Colonial legislation, apologia for police actions, and the battle of the letters resumes
December 5, 2007 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
In the news, State visit not a junket, say legislators:Deputy Speaker: ‘I’ve not been inside a store’ while the Inquirer editorial says most congressmen were there as a presidential perk.
Earlier today a very instructive dialogue took place, which ended up being broadcast despite government’s (typical) preference to keep it all hush-hush. In the end, the two parties had to agree to disagree, since Media will still be arrested if police are defied–Puno. I hope a transcript of the whole thing ends up on line.
Main points were three. Jake Macaset pointed out that media and government are classic adversaries. Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro pointed out we belong to a “codal culture,” but that the codification of behavior on both sides isn’t a practical goal. Maria Ressa pointed out whichever way the government slices or dices what took place at the Peninsula -a “hostage situation,” or “terrorism,” or whatever- she can find an identical scenario covered just as aggressively by media abroad, and no democratic government anywhere did to journalists what our government did here at home.
My Arab News column resumes this week with Impatience With Colonial Legislation, comparing the reliance of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore on colonial laws that are incompatible with more modern notions of the relationship between the governors and the governed (two slight errors: autonomy was in 1935, independence in 1946, not both in 1946 as somehow crept into the article; and the Revised Penal Code dates back to 1930 and not 1933). I’ve been thinking about this since 2004, see my September 12, 2004 column Dangerous articles .An Inquirer editorial from June 24, 2007 explains why, and see, also, past entries in Peryodistang Pinay, San Juan Gossip Mills Outlet, and Red’s Herring.
In The Inquirer Current Blog, John Nery in his entry Dancing in the Senate, refers to his column, The limits of outrage.
And his interesting conclusion(s), reached after examining surveys and what they can tell us. In his column Nery says,
The lesson for regime-changers: Corruption scandals do not prematurely bring down an administration, but proof of something else entirely — brazen fraud, gross impunity, lewd dancing in the halls of the Senate.
And in the blog, he points out,
This also suggests that suspending the high-profile Senate hearings on the ZTE case, where revelations not only of corruption but of obvious duplicity or gross arrogance were a real possibility, was a strategic mistake on the part of the opposition.
My entry in the same blog is A new battle of the epistles, where I put together open letters and statements from students and teachers from the Ateneo and De La Salle, on the Peninsula caper.
In his column, Manuel Buencamino argues that,
The argument about means and ends does not apply to the exercise of a people’s sovereign will. The universally accepted principle and practice in that area is “by any means necessary.â€Â Witness the American and Philippine revolutions and the struggle of the Israelis to establish their own country, to cite a few examples…
Thus, it’s a waste of time to argue over the righteousness or immorality of the course of action chosen by Trillanes and Lim. They had a right and a duty to act. And they did.
Agreeing on the form of government that will replace Gloria Arroyo and uniting behind that vision will better serve the public welfare.
I didn’t go to the Peninsula Hotel that Thursday because I saw Trillanes and Lim surrounded by junta advocates. I am against juntas.
An unelected government run by a coalition of ideologues and men in uniform, no matter how pure of heart they may be, is not my idea of a democracy.
Besides, ideologues have no qualms about sacrificing the principles that set apart civilized societies from barbarians—the rule of law, due process, human rights, and civil rights and liberties—on the altar of doctrine…
It would have been nice if Trillanes and Lim called for the ouster of Mrs. Arroyo followed by a snap election. That would have erased all doubts about their commitment to a democratic way of life. Unfortunately, they chose to be vague about the type of government they envisioned.
Be that as it may, I applaud Senator Trillanes and General Lim for their courage and patriotism. They may not have triumphed, but they didn’t lose. There are no losers among those who fight fearlessly for what’s right.
Gloria Arroyo can bully cowards and weaklings, but the courageous and the stouthearted will always remain defiant, undefeated and unbowed.
As for my thoughts on where we are and what to do, please take a look at this comment I posted earlier today.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, ideas, law, media, military, philippines, politics, president, society, surveys
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 7:24 pm
MLQ3 — You are from the media, so your bias is understood. But that seemed like a rather one-sided report about today’s “discussions”.
I still haven’t heard anyone convincingly argue against the following:
In a siege situation — wherein the police have surrounded armed criminals — the police will establish a “police line” (usually with yellow tape), across which no one should pass. That’s a law in the books.
If this particular (and atypical) event, the media were ALREADY next to the criminals or in-between them and the police. That’s the only twist here. The situation developed rapidly and before clear battle lines were drawn. The media was ‘caught behind the lines”, if you will.
But when the police requested the media to pull back behind the police line, some refused. That’s the crux of the problem.
Since the media didn’t heed the police, the media was henceforth considered as having crossed the confines of the police line. I.E. they are on the wrong side of the (in this case, hypothetical) yellow line. If they were not hostages, they were with the criminals. That would be a reasonable (though, in this case, incorrect) judgement.
This understanding is the norm in every country in the world. Why not here?
I thought the authorities even went out of their way today to say that they weren’t out to suppress the press, but that this kind of thing can’t happen again and again. It’s too dangerous for everyone. Get behind the line; stay safe. Maybe an embedded press person is OK. But this cannot reccur; it’s wrong.
On a personal level, today’s meeting was the first time I ever thought that Maria Ressa was full of BS. I respect her a lot. But not today. The media looked more irresponsible than ever.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 8:08 pm
geo, oddly enough i thought hers was one of the voices of sanity in that roundtable -and gilbert teodoro, while standing his ground, wasn’t trying to insult anyone’s intelligence unlike puno with his “we love freedom every bit much as you guy media people” total hooey.
there was no police line, virtual or real. there was a “we’re gunna go in, guns a blazin, warny warny fellahs” and when media held its ground, then they got even by ganging up on the media afterwards. there’s no arguing with your argument, because if you believe the primary duty of media is obey the authorites, then if they disobey the go ahead and shoot them and take the consequences. government wouldn’t risk it though, would it? they’d only risk beating up on people *after* they won, but at which point, what was the point, except the kind of satisfaction bullies get from stomping on someone’s face when they’re safely on the ground.
and geo, obviously if civilains won’t see the obviousness of it all then of course media has to stand its ground, since what the public wants to do is be angry at certain stations, while holding their fire on, let’s see… the bbc, nhk, reuters, associated press, abc5, net25…..
and why wasn’t anyone from the irate middle class tuned into the government station nbn???? i mean from the moment the coverage of gma7 and abs-cbn pissed you off, why didn’t you get your news from your tax-subsidized media?
i make this point because while people like ces were inside the hotel, in the studio of anc, it was wall-to-wall government spokesmen round the clock, personally making appearances so there was no shortage of rebuttal time or clarification time, etc. i bet if you timed the appearances of everyone -media, rebels, officials- you’d find the officials got the most air time.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 8:31 pm
I don’t know, MLQ, about this line:
“there was no police line, virtual or real. there was a “we’re gunna go in, guns a blazin, warny warny fellahs†and when media held its ground, then they got even by ganging up on the media afterwards”.
What does that mean? The police have armed criminals surrounded and then advise the media to get out of harm’s way as they are about to storm the position. What do you mean the “media held its ground”? What ground? Whose ground? Against whom?
You do realize that the law says that the media should get out of the way, yes? In every country in the world? I don’t understand your problem with this fact.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 8:33 pm
I have a few questions right off the bat regarding the Manila Pen stand off — from afar, it’s very difficult to see the wood from the trees.
