CMFR/PHILIPPINES – A village councilor allegedly threatened a TV news crew in Cagayan de Oro City last 1 February 2012. The village councilor denied the allegation.

Cagayan de Oro City is a chartered city 789 kilometers south of Manila.

GMA News correspondent Nef Luczon told the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) that Tuburan village councilor Roy Yanez threatened to “behead” him and cameramen Michael Tolang and Michael Cabulay after he inquired about the effects of mining on the area and the Iponan River. Tuburan village is one of the villages along Iponan River.

Luczon was asking the barangay chairwoman—who happens to be Yanez’s mother—about  mining activities when Yanez allegedly asked why the reporter was asking about mining when his report was supposed to be on the damage caused by Tropical Storm Sendong (International name: Washi).

Luczon told Yanez that some residents were alleging that mining actvities along Iponan River might have aggravated the effects of Tropical Storm Sendong. Sendong caused flash floods in the cities of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan last December 2011. It left 1,200 dead and cost millions in property damage.

Luczon’s answers allegedly irked Yanez, who in the middle of their “heated argument,” allegedly threatened to hit him and the other members of his news crew with a burak if they did not immediately leave the village. “Panghawa diha, laparohon ta hinuon mo og burak (Leave now or I will chop your heads off),” Yanez allegedly told Luczon. Burak is a bladed weapon similar to a bolo or machete.

Luczon and his cameramen decided to leave the village when they realized that they would not get any information from the village council. Some residents allegedly asked the police to escort the TV crew for fear that Yanez might harm them.

“Sabi ko po sa kanila kung ayaw nila mag-comment sabihin na lang nila nang diretso. Hindi ‘yung makikipag-away sila (I told them that they could have turned down my request for an interview immediately. There was no need to quarrel with us),” he told the CMFR.

Yanez told CMFR last 6 February 2012 that Luczon’s allegation was not true. He said he was just scolding his mother for agreeing to be interviewed because they were in a hurry to attend the memorial services for his sister’s husband. “Mahuhuli na po kasi kami kaya pinapagalitan ko yung nanay ko na huwag na magpainterview. Akala po nila siguro sa kanila ako nagagalit (I told my mother not to accept the interview because we might be late. Maybe they misinterpret me and thought that I was angry at them),” Yanez said.

Luczon and his cameramen will file criminal and administrative charges against Yanez at the Department of Interior and Local Government as advised by GMA Network’s legal department. But Yanez said that he will try explaining to Luczon the circumstances during the interview when they meet again.

On Feb. 2, 2012—Malacañang has for the first time forwarded a draft Freedom of Information (FOI) bill to the House of Representatives for discussion and possible enactment.

It has been 19 years since the first FOI bill was filed in the House of Representatives. Advocates had expected President Benigno S. Aquino III to make FOI a priority legislation because he had pledged during the 2010 campaign that he would support public access to information.

The Malacañang bill is an improvement over the earlier versions presented to the public. It is an obvious attempt to conform with the United Nations standards, among them the commitment to err on the side of the public’s right to information.

The current bill removes the provision creating an Information Commission (IC) in the Office of the President and the complicated system through which information may be requested and released.

The continuous vigilance by and inputs from civil society organizations and FOI advocates helped make these revisions part of the current Palace version of the bill.

Participants at the Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR) Policy Forum on the FOI last July 27, 2011, for example emphasized that “the principle of maximum disclosure be observed, and limitations and exceptions to access narrowly defined and strictly construed.”

CMFR, however, notes that the retention of information on national security among the exceptions is still problematic without a clear definition of what security includes. While there are exemptions that could be used to protect wrongdoing, the bill does provide for safeguards which should be acted on by both public officials and advocates.

Congress may introduce changes to the current Malacañang version that would either restore the problematic provisions in earlier versions, or even make the final version more restrictive. Once the present version is deliberated in Congress, it is therefore up to the FOI stakeholders—journalists’ and media advocacy groups, civil society, and the citizenry in general—to see to it that what is passed as law will reflect the right to information as a human right.

