Unlike his glib kuya Gringo Honasan, Trillanes never mastered the art of public speaking and his oral statements, even during the stand-off, came out flat and uninspiring.
Together with two friends, I had the opportunity to talk to Trillanes for more than an hour in the Marine brig in Fort Bonifacio about five months ago. I tried to sense what it was in him that enticed 11 million Filipinos to vote for him last May, and frankly I am still not sure I know…
What he had and has is youthful idealism and a sincere abhorrence of the moral bankruptcy of the present order, but which, however, are fatally tarnished by his lead role in the Oakwood Mutiny of 2003, which was meant (didn’t he know?) to restore to power the then accused (now convicted) plunderer Joseph Estrada.. If he did not know that he was being used then, has he grown any wiser since? How does he reconcile this moral dichotomy?
Not having any original ideas of his own — other than generic ones about corruption and poverty and injustice — he would be totally dependent on his advisers in the highly unlikely event that he became head-of-state of this country. And who would these advisers be?
Judging from the civilian company that he chose to keep during his Moment of Truth, this would include lawyers J. V. Bautista and Argee Guveara… And there is Dodong Nemenzo, former president of UP and former associate member of the Politburo of the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas.
Juan Mercado eloquently presents People Power as tide of history but also, a genie that can’t be summoned at the drop of a hat.
Contrasting views on the Alston Report from Philippine Commentary and Torn and Frayed (I totally disagree on the issue with Philippine Commentary, just as we disagree on the worthiness of national security as a concept, on the value of the “presumption of regularity” when it comes to government officials, etc.).
Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded, on the divisions within the Liberal Party. Shrewd observations (again, full disclosure: I’m a member of the LP think tank, NIPS, though I’m not a party member). In her blog, smoke says the candidates need to become very, very specific.
Blog@AWB Holdings on the Sumilao farmers’ futile visit to the Senate.
This made me laugh: blogspotting.
Senor Enrique goes to the Rizal Shrine with one of the hero’s grandnephews.
Technorati Tags: constitution, human rights, journalism, media, military, philippines, politics, president, society
take your own advice Cat. read this again and not scan it.
just bec i used the word “agents” doesn’t mean i was referring to agents of the state. lol. go back to school Cat and review your grammar.
now, allow me to say: sheesh.
hvrds :
“First the BSP led by Rey “the magician†Tetangco introduced warrants for holders of ROP dollar bonds. …. Someone should ask Rey ‘the magician’
why he did this. ”
Your fears that the move is detrimental to the government is motivated by the assumption that the forex rate will slide further into the medium and long-term periods. But forex rates are driven by market forces, which means that any medium to long-term forecast as to its direction is pure speculation.
What the warrant does is it insulates the ROP Dollar bonds held by banks against a major market risk which is the forex movement. Since banks have to purchase these warrants, then they will always incurr a loss equal to the warrant’s price regardless of movements in the forex. For banks, it is always better to incurr this KNOWN LOSS, rather than to suffer an UNKNOWN GAIN OR LOSS of bigger magnitudes. This is a form of risk management.
Having these options and derivatives makes financial markets stable, which is in the interest of the government AND ultimately the public. If forex rates move up in the future, the government gains. If forex rates move down, the government still gains by way of a stable financial system.
The BSP is correct in introducing this warrant. Maybe the reason why it has not been questioned is that people who would have the background to understand how government and financial markets operate see this as a correct move. Ask your nearest financial economist.
Don’t spin this story as another case of government corruption. If the Senate smells this and consequently conducts an inquiry, it would be another unresolved scandal for which both administration and opposition, practically the whole country, loses. All because of a simple misunderstanding.
cvj, here your go again with your ill-considered and incorrect comment. i did cite the relevant penal code provisions, originally enacted in the the 1930’s. however, if you are little more observant, i specified that they were duly amended in 1973 and 1985. and before you cockily assert that those amendments were made under marcos, they were specifically retained by executive order issued by cory aquino to remove unwanted marcos amendments. in any event the provisions in question remain in the books in full force and effect and must be observed and obeyed by everyone. the age of the law does not matter.
bencard, also, the revised penal code was amended under cory to add coup d’etat as a punishable crime.
the cat said ‘Btw are you reading the news or just scanning it?’