1. Was the Manila Pen SEIZED by armed rebel faction of the AFP? Is there any corroborating evidence pointing to this? Seized meaning that its owners, staff, guests at the point of the gun and its guards were disarmed as in a real hostage situation.
2. Was there a ‘formal’ declaration to that effect, i.e., takeover by force of the hotel, by Messrs Trillanes and Lim or any of those uniformed people in their company?
3. Did the owners of the Manila Pen or its managers at any given point make known to the group and their companions including the members of media that they ought to vacate Manila Pen?
4. What was or were the reactions of the paying guests? Did they object to the presence of Messrss Trillanes and Lim, their company and the members of media who were there to cover the event?
5. Who in fact caused material damages to Manila Pen? And while I’m at it, why is there a military tank in the middle of the great hall at Manila tank (saw the incredible pics in Mlq3’s and Tongue’s blogs)?
6. If we are to go by media reports, the threat to life and limb of innocent lives and bystanders realistically came from the “forces of peaceâ€, i.e., police than from the Trillanes and Lim group who after all were, in my opinion, merely holding a PRESS CONFERENCE calling for the ouster of Gloria.
7. On the material destruction of parts of The Manila Pen: What I don’t understand is why a tank should ram the doors of Manila Pen… There are a number of entry and exit points at Manila Pen through which the so-called elite of the PNP could engage police maneuvers, i.e., drop teargas projectiles, if they had really wanted to solve the problem without putting the lives of innocent bystanders… that would be common sense. So why didn’t they? Why did they decide to destroy the main entrance door of the hotel with a police tank?
I have more questions, but that will be all for the moment. My point is that the Police, in my opinion as a layman, are totally responsible for the damages caused to the hotel and not Messrss Lim and Trillanes… in my book, there was NO “rebel military faction” takeover or hostage situation at the Manila Pen that required Police to cause so much destruction in the hotel.
I do believe that Puno’s pride was titillated but his reaction to the entire episode was that of overkill, completely devoid of common sense, laughable and incredible.
Hoping that we could finally put to rest this “rebel takeover thesis†that’s going around):
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:04 pm
MBW:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No. The Pen’s managers begged for the armed criminals to enter their place of business so that it would shut down for a few days.
4. The guests checked out, or at least escaped, as quickly as possible.
5. The courts will ultimately decide who will be responsible for “damages” the Pen incurred. Cancellations included.
6. It was a press conference…yes. But a press conference by escapees, with guns (and grenades), calling for the overthrow of the government, while hijacking private property and resisting arrest. That’s not like a photo op event for a book release or something.
It wasn’t a “rebel military faction takeover”? OK, then what was it?
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:07 pm
geo, what law? let us assume though, there is a statute that says, “if the police tell media to stop coverage, media must comply without question,” you still have the question of precedents. in similar situations in the past, government neither demanded nor expected, for media to get out the way. they found a way around the situation. and, when peril was obvious, media decided what risks to take. remember when jessica soho got shot, i believe it was in the kiester, during the 1989 coup?
like i said, having the full power not only of the law but of possession of arms, government can decide to uniliterally change the rules of engagement, but that doesn’t mean people will or ought to comply. the alternative was what? everyone gets out. government moves in. with no obstacles to violence, people are killed “resisting arrest,” but guess what -no one can figure out if it was a legitimate reason or not. of course government would have the satisfaction, perhaps even shared by the public, of hauling out rebel body bags, but i wonder if that wouldn’t turn a ridiculous situation into a truly serious one.
again, without media, look at the allegations of police looting in the pen after victory was achieved. some pen employees have been brave enough to say so, but do you think they will risk releasing cctv footage that would prove or belie these accusations? with cops like we have? so now, we have a bit of testimony, but never as much as would be necessary to settle the issue either way, and so much for all the chest-beating about “rule of law” and “respect the authorities,” even if -wow- they turned out to view the property trillanes and co. are criticized for trampling, as though they were a conquering roman army.
you watched the proceedings between govt and media. so go through ressa’s catalog of examples, which she claims represents every permutation of what the government claims the peninsula takeover was, and debunk her argument that in no similar case, abroad, were media hauled off en masse for “processing.”
if memory serves me right, the secretary of defense, etc. said they ought to haul off the media people for “processing,” because the rebels might try to hide among them and pass themselves off as media people. as far as that goes, that was a legitimate concern but what gets my goat is that you saw how the apprehension and initial processing was done, and it basically revolved around frogmarching people around then whisking them off without even really giving them an idea of what to expect, and without even a fig leaf of common sense.
you think there are rebels lurking among the media, and so, you haul off the women? you could have hauled off the men. you could have contained them in the lobby or outside the lobby, demanded their editors and news desks vouch for their bonafides, meanwhile let them cover to show you’re not interested in liquidating people, and you can even send a posse of spokesmen to lecture them live on air. but it was only after public opinion started castigating the media that government jumped in and remembered they could be pissed off because government had defied their order for everyone to clear out, so over a thousand troops could go in and have a chance to liquidate 30 odd rebels. and if you think that was improbable you’ve never paid attention to our trigger-happy cops, who make our military look like paragons of professionalism and self control.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:08 pm
As to all this hype about a coup, failed, botched, attempted, so forth and so on: Technically, there was no coup d’état — holding a press conference in Manila Pen even by a civilian senator despite his being once ex-military along with a star ranking officer who’s technically in capitivity, calling for the ouster of Gloria Macapagal, does not fall in the category of coup d’état. NO WAY!
As to why Esperon kept mum all throughout the event: Esperon couldn’t, didn’t want the risk of sending a military faction to Manila Pen even if only to negotiate as was their tack before because a move of that kind could have have ignited what he truly dreaded and wanted to avoid at all cost: the risk that sympathizers from an armed military component that he will be sending to negotiate could trigger a real coup d’état…
In that Trillanes-Esperon duel, Esperon, ever the coward, backed down because he knew that he had an effing chance of losing the Armed Forces of the Philippines to a Lim-Trillans tandem!
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:16 pm
Geo,
Re: “It wasn’t a “rebel military faction takeoverâ€? OK, then what was it?”
I think you will find that the takeover in terms of destruction to materiel and number of troops was efected by the police.
The hotel is a “public place” of sorts — that the group of Trillanes and Lim decide to hold a press conference cannot be equated to a rebel military faction takeover because from where I sit and according to media who fortunately were present to witness, the hotel, management, staff, hotel security guards, guests and bystanders were NOT SEIZED at the point of a gun.
In military or para-military parlance, that is not a military faction takeover, rebel or not.
The Equalizer on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:20 pm
“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.” — Dr. Joseph M. Goebbel, Nazi propaganda minister
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:30 pm
“…from where I sit and according to media who fortunately were present to witness, the hotel, management, staff, hotel security guards, guests and bystanders were NOT SEIZED at the point of a gun.”
No? They left the “public place” because they liked the guns? And the owners of this “public place” applauded? This is a ridiculous argument — that a nice group of patriots innocently got together and ventillated a bit…to no one’s discomfort, except for the Gestapo.