STATEMENT OF THE FREEDOM FUND FOR FILIPINO JOURNALISTS (FFFJ) ON THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE’S VIEW THAT THE PHILIPPINE LIBEL LAW IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

THE Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) hails as a triumph for free expression and press freedom the declaration by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), which was adopted during the 103^rd session of the United Nations, that the provisions of the Philippines’ Revised Penal Code (RPC) penalizing libel as a criminal offense is “incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)” to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Recalling its General Comment No. 34 that “state parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation” the UNHRC also recommended the decriminalization of libel in the Philippines, as the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) has been urging for nearly two decades. It also recommended the review of the libel law, and urged the Philippine government to compensate Davao City broadcaster Alexander “Alex” Adonis for time served in prison.

Under the provisions of the RPC, libel is punishable with imprisonment, although some of those convicted of the offense have also been subjected to exorbitant fines running into millions of pesos.  The possibility of being arrested and imprisoned even before conviction for libel has been used to silence critical journalists. Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s husband Jose Miguel Arroyo, for example, filed 11 libel suits against 46 journalists starting in 2006 in an attempt to stop press reporting on and criticism of his wife.

The UNHRC issued the declaration in response to a 2008 complaint filed by Adonis protesting his conviction and subsequent imprisonment for supposedly libeling then House Speaker Prospero Nograles when he reported over his radio program in 2006 that Nograles had run out of a hotel room without his clothes on when the husband of the woman he had supposedly spent the night with showed up.  Adonis was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of five months to four years, but questioned the decision after he had served two years.  Lawyer Harry Roque filed the complaint, with the CMFR and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) as Adonis’ co-signatories.

It is now up to the Philippine government to take the steps necessary to decriminalize libel and prevent similar occurrences, to cause the immediate dismissal of all pending cases of criminal libel, as well as to compensate Adonis and every other journalist who has been imprisoned under the provisions of the Philippine libel law. To hurry the process along, the FFFJ calls on all journalists’ and media advocacy groups as well as civil society organizations to campaign for the immediate adoption of the UNCHR recommendations, including the dropping of all pending criminal libel charges against journalists.

Founded in 2003 to stop the killing of journalists and to support journalists under threat, the Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) is a coalition of journalist and media advocacy groups  Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility  (CMFR),  Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), Kapisanan ng Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), and Philippine Press Institute (PPI). CMFR is the FFFJ Secretariat.

The Philippines is up 16 places in the 2011 Press Freedom Index released by Reporters sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders, RSF). RSF is an international non-government organization based in France which promotes freedom of information and press freedom.

Though the country improved its ranking from 156th place in 2010, the RSF said that “In the Philippines (140th), which rose again in the index after falling in 2010 as a result of the massacre of 32 journalists in Ampatuan in November 2009, paramilitary groups and private militias continued to attack media workers. The judicial investigation into the Ampatuan massacre made it clear that the response of the authorities was seriously inadequate.”

From its 122nd place in 2009, the country dropped to 156th after the 23 November 2009 Ampatuan Massacre in which 58 people were killed, including 32 journalists and media workers in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao.

The index noted that “ the same trio of countries, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea, absolute dictatorships that permit no civil liberties, again occupy the last three places in the index” and “the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms.”

Timor-Leste got the highest ranking among the eleven Southeast Asian countries at 87th place (together with Kosovo and Zambia). The Philippines got the 7th highest ranking among the Southeast Asian countries. Vietnam was the lowest ranking Southeast Asian country at 171st, with RSF noting that Vietnam “appeared to follow China’s repressive lead and fell seven places. Politically committed journalists and pro-democracy bloggers were harassed by the authorities while the courts continued to invoke state security to hand out prison sentences ranging from two to seven years.”

The 2011 Press Freedom Index contains the results of RSF’s annual survey on the state of press freedom in all five continents and in more than 170 countries. The 2011 index looked into press freedom violations from 1 December 2010 to 30 November 2011. (The full report is in the RSF website [http://en.rsf.org/].)