I can do both with comprehension. How about you? Do you understand what you are reading? The police never invoked any provisions of the Revised Penal Code when they arrested the members of the media.
I will tell my friends at the PNP to arrest you next time you go back to the Philippines for PROCESSING. Look for it in the Revised Penal Code or ask Puno what it means?
if the Philippines is like the U.S.A.or any Western countries where citizens could easily sue authorities for unlawful arrests, the government would be bankcrupt for all the unlawful arrests and detentions just for the last few weeks.
So many instances the Cops detained and processed many citizens because they don’t know under which offence to charge them and ended up releasing them. Maybe Puno should call it Pre-emptive Detention, sounds like George W. Pre-emptive Defense. Oh those smart people, too smart to comprehend…
“so if you want to discuss my post above, let’s do it here. you can bring your ‘group’ if you want to.” –DinaPinoy
There’s nothing really to discuss about what’s in your post if discussion is what you seek — but if you need an explanation as to why I asked you what you were seeking to achieve by sniping at Ellen in Manolo’s blog, here it is:
I saw your lengthy comment in one of Manolo’s blog threads:
“let’s take for example one ‘journalist’ who has a blog that is so biased and one-sided. her blog is anti-gloria. most opposing post, even if you are lining up gloria with marcos and erap are being deleted reason being the post is ‘diverting’ the main issue at hand. but postings by her ‘choir’ are being tolerated even if it’s just being chikahan.” — Dinapinoy
and thought you might be referring to Ellen’s blog — I let it pass thinking it was just an unhappy rant and went to visit Ellen’s blog, and lo and behold! Two legnthy posts of yours in Ellen’s blog:
DinaPinoy Says: December 7th, 2007 at 3:23 am and DinaPinoy Says: December 7th, 2007 at 3:37 am
http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=1933
Two successive long posts which were highlighted appeared right before my eyes right after I read your post in Manolo’s, so why the fuss? Saying one thing in Manolo’s yet publishing freely in Ellen’s. I don’t get it?
And so, DinaPinoy, that was why I re-posted what I thought was your double standard hinagpis in Manolo’s at Ellen’s blog — to ask you.
Listen, DinaPinoy, it’s really simple: you have been vigourously complaining, whining and sniping or ratting about Ellen and her as far back and making hinagpis at Manolo’s that posts (yours I presume) were being deleted left right center by Ellen but presto, the minute you’re done with your hinagpis, you jump over to Ellen’s and do kilometric posts in her blog which are still posted there, highligted and all, so why the hinagpis?
(As far as I can recall you have not done it as vigorously about it in other blogs like Uniffors or Buraot’s or Schumey’s or Arbet’s or Philippine Commentary… but maybe you will soon. So good luck.)
Anyway, what did you expect Manolo to do because of your hinagpis? Bash Ellen on the head? Why don’t you tackle your issue with Ellen yourself?
One must be fair: Ellen has not only deleted posts that were DinaPinoy’s or SiPinoy or whatever… She’s deleted many of my posts too (yep, dozens and dozens of them) when she felt the posts were going out of bounds or out of topic. I didn’t take it against her and if I didn’t think she was being fair, I took it up with her personally and not go around getting reinforcement from somewhere else.
Fair you must be if you want others to be fair to you: You have been an oldtimer in Ellen’s blog and one of its regular commenters so you must know that Ellen never failed to castigate anybody whom she feels was going out of bounds, eg, she had often castigated the anti-Gloria women bloggers whom you say where doing chikahan in her blog too when foul language was used or when they were out of topic. Ellen didn’t single you out just becaue you were DinaPinoy.
So to say that she selects to castigate you alone because you don’t toe her line is not true and is dishonest. To prove my point, like you (or maybe out of hinagpis like you), one of her permanent posters who was a heavy anti-Gloria commenter in her blog felt bad because Ellen castigated her for her posts that she decided to abstain from posting in Ellen’s blog but hey, that’s her blog.