It’s this tranparent type of BS that inflates the ranks of the anti-anti-GMAs. Talking nonsense hinders, not helps.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:35 pm
MLQ3,
The examples being cited (by you/Ressa) are when the media covered an event from BEHIND police lines. no? Pls edify me. Thanks.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:44 pm
geo, that’s why i’m hoping a transcript of the dialogue will be posted, you and i can comb through it. my impression was, listening to her, that she was looking for approximations to whatever scenario the government wanted to compare the event to (terrorism? hostage taking? rebellion? etc.?) and that she claimed she could find a corresponding real-world event overseas for each, where media wasn’t picked up. the logical assumption is that in at least most of these cases, it would have been a scenario where the media actually pissed off government by making things inconvenient for the authorities. otherwise, if these were all cases where media was at the rear of the authorities, they wouldn’t be useful comparisons.
it’s significant that what the officials kept pointing out was the idea of “embedded” journalists. but even that concept has come under criticism since the iraq invasion because it’s turned out to be propaganda rather than real reporting.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:46 pm
“No? They left the “public place†because they liked the guns? And the owners of this “public place†applauded? This is a ridiculous argument — that a nice group of patriots innocently got together and ventillated a bit…to no one’s discomfort, except for the Gestapo.”
Geo,
Let’s not get caught in useless rhetorics OK? The contention is whether there was a forcible entry and armed capture of Manila Pen, management, their guests, etc. by Lim and Trillanes.
Which was it? (Remember there were witnesses: media) If I were to interpret what you say, you say the hotel guests and others escaped, do you mean to say that they were technically seized by Lim, Trillanes and their supporters in the presence of media or could it be they all left, including curious bystanders who from all accounts by media were not seized at the point of a gun but instead left because the Police came with their hundreds of troops armed to the teeth and announced that they would come in with tanks to put down Lim and Trillanes and co?
Which is it?
BS that comes from people who are pro-Gloria and who buy Puno’s shit and firing rhetorics from all directions is what muddles issues.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 9:56 pm
Re: Mlq3’s media holding their ground — easily understandable. Media was doing its job. FULL STOP.
Besides, from their vantage point, who was in a better position to know what was really taking place than media, eg., that Lim and Trillanes weren’t in the hotel to blow up the hotel with its occupants.
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:01 pm
As a reporter I would’ve done the same as my colleagues in Manila: Would have held my ground and done my job especially if I knew that Lim and Trillanes didn’t pose a threat to my life.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:07 pm
MWB –
“The contention is whether there was a forcible entry and armed capture of Manila Pen, management, their guests, etc. by Lim and Trillanes”
I guess you believe there’s a legal way to carry firearms into someone else’s property, uninvited, and claim that the lack of resistance indicates compliance.
Let’s let the courts decide. In the meantime, let’s see what the owners of the private property will say/do. Fair? After all, neither you and I can speak for them, can we?
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:08 pm
“Let’s let the courts decide. In the meantime, let’s see what the owners of the private property will say/do. Fair? After all, neither you and I can speak for them, can we?” — Geo
Agree!
ace on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:14 pm
This is an issue between the media and the government, let them solve it, but as for me (TV viewer), I will not criticize media based from arguments that was based from the information given to me by the same media I am criticizing. In the vernacular:
“ginigisa sa sariling mantika”
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:15 pm
MLQ3 –
I’m not sure, but I thought Ressa’s cases did NOT specifically entail a scenario wherein the media was IN-BETWEEN the police and the bad guys (or when the media had crossed the yellow line).
Ressa et al seemed (to me) to be hell-bent on focusing on the post-event arrests…but never really clarified whether or not they agreed with THE LAW — that they are to pull back upon request of the authorities.
That’s the part I’m stuck on.
It seems the law is pretty clear and rather universal.
Does everyone agree with that or no? I don’t think that was solved today.
Manila Bay Watch on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:16 pm
“Let’s let the courts decide. In the meantime, let’s see what the owners of the private property will say/do. Fair? After all, neither you and I can speak for them, can we?†— Geo
Very well. Given the circumstances, I agree that neither you and I can speak for the hotel owners, management, their staff and their guests.
But I maintain that based on various reports there were indications that Messrs Lim and Trillanes did not commit in military or para-military parlace, a takeover of the hotel. It would be good to have the opinion, reaction of the guests too.
From where I sit, I do accept that Messrs Trilanes and Lim acted unjudiciously and recklessly but to say that they had tried to cause serious bodily harm to the civilians around them is a big question mark. Members of media would be more credible as witnesses than the police who forced entry in the hotel with their tanks.
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:23 pm
“that they are to pull back upon request of the authorities.” — Geo
In my experience, authorities hardly ever ‘request’ media to pull back. They demand.
coward on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:29 pm
Ok, let’s make another scenario. The police ordered the all members of the Media to vacate the Pen as they are about to come in and arrest or confront the “rebels”. Then, smoke and gun fires and when everything cleared, everybody remaining down, the police with regret explained that they group resisted arrest and they are grateful nobody on government side suffered casualty. No media personality left inside the Pen or if there was, he or she or them among the the “downs” thereby no witness to the resistance, no evidence, case closed…
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:32 pm
“In my experience, authorities hardly ever ‘request’ media to pull back. They demand.” –ViM
And according to my understanding, the law clearly allows that. It is supposed to be obeyed. The BBC’s own internal “rules” showed their own acceptance of this, I believe.
So…is that the law or no?
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:40 pm
Geo, No. To my knowledge, there is no distinctive law that makes it illegal for members of media not to obey authorities to “pull back” in a situation that police authorities believe to be a threatening situation. Otherwise, you’d find prisons all over the world filled with reporters but I could be wrong.
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:45 pm
In the Manila Pen incident, I am of the opinion that presence of media prevented a possible bloodbath.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:46 pm
ViM — And yet I heard Puno repeatedly refer to such an existing law in the books.
I have also heard it quoted from other countries’ jurisprudence. So is it or isn’t it the law? I’m pretty sure it is.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:47 pm
geo, we’ll have to hope a transcript can resolve our differences in what she meant or said.
as in the comments above, government can give an ultimatum. and it’s up to government if it will then target media or not if they defy the ultimatum. my view is that it’s in government’s interests to have pesky journalists around, that is, if we assume government’s primary objective was *not* to liquidate people.
i guess that’s my assumption -that government on the whole wanted free rein to wind things down without bloodshed- and to that extent, accoustic warfare by means of trundling apc’s around was damned effective but even more so was pumping the hotel full of tear gas. i mean, isn’t it better to smoke ‘em out rather than shoot ‘em out?
but if you think government ought to have had free rein to blow up the hotel and every rebel in it, then yes, you can argue that media ought to be rounded up and strung up from the lamp-posts, but not even in wartime do most governments think this is something worth doing.
again, the immediate justification was not that there should be a penalty for getting in the middle of the action, but that media had to be “processed” because you know, a rebel might be masquerading as ellen tordesillas or pinky webb.
i think it would be fruitful for you to inquire with the bbc, if they intend to dismiss their correspondent for being in the hotel to the bitter end.
cvj on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:55 pm
In discussing rules of engagement by the Press, it should not be assumed that the authorities are always the ‘good guys’. Coward’s scenario above is very possible given our situation.
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:56 pm
There surely are several provisions in the law that call for public order to be respected and which can be interpreted in such a way that will include members of media but as to a specific law or provisions in the law specifically making it illegal for members of media to stop doing their job so that police authorities could do theirs, that I don’t know.
I suggest we wait for Mr Puno to divulge the provisions in the said law or laws.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 10:59 pm
MLQ — Your responses seem emotional. Let’s get back to the basics — the verifiable data.