Earlier in June 2011, the New York-based press freedom advocacy group Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) ranked the Philippines as third in list of 13 countries where impunity for the killers of journalists thrives, the same rank the country received in 2010. (http://cpj.org/reports/2011/06/2011-impunity-index-getting-away-murder.php).

One hundred twenty five out of the 185 cases of journalists/media practitioners killed in the Philippines since 1986 are work-related, according to the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility database.

SALN or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth has been the buzzword since the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona started a week ago.

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) has conducted a briefing session last Jan. 20 to help members of the media and civil society understand what SALN is and encourage more journalists and citizens to exercise their right to information.

PCIJ will conduct another briefing on January 27. Go to http://pcij.org/blog/2012/01/13/do-the-saln-salsa-with-pcij to know more.

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility Executive Director Melinda Quintos de Jesus reacts to the presentation of University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication Dean Rolando Tolentino on the freedom of information during the Salvador P. Lopez Centennial Academic Conference, Jan. 19.

REACTION
By Melinda Quintos de Jesus
Executive Director
Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility

Paper:
FOI: Pagpapatuloy ng Pakikibaka ni S. P. Lopez
Rolando B. Tolentino
Dean
UP College of Mass of Communication

I tend to say no to most invitations to speak outside of the framework of the programs of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) these days, because there is already so much to be done—monitoring of media performance, which is designed to promote best practice, autonomy and ethics in the conduct of the press, and the protection of press freedom and the enhancement of its exercise in the Philippines.

But a sentimental reason suggested that I accept.

Salvador Lopez was already in the public eye, moving from journalism to diplomacy, when I was still in the grade school. Laura, his younger daughter, was briefly a classmate in Maryknoll, where she enrolled while living in Manila.

The generational gap did not prevent our being joined later in Veritas NewsWeekly, an alternative publication in the early 80s where I was one of the editors. The publication, along with other like it, such as Mr. & Mrs. and Malaya, to name only two, was already into exercising freedom of information (FOI), with or without an FOI law—and daring authorities to do something about it.

These papers expanded the bounds of the news imposed by the Marcos regime. Even in a restrictive environment, reporters for the alternative press searched out stories not visible and known to many, and reported the news around the country that did not find space in the Marcos papers which did not provide to the public. It was an activist paper in the best sense of the word, pushing the boundaries of public awareness in a period when the public had only begun to stir to the political change, a shift triggered off by the assassination of Benigno Aquino Jr. in 1983, a shift so deep that it did cause the long standing dictatorship to fall in 1986.

I think S.P. Lopez must have been in retirement at the time, but he readily accepted our invitation to write a column, and was game enough to come visit the office to “shoot the breeze” with Veritas editor-in-chief, Felix Bautista. Among my assignments as number 2 to Felix, was a weekly column which placed my by-line along with S.P.’s and that of Father Joaquin Bernas.

Needless to say, it was a most exhilarating period in Philippine journalism, the remembrance of which is the reason I am here.

The other reason of course is that Roland Tolentino is a friend, a willing and reliable colleague who has helped advocate groups like CMFR extend their reach to link the practicing press with the academic community. Our joint projects have included expanding awareness about the “culture of impunity” and FOI.

Salamat, Dean Tolentino, sa iyong pagamit ng wikang Pilipino sa kanyang pagtalakay ng FOI, sa kanyang pag-gamit ng mga salitang makatutulong sa pagpapalawak ng pag-unawa ng kahalagahan ng impormasyon.

Professor Tolentino provides a broad overview of this long struggle for FOI legislation in the Philippines.  The global review of countries that have adopted FOI in law shows up one more area in which our democratic growth has lagged, compared, not with the more developed democratic systems of the West, but indeed, suffering in comparison with more recently established democracies –Bangladesh in 2008, Selangor, a state in Malaysia in 2010, and Mongolia in 2011, to name only a few.         .

The current government’s resistance to its passage is the fear of its abuse— noting that the Philippine press does not lack the aggressiveness with which to get the information, nor the assertiveness with which to present the most sensitive of news.

The common wisdom on both sides—the press and those in public life who are subject of press investigations is, for good or bad—the Philippine press is already able to get its information even without a law.