(Apologies, Manolo, for tackling this issue in your blog and hope that this would be the end of the hinapgis series about Ellen Tordesillas in your blog. To me, any continuation of the hinagpis series against Ellen by those who comment regularly in her column or blog space should be taken up with her by that commenter — quite the relevant thing to do and to avoid waste of your blog space. Thank you.)
agree completely, mbw.
one thing that puzzles me. a total lack of response by those furious at property rights of the peninsula being violated by rebels, when it comes to the allegations of looting of the hotel -based on statements of hotel employees themselves.
Bencard, the subsequent ammendments do not affect the point i was making. PD 299 merely added Barangay officials to the ‘Persons in Authority and Agents of Person in Authority’ list, while BP 873 added Lawyers.
The conclusion that Geo derived was that “there is a law that allows the law enforcers to establish a yellow line; a no go zone”. The law that you cited says no such thing.
All of these are symptomatic of failure of national institutions to serve the people. If Malacanang, Congress, etc have failed the people, then so has media (just as corrupt, powerhungry and arrogant as those it excoriates), the Church (morally derelict, corrupt and backward), and the military (corrupt, weak, and greedy).
I’m a bit confused: some media people may have been pretty gung-ho about covering the incident (certainly braver than I would have been if I had been covering it), but “aiding and abetting”? Is there any evidence at all for this?
Would it be aiding and abetting if a reporter were inside a bank being robbed and decided to stay put for the sake of the scoop?
cvj, being a layman not schooled in the law, i can understand your failure to comprehend the import and nuances of a legal provision. take it from me, law is not always literal. a lawful “order” of a person in authority not to cross a boundary of a crime scene is , i think, the “virtual yellow line” that geo was referring to (correct me if i’m wrong, geo). of course, you will not find “yellow line” in a statute or executive order. but i’m sure you will find it in the police or law enforcement manual which implements the relevant provisions of the penal code and the rules of
court.
Mike, I was just suggesting that were the only possible charges that they could have been charged instead of “obstruction” since they did not obstruct the investigation after they were detained and questioned.
But also obstruction is very broad, but in the end the courts will be the one to interpret the statute if there is one, but since nobody is charged, we of all people will end up interpreting something that doesn’t even exist. As you noticed, even the Philippine authorities are confused. Puno was not even clear, never mind about Gonzalez, time for him to retire.
mike, i think allowing themselves to be used as “human shield”, and giving the rebels a national “forum” to spew their propaganda against the government and exhort the people to join them in rebellion, specifying the time and place to converge, are, at the very least, circumstancial evidence of aiding or abetting, or giving aid and comfort to, the perpetrators.
Bencard, even a layman knows that a law cannot be interpreted metaphorically (aka loosely) especially if there are existing Supreme Court decisions that mitigate against such an interpretation. I’d like to refer you to Marichu Lambino’s notes on this matter:
http://www.marichulambino.wordpress.com/
cvj, with due respect to atty. lambino as a companera, none of the cases she cited involves “virtual yellow line”. you were arguing with geo that there is no legal provision specifically saying “yellow line”. i was telling you that the “order” of a person in authority maybe oral or written or by unambiguous signs whose meaning is understandable even to clueless ignoramus. i suggest you go back to ms. lambino and consult with her further.
Bencard, the legal decisions that Marichu Lambino cites involve instances where, as you say, “the ‘order’ of a person in authority maybe oral or written or by unambiguous signs whose meaning is understandable even to clueless ignoramus.” Her main message is that even with such an ‘order’, one cannot automatically derive the existence of a “virtual yellow line” solely on the basis of Articles 151 and 152 of the Revised Penal Code. After citing case law, she concludes that:
I have no problem with Marichu Lambino’s conclusion, but it appears you do, so perhaps it is you who needs to take up this matter with her further.
mbw,
first of all, i didn’t name names.
i rarely post at ellen’s anymore. and if yo have read them,the long posts you mentioned above, they’re not my piece. they were from tony abaya’s (which MLQ posted here) and a news item from GMA news. i will be doing that from time to time to give that site a semblance of ‘balance’ so people can see different angle of opinions/news. you and the other posters there learned something from one of those posts, right? the one regarding Jambi, right? here were the exchanges after i posted GMA-news item:
and for your info, yes, posts are still being deleted, but did you have to re-register 3 times?
i didn’t say pinoys has this trait exclusively. and it is good to band together. majority wins. but in an ideal society, the minority is also protected, not persecuted.
sure. but in cyberspace, it doesn’t help to ASSUME anything. like i’m one of benignO’s clones. that i am a woman. please, don’t talk about me. talk about what i’ve said.