What is the law in the Phils, US, EU, Asian countries?
Can the police draw a yellow line or not? Can they insist (and legally support) a demand for a clearance of the specified area? What is the law???
Bokyo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:00 pm
If you are labeled as “authorities” and you did something, then try to explain it but reasonable people seems not to understand or agree with what you are saying or have done, then your not worth it being in authority.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:05 pm
“…a specific law or provisions in the law specifically making it illegal for members of media to stop doing their job so that police authorities could do theirs, that I don’t know.”
Whoah! That’s a whole other proposition!
Nobody said “stop doing the media’s job”, the question is whether or not the media can be restricted to staying behind the “yellow line”. In one scenario, the media is recording…in another scenario, the media is one of the actors. That’s a big difference.
Mitch Ocampo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:08 pm
Missed you, hope you feel better;
it wasn’t serious, was it?
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:15 pm
“Can the police draw a yellow line or not? ”
They can and should — it’s done in most countries. In theory, the yellow line is aimed at preventing all individuals (member of media included) who do not belong to the police from entering the quarantined zone.
But in the Manila Pen context, those members of media who are with Lim and Trillanes are already inside the quarantined zone, doing their jobs. If there was no threat of violence or death on their persons by Trillanes and Lim, members of media could and should continue doing their work. I would.
Again in the Manila Pen context, it would seem that the threat to the lives of members of media present inside Manila Pen came not from Lim and Trillanes but from the police’s special anti terrorist action group.
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:16 pm
“Whoah! That’s a whole other proposition!”
Geo, I was only answering your question.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:20 pm
geo, i asked a lawyer and the lawyer replied, apropos of your question, “that obstruction of justice law but nothing specific, PD 1829 section 1e.” The PD (and personally, I am loath to cite any presidential decree as a democratic basis for any legal argument) is at:
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1981/pd_1829_1981.html
And Section 1 (e) is, to wit,
“Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts…
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal’s offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;”
Which, as you can see, is a bit of a stretch in this case. So as far as Philippine laws are concerned, anyway, it seems this is all Puno, martial law relict that he is, had to stand on.
Another lawyer I asked who focuses on constitutional law, says there’s no Philippine law that specifies what you asked: “”No there is none. Its always been on a case to case basis. The closest thing to where media presence was regulated was the embedded reporters with the US army during the Iraq invasion.”
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:23 pm
Well, if a zone exists..and a law exists…then we’re really talking about the unique situation (unlike those cited by Ressa) wherein the media has found itself WITHIN the “quarantined” area.
Seems like a gray area that should be discussed between all relevant parties…sans criminals, of course.
Isn’t it logical to expect the media to get out of such zones…especially when requested by police? When it is the law? Why would the media WANT to get in the way, anyway??? What would be the objective?
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:24 pm
mitch, i had the mother of all tonsil infections, they needed 3 kinds of antibiotics and prior to hosp. i was feverish for 4 days, in hospital another 4, and woozy for 4 more days after that.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:29 pm
geo: because the cops swooping in to rub out people that embarrassed them is an all too familiar scene in this country. and again, you assume there was a law and that it was broken, when what can be argued is that the authorities stretched a law to try to justify its orders after the fact, but it’s such a stretch that it could just as well be argued that the order wasn’t lawful in the first place, and that it made no sense anyway.
government fulfilled its responsibilities by issuing a warning and could have left it at that.
addendum from the lawyer: “If they did [have a law authorizing them to penalize media for disobeying] police will not hesitate to file a case against them. I think the reason there is such confusion is that despite what they say, there is no standard operating police procedure when it comes to journalists already on the ground covering an event.”
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:32 pm
“government fulfilled its responsibilities by issuing a warning and could have left it at that.”
Agree.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:36 pm
MLQ3 — No offense, but try another lawyer…maybe someone who usually disgarees with you.
Puno cited a very specific law today. I heard the actual verbiage. Maybe I heard wrong, but — to tell the truth — I was surprised about how relatively unequivical it was.
I don’t think the topic was “obstruction of justice”, I think it was about the duties and rights of the authorities in a hostage/siege/etc situation. Sounded like the police could say “back off” (ha-ha) with little refutation.
mlq3 on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:39 pm
geo, that’s two lawyers. where are yours?
there’s also marichu lambino who you won’t like,
http://marichulambino.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/legal-opinion-on-obstruction-of-justice-the-media/
and to refresh your memory, here are the angles officials were pursuing:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/11/30/reporters.covering.manila.hotel.takeover.detained.html
direct quotes from puno also, abroad (deutsche presse agentur wire service):
http://www.bangkokpost.net/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=124072
a) rebels might be masquerading as media (including women reporters)
b) obstruction of justice.
which means if they’re pursuing other legal lines, it’s something that occured to them after the fact. don’t you think that what matters is not what the authorities decide was a useful law a week after the fact, but what they said, at the time they decided to take people into custody, was the basis for doing so?
incidentally, this is a good blog entry on the whole thing:
http://mikosamson.blogspot.com/2007/11/because-press-must-be-free.html
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:50 pm
Feels like we’re getting warmer…
So…just maybe there IS a law that allows the police to draw a “yellow line”. Makes sense to me.
This actually was a rather unique situation, though…the media was already inside.
As an intelligent, caring, thoughtful group of people…what should we do about that? Let the media do that every time? Or come to an agreement about how to handle these situations?
Vi Massart on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:53 pm
“Isn’t it logical to expect the media to get out of such zones…especially when requested by police?”
Logical? Depends on whether a police command is logical or not. I find police commands are not always logical.
If I were covering an event from outside Manila Pen, I would continue to do my job despite police remonstrances but would make sure that my own actions would not put the lives of innocent bystanders at risk. If I were already in the “quarantined zone”, the logical thing to do would be to continue doing my job and faithfully cover the event.
Geo on Wed, 5th Dec 2007 11:58 pm
Wait, MLQ3. Those links seemed out of date.
Do you have the laws cited today by Puno? That’s the relevant info.
Meanwhile, are you confusing the two issues?
Issue #1 — Is the police allowed to erect a yellow line (virtual or not) and restrict (with penalty of law) access?
Issue #2 — Is the police allowed to arrest the media after a stand-off such as last Thursday’s Pen Adventure?
I’m still trying to figure out #1…..
Geo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:04 am
ViM — No offense, but what you think is different from what the law is.
If you disregard the law, if you think you are above the law, if you think you know better than those who made the laws…you’re screwed. Welcome to civilization.
mlq3 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:07 am
geo, i don’t give a rat’s ass what puno cooked up today, because as i said, if you’re going to “process” someone, what matters is what you tell that person and the world at the time, was the reason and legal basis for your doing so. this is an elementary principle, don’t you think? i can’t swoop down on you and say, “come with me, we shall frisk you,” and when you ask “why?” i’ll say, well, on the basis of pd 344456677 sec. 45 and also, for bla bla bla reason, only for me to have you go through the whole rigamarole, and then say, wait, we actually detained you on the basis of ra 44556667788 sec. 4, and yaddah yaddah yaddah. in other countries you could end up suing the state for doing that.
your issue 1 is inappropriate. no one ever questioned media having to keep out, once the police surrounded the hotel and trundled apc’s around, never mind on the basis of law, but of might makes right (although the police i seem to recall, even faciliated the entry of other civilians, which, if you were a media person monitoring what’s going on as reports were being made from within and without the hotel, would you then take the cops’ bluster seriously?). the question is, for the media who were there way before the cops got there, should they have vacated the premises on the government’s say-so? my contention is, it was up to media, not the government. they could insist people leave, but there doesn’t seem to be a law cited at the time, that justified a penalty for not doing so.
your issue number 2, if the police want to “process” people (they insisted they weren’t actually intent on arresting media), you look at the arguments they used as a justification for doing so. the arguments were bogus. they’ve been compounded in terms of their bogus nature by puno’s ex post facto assertion of other laws.