For much of the time of the campaign, journalists were not interested in FOI discussions.  Even now their participation in the campaign for legislation may be found wanting.  “We can get the information, anyway… We can “beg, steal of borrow” or worse.”

Legislation that enumerates the exemptions will only cause more problems when journalists confront those “gray areas” or indeed knowingly cross the line. Given the law, courts, whose officials are not specially trained to understand such issues, can more easily judge, convict and punish journalists who are only doing their duty.

The perils of free access have been cited by President Aquino—the spread of panic, the false alarm that is set of in reporting epidemics, the need for confidentiality for executive sessions—these can all happen with or without an FOI law.

But these are not insurmountable. And legislation may help to educate all in the need for more responsible reporting when dealing with sensitive matters.

In the recent decades, the increased use of tactics for secrecy employed by those in power have made it difficult even for practiced investigative journalists to access public documents such as official Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALNs). Those who do not believe in transparency and accountability have become much better at keeping their information. In fact, the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision to uphold “executive privilege” may trump any FOI legislation.

FOI for Ordinary Citizens

The experience in other countries shows how FOI benefits the most ordinary people. Ordinary citizens who want to safeguard their rights, to gain better service from public servants. Or like the characters in the movie described by Professor Tolentino, citizens acting on behalf of those whose rights have been violated, the salvaged and the disappeared.

In Thailand, a celebrated case involves a mother who wanted to know the grades of the children who gained admission to a public institution so that she could compare these to the grades of her child who did not get accepted. Were there other factors involved, she wanted to know. She won the case from Thailand’s Commission on Information.

In India, the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) a grassroots people’s organization involved village people in the campaign for access to official documents in order to hold elected local officials accountable for the public funds allocated for public infrastructure and other public services. MKSS went around villages holding public rallies in public squares and open fields, chanting, “We don’t want beer!  We don’t want cigarettes!  We don’t want clothes! (Or whatever good applies). We want information! They learned that information can help them to check the mismanagement of public funds, the misuse and abuse of the power of the tax purse and by such vigilance, gain for themselves better government.

We have missed this link to popularization in our own campaign in the Philippines. Which may be the reason why we have so far failed.

I also think we need to connect the issue of information to other gaps in our environment – the increasing failure of public discernment, including the media’s and the press’ disregard for information that is relevant, for information that matters.

The Need for Critical Thinking

The academic community may need to examine their role as well. How well do students to value information for greater learning, the importance of data organization, linking bodies and systems of information across disciplines to arrive at a greater understanding of our society’s needs.

We are indeed in an information age, but we may end up as lacking in understanding and awareness because we have had little help to make the connections between bodies or systems of information and the applications these can have.

The question of Kishore Mahbubani, in his book, Can Asians Think? –echoes a growing fear.  How well do we prepare those we teach to think and to think on their own when confronted with information and data, some of which can be so easily manipulated to provide contradictory aspects of “truth”?

More than individuals thinking on their own, the academe needs to check on the opportunities taken or not taken, to engage the public, to hold public forums not just among themselves but with others who work outside the academic groves, so as to test ideas against other ideas, a point of view against other vantage points, the collective exercise that is called civic discourse, which helps build up consensus and common ground.

Can Filipinos think?

How do they do, and there are signs that they do – they cannot do so with great purpose without freedom and access to information.

If in fact they fail in critical thinking, then not all the information in the world will make a difference. We may live in an information revolution, but all the information will make up nothing more than empty sound and passing fury, amounting to nothing much.

And so, our hope and our goal is for our communities to join together to surmount the absence or the weaknesses and flaws of an FOI law. Even now, we should join in the task of raising the levels of Filipinos’ critical thinking, their information and media literacy so they can be – with or without a law, empowered as citizens of a democracy.

CMFR/PHILIPPINES – A newspaper publisher in General Santos City claimed he received a threatening text (SMS) message last 17 January 2012 after calling for the arrest of the killers and masterminds in the murder of a fellow publisher last 5 January 2012.

General Santos City is a chartered city in Mindanao approximately 1,049 kilometers south of Manila.