“i will be doing that from time to time to give that site a semblance of ‘balance’ so people can see different angle of opinions/news.” — DinaPinoy
Oh, I know… as if you were God’s gift to Ellen and her friends kind of thing? Wow!
Unbelievable — give it a rest man! I’ve already asked you, what’s your point? Did you expect Manolo to bash Ellen’s head for you?
Don’t expect Manolo to hold your hand and pat you on the head because of your hinagpis against Ellen and comments in Ellen’s blog in Manolo’s blog — not fair to Manolo.
You have a beef against Ellen Tordesillas? Tell her direct. You got a beef against some of the comments in Ellen’s blog? Raise it there. Ellen has got an e-mail too.
¤¤¤¤¤
To Manolo: This will be my last comment on DinaPinoy’s hinagpis series. Thanks again.
cvj, i think ms. lambino was just discussing her take on whether or not “obstruction” had been committed. i don’t see her opining on whether an “order” had been given and in what form, which was your issue with geo, and now me. you’re back into your infuriating old trick, reading too much in someone else’s quote to wiggle out of an untenable proposition. i suggested you consult with ms. lambino (your chosen legal authority) because i can sense you are befuddled by the intricacies of the law.
mbw,
ok. over and out. but somehow this gives me a sense that you didn’t catch that my recent post there were tony abaya’s (posted here, scroll up and you’ll see) and that GMA-news item. you just reacted because you saw my name there.
wow filipino ka talaga, pinagmalaki mo pa ang connection mo sa PNP, ni hindi mo alam kung may connection din ako.
typical pikon. Sheesh.
“i will be doing that from time to time to give that site a semblance of ‘balance’ so people can see different angle of opinions/news.† DinaPinoy
I dont think you need to do that. Everybody knows that Ellen’s blog is just an anti gloria chat room. It’s her blog and she can do whatever she wants with it.
…and from a post above..
my mistake. my partial blindness made missed some words.
yeah, i got to correct the grammar. just because i used the word agents, it did not mean, i was referring to the agents of the state.
mwhehehe.
cvj,
I don’t understand your problem.
The law allows the duly suthorized to make commands at a crime scene, especially DURING the crime. Saying “don’t go in” or “get out”, is within their rights (or “powers” for those playing semantic games).
That’s not a carte blanche, though.
In a hostage or siege situation (or coup/rebellion), those who ignored the order and voluntarily remain with the criminals may be: a) innocent, b) unwillingly obstructing, c) willingly obstructing, d) aiding and abeting, or e) actually one of the criminals.
These people may be detained for questioning, processing and/or arrest at a place considered secure.
There are certainly instances wherein the authorities have overstepped the boundaries. That’s when they are taken to court. Then the judiciary rules.
I don’t know how the court will (if ever) rule on this specific case. Maybe the claim that the media was just trying to do its job will be the key. Maybe not.
I think that if the media went in AFTER being told not to go in (the virtual or real yellow line), they’d be in big trouble. In this or almost any country. My line of questioning was about the law when the media is ALREADY INSIDE. Does that make a difference, I wondered.
From what the lawyers have said, it seems that the authorities’ demands (both “don’t go in” and “come out now”) are typically legally valid. All atty Lambino did was show some of the gray areas when trying to define “obstruction”. There are many gray areas, I’m sure. Did the media actually lock arms? Was this to prevent the police from reaching Trillianes et al? Was it done because they just wanted to stay and record the events? I don’t know.
I don’t think this is na slam-dunk case of police repression. Nor do I think it is a slam-dunk case of obstruction or abetting. Most likely, it’s none of the above…but that’s just a guess.