David on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:10 am
I find this bewildering — The media was willing to take the risk of getting shot, hurt and killed to remain in the venue and cover the standoff but they are not willing to be detained for processing and clearance?
mlq3 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:13 am
david, i think media would have submitted to reasonable, on-the-spot or near-the-venue processing, properly explained, without the need for frogmarching people or manacling them. and you’re dealing with an institution, the police, that has a reputation for taking people into custody and then dropping them off in bodybags at the end of the custodial process. and also, “processing and clearance” at the end of this sort of event was an innovation and went against ample precedents of government not doing so in the past, so of course people will object.
BrianB on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:16 am
Geo, MLQ,
These media men, if they’re serious they’d cover every time policemen don’t read suspects their Miranda rights, which, I assume, is every time they make an “arrest.” Does law enforcement even remember there are rights? They are thugs, basically, and the only people who keep them from bludgeoning to death every suspect that irritates them are the politicians. The relationship between police and pols is symbiotic. If our police were anywhere as civilized and as law abiding as they should be, the pols won’t enjoy the privileges that they enjoy now (i.e. living like kings in a land that is democratic on paper).
BrianB on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:18 am
And you can quote me.
David on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:25 am
mlq3, if I understand you correctly, the issues are: (1) the failure to explain why everyone at the venue had to be detained; (2) the need for physical restraints; and (3) the need to hold the processing at Bicutan. Is it settled that there was a need to process and clear everyone at the venue?
mlq3 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:43 am
david, personally i think some sort of request for processing would have been reasonable, even more reasonable would have been to drop the word processing and say they wanted to verify credentials. no one can object to credentials being verified, particularly on the spot, i’d think. at the very least, considering security concerns, it would have been so reasonable if put that way as virtually impossible to turn down. but you know, the frogmarching of people was just gratuitous bullying.
but i may be out of synch with other media people on this, as i personally support a national i.d. for example.
David on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:09 am
mlq3, that sounds very reasonable to me.
On a different note, the US blog “Talking Points Memo” seems to me to be a good example of how a blog can be a tool for political change (or, at the very least, for bringing about the resignation of public officials). Cheers!
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:15 am
mlq3. what about lawyer katrina legarda’s take on the issue? i posted it in another thread.
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:31 am
MBW, whatabout this account of your friend ellen? no force entry and just a plain press conference? where they toying with their gun when they shot the glass door?
mlq3 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:38 am
she seems more focused on the culpability of trillanes and co., no?
DevilsAdvc8 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:09 am
today wasn’t the day the media men were arrested, were they? then that isn’t relevant. what is relevant is what the police told those they arrested what they were being arrested for. Manolo’s point is you can’t arrest someone today, and tell him it’s the charge is murder and then modify it tomorrow, saying it was just jaywalking all along.
today is fixing the fuck-up day. in that, Puno makes himself very relevant.
Yes, they are allowed. But did they? Moreover, even if they did, journalists were already inside, so anyone they may want to restrict and penalize would have to come from outside that line. hence, virtual yellow line or not, the journalists arrested cannot be charged that they crossed that yellow line. unless the police had that yellow line established even before Manila Pen was taken over.
yes. but not without telling them what the charges were. as it is, they were detained for identity verification. and yet that could’ve been done on-site. if it was for obstruction of justice, the police could’ve said so at that time. and yet they didn’t, which only means that wasn’t the reason they had for arresting those journalists (at that time). and since there was no need to haul those journalists to Bicutan if the police were sincerely only after identity verification, and the police weren’t even thinking the media was obstructing justice at that time, then what reason can the police give us of why they insisted on arresting the media that day?
to a mere observer, it can only be INTIMIDATION, and simple pique.
vic on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:09 am
mlq 3, quite a few times, the Chief of Police or the Authorities (now I’m talking about cases here in our situation) and the aggrieved party may ended up in the apposite sides, the Politicians will settle their difference by going the Neutral third Party to intercede. And that is either the direct review of the incident or a full blown public inquiry, if there is no challenges or charges filed in courts where during the pre-trial all evidence are subject to challenge for admissibility based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
and usually, the recommendations of the Third Party will be the basis for the guidelines of the Actions the Next Time for both Parties and if needed be enacted into laws also subject to the Charter. Usually the basis for the limits of all rights, including the fundamental rights, established as precedent is the Oakes Test (you may google search that) in simple term, is should be reasonable and can be justified and it is spelled very clearly in that case…
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:22 am
right manolo. i just thought with her parting words, she did show her disgust towards the media.
and what can you say about this first hand account of ellen tordecillas:
there was an order given to vacate the area (and there was a deadline too) but it seems ellen and co (a little over 20 of them) have already decided to defy that order and stay put. is this what you meant with what you wrote below ” when media held its ground”? is their act justifiable?
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:44 am
here’s the interesting part:
supremo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:55 am
This is why reading your rights while being arrested as practice in the US should be adapted in the Philippines.
kimosabe27 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 6:08 am
Speaking of rights…condolences to the family of Prof. Monico Atienza, my former prof. in Phil. Lit. and a staunch advocate of hr. Vet of FQS and admired by many. Indeed, his kind is a disappearing breed.
Effing pips want to go back to basics and stick us in the a** with the law…and since when the law becomes basic? it’s the people dammit…take heed of the lives of people who went against the law and gave us back our freedoms, people like the late Prof. Atienza.
Nuff said.
baycas on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 6:48 am
Yellow Lines Wanting
The duty to serve arrest warrants versus freedom of the press.
The duty to save innocent lives versus the public’s right to information.
The duty to quell rebellion versus the duty to cover the news.
—–
Headline: Yellow line no longer needed when rebels turned yellow
—–
Embedded journalists (regardless if ordered to be one or as a matter of choice, as in The Pen Standoff) should wear as sash yellow “Police Line†barricade tape while covering the very important news.
—–
Throw yellow banana peels in the trash bin (not in APC tires) or better to eco-cycle them.
—–
“Yellow…yellow…room service? Will you kindly separate the whites from the de kolors over there at Rizal Room…or where Trillanes et al are HOLED up? I just need to spray my gun on the de kolors and HAUL the whites to Bagong Diwa.â€
“Yes…yes…a yellow tip awaits you. Thanks!â€
Vi Massart on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 6:56 am
Geo,
You say, “No offense, but what you think is different from what the law is.”
Need I remind you that beforehand, you spoke of logic pertaining to doing what the police “requested” of members of media (“Isn’t it logical to expect the media to get out of such zones…especially when requested by police?â€) to which I gladly stated my stand (“Depends on whether a police command is logical or not.”) and suddenly, you say there was a breach of the law — so what is exactly your point?
Are you saying that police instructions should be obeyed by media who are doing their job because that’s how the law is crafted? Then say it.