Dadiangas Balita publisher and editor Ronald Allan Mascardo received around 9 a.m. (local time) a text message saying, “Gnahagit nmu ang ngpatay ky cris guarin mgbantay ka kay ikaw ang isunod (Do not provoke the killers of Chris Guarin. You might be next).” CMFR was unable to get through the mobile number used by the unidentified sender (+639464823367).

Christopher “Chris” Guarin, publisher of the community newspaper Tatak Bigtime News Nationwide, was the first journalist/media worker killed in the Philippines in 2012. Last 5 January 2012, Guarin was on his way home with his wife and daughter when two gunmen riding pillion on a motorcycle fired at them.

Mascardo, who serves as president of local media group Journalist Action Motor Group (JAMG), believed the threat stemmed from his statement at the 15 January 2012 burial of Guarin.

Mascardo told the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) that he dared the still unidentified mastermind and killers behind the Guarin killing to come out. “Sobra na kayo, pinapatay niyo pati mga walang laban, magpakilala kayo kung matapang kayo (This is too much. You are killing even those who can’t fight back. Come out in public if you are brave),” Mascardo supposedly said at the burial.

Mascardo and other journalists in General Santos City have been calling for the arrest and prosecution of the killers and masterminds in Guarin’s murder.

“Nadedemoralized na po kasi yung mga media practitioners dito dahil sa series of media killings (The recent media killings in General Santos City had undermined the morale of journalists here),” Mascardo said.

Mascardo reported the incident to the police. He has asked for police security but told CMFR that he will continue his crusade for justice. “Hindi ako nagpapa-affect sa death threat. Walang mangyayari kung lagi kaming matatakot (I will not allow any death threat to affect me. Nothing will happen if we cower to threats),” Mascardo said.

CHEERS TO online news sites Bulatlat.com and InterAksyon.com for dedicating a page containing reports and analyses on the Hacienda Luisita issue.

Bulatlat provided context through links to their previous reports explaining the land distribution issue and the schemes the Cojuangco family used to allegedly deceive the beneficiaries. Bulatlat also posted a collection of video documentaries, some produced by Tudla Productions, ranging from the bloody encounter on Nov. 16, 2004 and the connection between the Hacienda Luisita and the Cojuangco-Aquino family.

According to a Bulatlat report, Hacienda Luisita was purchased in 1957 through the government loan granted to the Cojuangco family with the condition to later distribute the land to its tenants. But the land has yet to be distributed among farmworker-beneficiaries.

InterAksyon, meanwhile, also provided an infographic showing how huge Hacienda Luisita is by comparing its land area to Philippine landmarks. The infographic showed how small a parcel of landeach claimant will be receiving under the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac, one of the largest sugar plantations and milling corporations in Northern Luzon, is owned by the Cojuangco family.

The efforts of these online news sites provided context and continuous coverage of the issue as the Supreme Court recently modified its July 2011 decision ordering the distribution of the 4,915 Hacienda Luisita land to 6,296 farm worker-beneficiaries under CARP.

Jeers to Newsbreak for its incomplete report on the contraceptive ban in Bataan where seven barangays in Bataan passed an ordinance which banned the sale of modern forms of contraception in their community.

The  report “Contraception ban in Bataan” (http://www.newsbreak.ph/2011/11/08/contraception-ban-in-bataan/) failed to give both sides of the story in the contraception ban in Puerto Rivas Itaas, Puerto Rivas Ibaba, Puerto Rivas Lote, Tortugas, Cupang Proper, Cupang West, and Tanato. Newsbreak interviewed a local resident who relied solely on the local health clinic for her contraception needs, a health worker, a member of a women’s rights group, and the mayor of a neighboring municipality.

A barangay official said that he signed the ordinance without really understanding what it was about while the mayor they interviewed said that the officials’ religious beliefs were factored into the drafting of ordinance.

Newsbreak failed to get the viewpoint of concerned government agencies like Department of Health, other government officials and advocate groups, and law experts to know if an ordinance driven by religious belief is lawful.