Geo, the problem i have with your position is that you used the law (Articles 151 & 152 of the Revised Penal Code) as if it supported the initial and strong version of your argument i.e. “In sum, there is a law that allows the law enforcers to establish a yellow line; a no go zone.” (which is itself a softer version of your earlier remark – “You do realize that the law says that the media should get out of the way, yes? In every country in the world?“).
It’s only after making such a strong conclusion that you retreat to a weaker position and devote the rest of your comment to caveats, disclaimers and contingencies. To declare victory in order to cover your subsequent retreat to more defensible positions is intellectually dishonest.
cvj,
Still don’t get your problem. I was never unsure that the police could make a yellow line and prevent crossing. I wasn’t sure what would be the deal if the media was ALREADY inside. Do you understand this difference?
Again, it became clear that the difference is not a difference. The police can demand a lotta stuff. If they overdo it, they are liable. But they can say “get out” or whatever.
What’s up with you, cvj? You’ve changed a lot.
Geo, my problem is with your approach where you seek the rhetorical high ground via lack of rigor (i.e. by using metaphors to augment basic legal provisions), admittedly an effective technique if no one notices.
Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code establishes that there is such a thing as persons in authority (and their agents) as well as penalties for not following them, full stop. Article 152 identifies who these persons are (on the basis of their professions) and under what circumstances they can be considered ‘authorities’, full stop.
To derive from these two Articles the conclusion that the police is entitled to draw a metaphorical ‘yellow line’ or ‘no go area’ frames the issue to the advantage of the authorities. The authorities are not entitled to this advantage because conceding the existence of a virtual ‘yellow line’ means accepting a conclusion that still needs to be proven, i.e. that the press was inside some sort of line. In resolving the issue of whether or not the press is guilty of resistance to or disobedience of a person in authority the ‘yellow police line’ is at best an irrelevant metaphorical hurdle, or a devious framing technique.
“Geo, my problem is with your approach where you seek the rhetorical high ground via lack of rigor (i.e. by using metaphors to augment basic legal provisions), admittedly an effective technique if no one notices”
Sorry, but really, I have no idea what that means. I thought I just said what I thought.
cvj, better quit before you expose yourself further. “yellow line” is not a metaphor. it is a form of order from the police – persons in authority. the law does not give the police an “advantage”. it gives them the means to perform their duties effectively.
Bencard, attitude is no substitute for a well-reasoned argument.
speak for yourself, cvj.
Geo
I have always thought that as long as the actions of any people are going to be against GMA, then these actions are all justifiable to some people here.
In short, the laws go out the window. Let’s break the law since Gloris (in their eyes) is breaking the law also.
I do want to hear them make the same argument when it’s the regime they support sitting in Malacanang. I will remember this comment about the media and slap it on their faces when they defend the authorities’ actions then.
Knowing the general mentality of a junta led group, let’s see how they will react then.
Silent Waters, if you follow the discussion, you will see that both sides are arguing on the basis of the law. The differences have more to do with the applicability of the provisions and the conclusions that can be derived from the same.
if to me you sound like a benign0 echo box, that is my impression and not an assumption. because like i said, in cyberspace, niches are created and so do meeting of minds converge. if harion thinks i sound like equalizer, so be it–it just happens that equalizer and i agree on points.
woman? i don’t impute gender specifics either, unless your handle is declared to all and sundry as nonfictitious. check my threads to you–check if i ever referred to you as a he or she. point is, if i don’t even get easily impressed by the resume build ups by reactors in here who weaves in their accomplishments in their arguments like as if they are relevant, gender pa kaya?
if i called you dina, that was a truncation of your handle dinapinoy. was that difficult to grasp?
it was you who gave the discourse on the equivalency of names:
dina=woman
dino=man
let me stretch this out further:
pinoy–>america=democracy.
myopia.
sorry inodoro, but the ‘name’ part was not directed to you.
ah, america. the country some people love to hate. america = colonial mentality. yet even on this blog, references to it is all over the place.
dina,
america is a country i do not presume to hate. i take issue on the colonial mentality espoused by many without reflection.
Hello, Manolo.
I was checking out stats about my blog and was pleasantly surprised to see that you had mentioned my little post here. Thanks for mentioning me.