Let’s pretend that there was a breach of law — never mind the logic bit (whether a member of media should continue doing his/her job or not), so name me the law that says those members of media “holed up” with Lim & Trillanes who disobeyed police request (police request was your own phrase) have done something illegal.
Is there a law that says media cannot disobey police request?
It’s well and good to be speaking of law here and law there and being all too pompous about media (that are simply doing their job) having committed an illegal act but it’s one thing to twist the law and interpret it to intimidate media pure and simple.
Vi Massart on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:08 am
Mlq3 said, “i think media would have submitted to reasonable, on-the-spot or near-the-venue processing, properly explained, without the need for frogmarching people or manacling them.”
I think so too. The purpose of press tags and press cards is for on-the-spot identification precisely to prevent the incidents that Mlq enumerated.
This sort of thing can be avoided and shouldn’t happen when mutual respect exists. Members of both institutions can co-exist and work side by side if they don’t consider one or the other the enemy.
Vi Massart on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:19 am
Mlq3,
In France we have a uniform national press ID issued by the police prefect. Conditions must be met to be entitled to a national press id. Perhaps this should be considered in the Philippines.
baycas on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:37 am
a yellow “police line” barricade tape worn as sash should do the trick…
benign0 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:53 am
I’ve seen the media in news snippets in Bandila shoving their cameras into the faces of dying people inside emergency rooms (why are they allowed in there?).
Even doctors and other personnel were hijacked for interviews amidst the chaos in those emergency rooms.
The Philippine Media have lost the plot and are left with nothing but their increasingly evident air of SELF IMPORTANCE. That they’d rake in billions in revenue is ok and even admirable in my book. However their hypocrisy starts when they pretend to be anything more than a cash-focused business enterprise.
They have the vacuous minds of Pinoys hooked to their engineered-martyrdom brand. To be fair, that is quite a brilliant business model (at the league of the venerable Roman Catholic Church)!
axwell on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 8:02 am
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
benign0 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 8:20 am
Brand Power: Works best with vacuous-minded consumers.
-
The Equalizer on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 9:18 am
“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.â€Joseph Goebbels
ptt on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 9:51 am
“This is why reading your rights while being arrested as practice in the US should be adapted in the Philippines.â€
I don’t think the media will be happy if the country start practicing US Standards. Priority of US law enforcement officers when conducting arrests or when detaining suspects for felony investigations is officer safety. That means a suspect will usually be handcuffed and searched before he hears his Miranda rights when arrested. When shots are fired or when calls are made that involve firearms, the level of concern in officer safety goes even higher. In Manila Pen everybody on the scene would have been treated as a possible threat to officer safety. Accounts by Ellen Tordesillas say that some media personnel (to include herself) refused to be handcuffed or zip-tied when SAF came in. That would be a No-Go and would have resulted to a more unpleasant experience, if the arrest was done under US law enforcement standards.
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:14 am
it’s significant that what the officials kept pointing out was the idea of “embedded†journalists. but even that concept has come under criticism since the iraq invasion because it’s turned out to be propaganda rather than real reporting.
I would still bat for some sort of embedding in situations like Manila Pen. The embedding of journalists in the Iraq war is not an apt comparison since it is a war; a long drawn-out affair that takes years, and besides, embedded journalists in the Iraq war arent the only journalists. CNN and BBC have embedded ones and independent ones roaming around on their own. In situations like Manila Pen, the reporters on the inside can safely sign off while the embedded ones take over the coverage. They can even leave video and audio recording equipment running when they sign off.
vic on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:25 am
I don’t think the media will be happy if the country start practicing US Standards
ptt, maybe not in the arrests department, but in the overall standard, more than happy. there is no freer press than the U.S., even with the Patriot Act. Can’t cite any restriction to its press, or any disappearance because some Media Entity is against its Government Policy, like the divisive Iraqi debacle. The Philippine Press is lively, but sometimes just can’t find where the line separating the fire and water meet…and the police authorities and judiciary are just as “lively”, they can dance as well along with their masters instead of being independence and impartial..
Silent Waters on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:31 am
MBW
Media reports witnesses has said a shot was fired at the glass door panel to the hotel and threats were made to the security guards manning the PEN to force their way into the hotel. I really don’t care whether it was small arms or M16s. The important point is that they were asked NOT to come in as it’s the hotel right and yet they insisted and used firearms to enter the building.
Please do not confuse your anti GMA stance with the criminal acts of those thugs.
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:31 am
It’s hard to take sides on this Big Media versus the State business. It’s like choosing between Hitler and Stalin.
Im no fan of Philippine megamedia, especially of the mega-organization ABS-CBN (no offense, MLQ3). Media people seem to feel like they have some sort of privileges not afforded to ordinary citizens like us. If a cop wants to handcuff you as part of their operations, then have yourself handcuffed. Dont go around saying, “Media ako! Punyeta!” We’re all workers doing our jobs and that’s part of the hazards of the job they chose, and they knew that when they chose it. They shouldnt assume that the cops know who they are. And for the love of God, stop whining. You can get back at them afterwards with sober facts, not drama.
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:36 am
Ok the previous sounded harsh. Im not saying they should roll over. There are ways and legal remedies for them to protect themselves from abuses. ABS-CBN has lawyers out the wazoo.
What I admire are the small outfits. The little radio stations and papers in the provinces who’re really in it for the service because they dont make money out of reporting.
john marzan on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:46 am
I also remember this administration making unreasonable demands to the media and warning them that they will be arrested if they possess, distribute, or play the Garci tapes on TV.
The administration and their attack dog apologists pretty much said na “irresponsible” raw ang media kung papatulan nila ang Garci tapes “in aid of destabilization”.
http://www.politicaljunkie.blogspot.com/2005/06/pcij-has-best-coverage-on-gloriagate.html
Silent Waters on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:47 am
mlq3
Glad you took care of that tonsil infection. A friend of mine passed away as he did not take care of an infection that was going around his body. He didn’t think too much of it and it was too late when he was sent to the hospital…
benign0 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:52 am
“Dont go around saying, “Media ako! Punyeta!†We’re all workers doing our jobs and that’s part of the hazards of the job they chose, and they knew that when they chose it. They shouldnt assume that the cops know who they are.”
Therein lies the irony. By behaving that way, the Philippine Media now make themselves out to be no better than the average pompous lard-arse who mouths “alam mo ba kung sino ako?” whenever reminded of the need to comply to certain rules.
So much for their hallowed position of ‘Guardians of rights of the Ordinary Pinoy’.
Pinoy nga naman talaga.
-
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:53 am
This can only work if you assume that the reporters are embedded with the good guys. I don’t think that assumption holds nowadays.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:01 am
As usual, you oversimplify by ignoring context. You are assuming that the Media were breaking the rules instead of asserting their rights. From the preceding exchange (by mlq3, vi massart and geo), it does seem that the police have overstepped their bounds and media was well within their right to protest.
Silent Waters on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:03 am
Here lies the crux of the problem of this whole brohaha. It was very well explained by Mr Massart
“This sort of thing can be avoided and shouldn’t happen when mutual respect exists. Members of both institutions can co-exist and work side by side if they don’t consider one or the other the enemy.”
The government has never trusted the media because they feel that they’ve been crucified since day one and the media never trusted the government since there’s a lot of mysterious extra judicial actions by the government.
IMO, both sides have their share of problems. Media has not exactly been fair to the government. and Governement has not solved a major problem with respect to the extra judicial killings.
Beancurd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:19 am
“If a cop wants to handcuff you as part of their operations, then have yourself handcuffed. Dont go around saying, “Media ako! Punyeta!†We’re all workers doing our jobs and that’s part of the hazards of the job they chose, and they knew that when they chose it. They shouldnt assume that the cops know who they are. And for the love of God, stop whining. You can get back at them afterwards with sober facts, not drama.”
With all due respect, the statement sounds more like a justification for arbitrariness and whimsical action and betrays a lack of proper grounding with regard to the concepts underlying such terms as free press, police and government. A free press is supposed to be free while the police and the government, well you do not preface it as the free police or the free government.
And especially in the Pen kind of situation, the cops are supposed to know the criminals as opposed to the media, the hostages, if any, and the innocent bystanders, notwithstanding that the cops asked everyone aside from the alleged rebels to leave the area. Such announcement is not a license to arrest everyone in the area nor is it, if it came to it, a license to shoot everyone, including the rebels themselves. Such attitude is just like the attitude of the present government, that is, that it can do as it pleases just like everyone else, forgetting that it is the government and that it is supposed to maintan certain and decent standards. And then we expect the government to do better? Common guys, be consistent.
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:28 am
And especially in the Pen kind of situation, the cops are supposed to know the criminals as opposed to the media, the hostages, if any, and the innocent bystanders, notwithstanding that the cops asked everyone aside from the alleged rebels to leave the area.
Yes that would be ideal. But that’s not the case in every single hostage/terrorist/Manila-Pen-type situation. They dont know who everybody is. They then detain everybody for processing. MLQ3 is correct. They shouldve been processed in the premises and not hauled off to Bicutan or wherever. That was abuse. The cops shouldve done the processing right there, with the media and everybody else handcuffed or guarded at gunpoint, until theyre cleared.
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:35 am
Im not defending the actions of the cops. Im just looking at it from their point of view and what they shouldve done. The fact that we can no longer assume theyre the good guys, as cvj said, did not factor into my argument.
Silent Waters on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:40 am
cvj
You are also making an assumption that the government is breaking the rules. I guess the problem really lies in the fact that we love to make assumptions. “The Akala kasi” syndrome.
Each institution will have their own perspectives on how far each can go before “a rule” is broken. Unfortunately, they don’t meet at the same point.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, people here really color their opinions. Their biases proves it as much and they will never be fair to either parties.
Geo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:45 am
“From the preceding exchange (by mlq3, vi massart and geo), it does seem that the police have overstepped their bounds and media was well within their right to protest.” –cvj
Huh? I don’t think that the issue has been resolved. The media has a right to complain, sure, but do the police have a right to limit access to a crime scene?
I still think (but am not sure) that the Penal Code allows, during a “siege”, the police comander to identify a no-pass line (i.e. the real or virtual “yellow line”) and to restrict any and all tresspassing thereof.
In this specific case, there were some media members ALREADY inside the no-go zone. But they were asked repeatedly to come out and get repositioned. Many did.
MLQ3 has referred to the constitution which allows free speech/press. I agree with that, of course. But if there’s a law that allows the police to make a line and enforce it, well, then the police CAN tell the press to get out.
(BTW, I am not evaluating the arrest/detention; I am trying to first know what the law actually says.)
Beancurd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 11:52 am
“The cops shouldve done the processing right there, with the media and everybody else handcuffed or guarded at gunpoint, until theyre cleared.”
Done it right there, yes. Handcuffed or guarded? in other words detained, no. The law does not allow that. Processed? If that is meant inventorying them, ascertaining their identities and getting their addresses for future reference, whether to be interviewed as potential witnesses, etc., i find nothing wrong in that and that does not violate the law. But then, why use “process” when there are more accurate and descriptive terms? The power of language is as much being employed by the government as a tool for coercion and subservience as much as the naked power of the police. Take care not to fall into that frame of mind.
sparks on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:04 pm
You know, the one bright shining star on Aussie free TV, and a show which I absolutely ADORE, is Chaser’s War on Everthing. How to describe? Its basically a satire on mostly political events and figures.
These are guys whom high-ranking politicians, John Howard and Kevin Rudd included, have to tolerate to literally come up to them (as in, walang entourage ng masculados) so they can play their pranks. You can look them up on google.
Here’s John Howard (formerly) the most powerful man on this continent, tolerating Chaser’s coming up to him with axes and power saws. So much for national security eh?
You want something more serious? How about an international diplomatic event? Here are the Chaser guys, one of them, Chaz dressed up as Osama Bin Laden, actually breaking through 3 levels of security in APEC Sydney.
Mga Aussies nga naman talaga. Pasaway!!!
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:05 pm
BC: Handcuffed or guarded? in other words detained, no. The law does not allow that.
I wouldnt know about whether the law allows that or not. But to protect fellow cops and civilians, then yes they have to be detained and secured, and that would be a legally defensible position for the cops to take if ever theyre investigated later at an inquest or something. To the cops, any one of them could pose a potential threat.
(By the way, I think ‘process’ is pretty accurate and descriptive. It has a technical and precise meaning in forensics. And if the State uses the power of language, then Mega-media is at least as adept as they are at it.)
Diego Torres on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:23 pm
The media issue was simply a side issue. Let us not belabor the aftermath of the Pen incident or we shall be missing the core of the problem again.
There is a greater injustice that is happening out there and these men , more than any of us bloggers . have been made to suffer that . They were incarcerated by the very person who ,conscripting the bureaucracy , stole our votes and and our decency.
The accused soldiers were treated like rats. Cornered and pawed by some assholes . I do not think they will be afforded their day in court.
We can all talk and discuss petty side issues to death but we can never stand among these brave men. I believe these men did not fail, we did.
inodoro ni emilie on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:34 pm
myopia at its best. all done only to find excuse to whimper, “ang pinoy nga naman.” like as if this isn’t happening in australia’s current affairs.
ang benigs nga naman, hindi marunong maglinis ng muta sa mata.
ronin on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:37 pm
“In France we have a uniform national press ID issued by the police prefect. Conditions must be met to be entitled to a national press id. Perhaps this should be considered in the Philippines.” – Vi Massart
The police prefect issuing press IDs to journalists? Wouldn’t this make them beholden to the police instead? An ID issued by the media company the reporter belongs to (i.e. PDI, ABS-CBN etc.) and/or one issued by the NPC (for print media) or KBP (broadcast media) (as it is practiced now), for me, is still the best option.
BrianB on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:42 pm
Manolo,
Ordinary people are afraid of the media. They’re afraid of the police, they’re afraid of politicians and they’re afraid of rich people. Think about that.
benign0 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:50 pm
“We can all talk and discuss petty side issues to death but we can never stand among these brave men. I believe these men did not fail, we did.”
Actually these men (if you are referring to Trillanes and his minions) should be lined up in front of a firing squad like most decent societies do.
benign0 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 12:53 pm
The simple reality is that rebels that succeed go down in history as heroes.
Those who fail will be remembered as nothing more than pathetic chumps.
Problem with Pinoys society is that Pinoys relate more with losers than with winners.
-
Bokyo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:05 pm
I really don’t understand the “obstruction of justice” being said by the police. If the strategy was to ram an APC in the front gate of Hotel to make their way in and throw tear gas canisters inside, then they might think twice in doing it if they though that there were civilians and journalists inside. But if they do it nonetheless, where is obstruction there? What I mean is that it would have been better justified (the “obstruction of justice line”) if they have to devise a safer strategy.
Bokyo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:10 pm
It doesn’t help them also making the arrest, handcuffing the journalists, then announcing later that it is only for processing, then apologizing, then later warning the journalists that they will be handcuffed again if they do it again. Ano ba talaga? If they have to arrest or charge anybody, they have to do it if that is within the law. If not, they have no right to warn or frighten anybody with that threat.
ay_naku on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:23 pm
What law, exactly? Just curious. And why are many legal luminaries saying that the media arrests were illegal? I do hope hope that ABS-CBN pushes through with their lawsuit to force the issue.
(I won’t even go to the “in every country in the world” part, I’m sure that “fact” would be very hard to verify.)
hindi ako botante on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:34 pm
Question:
According to one of the posts above in quoting Ellen T., only 20 were left out of 100 media people when the police order/requested them to leave the premises.
Does this mean they agree with the police that they will be in harms way and they will be interfering in the police’s operation?
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:35 pm
Not an assumption, but rather a conclusion derived from the above discussion among the three parties i mentioned. As late as 11:45am today, Geo is still looking for a legal opinion on regulating media presence to back him up. He hasn’t found any yet. (Where’s Bencard when you need him?)
Beancurd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:35 pm
Jeg, If you have not committed any crime, then you cannot be arrested and detained even for the purpose of “processing.” In a situation like the Pen, the policemen are not there for self-defense, they are there to arrest the perpetrators and use reasonable force if necessary not whenever they want to or feel like it.
And if you are arrested and detained, the police has the obligation to inform you of the cause of your arrest, meaning the crime for which you are being arrested, and read to you your rights. Otherwise, they are criminally liable for failure to discharge such obligation.
Beancurd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:39 pm
And they can only shoot if they are in danger of being shot, meaning, guns are trained at them.
Beancurd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:45 pm
That is so because criminals, even those caught red handed, are meant to be tried in courts not executed on the spot making the police the judge and executioner. That is also the reason why collateral damage (the government is not supposed to put its own people in harm’s way or engage in a conflict situation when doing so involves the likelihood of civilians and innocents becoming “collateral damage”) and enemies of the state (the state do not make enemies of its own people even if they are criminals) have no domestic application.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:47 pm
Geo, suggestion. You might want to visit Jaxius at http://www.quixotickibitzer.blogspot.com/ for some legal help. He seems like a good lawyer and also disapproves of what media did at the Pen so maybe he can come up with accessory to rebellion or some other such legal pretext to back you up.
tonio on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 1:56 pm
cvj:
you know benigs, he’ll oversimplify, reduce, conclude, etc. to further his agenda.
by behaving that way, he now makes himself out to be no better than the average pompous lard-arse who mouths “alam mo ba kung ano ang problema ninyo? ako alam ko!†whenever he looks at anything that happens in the Philippines nowadays.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:04 pm
tonio, so true. huwag tularan.
Bokyo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:05 pm
Beancurd, I agree with you above. It is about time that police and military act as real “authorities” rather than GMA agents.
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:14 pm
And if you are arrested and detained, the police has the obligation to inform you of the cause of your arrest, meaning the crime for which you are being arrested, and read to you your rights.
Yes, yes, Beancurd. We are not arguing that. The police should have informed them: “We are detaining you until we can determine if any of you are terrorists/criminals/rebels/etc. You have a right to have an attorney present during questioning.” The cops at the Peninsula didnt do that and hauled them off to Bicutan, which was wrong. No argument there.
In a situation like the Pen, the policemen are not there for self-defense, they are there to arrest the perpetrators and use reasonable force if necessary not whenever they want to or feel like it…And they can only shoot if they are in danger of being shot, meaning, guns are trained at them.
Im reminded of micketymoc’s ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ Anyway, we also are not arguing the ‘whenever they want to or feel like it’ part, which is clearly wrong. We are discussing this part: “they are there to arrest the perpetrators and use reasonable force if necessary.” Detaining them is reasonable force. Consider: Youre a cop and you have victims, bystanders, and perpetrators mixed together in a room you just took and you dont know which is which. What does a cop do? You would train your guns at them, ask then to lay down on the ground (without saying Please), and detain everybody, correct? You do not haul them off in buses, but ask them to remain in that secured location. The whole time your guns are at the ready if you know what youre doing. That’s because you too have a right to life. And if there are more people than you can handle, you can tie them up, explaining what youre doing. You have a job to do: arrest the perpetrators (and clear the innocents).
Now for example you were a reporter in the room when the cops came. Do you yell, ‘Abuse!’ because you were detained? Because youre with Media? Im aware this scenario is not what really happened at the Peninsula where abuse did take place. But the cops, as part of their job, can detain anybody in the situation described above and still be within the law.
inodoro ni emilie on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:16 pm
ang problema nga tonio, what if the seer is suffering from myopia? where now does the distortion lie?
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:35 pm
For that matter, did the someone in the media really say ‘Punyeta!’?
Bokyo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:38 pm
“Yes, yes, Beancurd. We are not arguing that. The police should have informed them: “We are detaining you until we can determine if any of you are terrorists/criminals/rebels/etc. You have a right to have an attorney present during questioning.†The cops at the Peninsula didnt do that and hauled” – Jeg
Is this really what law says? What I understand is they can arrest if they feel or saw that somebody have made any crime. But arresting somebody and detaining him for further questioning or identification is questionable to me, at least in normal times, not when we are under martial law. Besides there are hundred of officers there to make this determination. I maybe wrong, but this is what I understand it.
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:38 pm
hahaha. smart huh?
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:41 pm
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:41 pm
For that matter, did the someone in the media really say ‘Punyeta!’?
Hahaha. Not that Im aware of, cvj. It’s just the word I used to illustrate the high-and-mighty status they have vis-a-vis the rest of us working stiffs. I remember the late Max Soliven, after he was allegedly slighted by a foreigner, writing something like, “If he was able to do that to me, a memeber of the Media, then he could most certainly to that to the ordinary citizen.”
grd on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:43 pm
tonio :
you know cvj, he’ll oversimplify, reduce, conclude, etc. to further his agenda.
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:46 pm
Bokyo: But …detaining him for further questioning or identification is questionable to me, at least in normal times…
Normal arrests, yes. It’s questionable to say the least. That’s like the ’sona’ Mayor Lim does from time to time in the Tondo area. But the peninsula incident wasnt a ‘normal’ crime. Consider a highjacking situation where the cops dont know a highjacker from a passenger. They detain all passengers.
Bokyo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 2:56 pm
Even that sona of Mayor Lim is questionable to me. Imagine doing that in a rich village in Makati or Manila and he will be in trouble. My point is they have to make the identification of the people or the crime there and then, even in high crimes. They can take pictures if they want to. But to arrest or detain somebody and not determining if he has done something or not is unacceptable.
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 3:21 pm
The sona is definitely illegal, Bokyo. That’s why I said yesterday in a comment that our poorer fellows do not have political rights to give up as response to that old saw, “We are willing to give up our rights to move this country forward.”
ay_naku on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 3:29 pm
Geo, stop being lazy and just cite the friggin law already, and if need be, explain why it’s the specific law that pertains to this case. You ASSERT (at 8:31 pm) that there’s such a law (“in every country in the world,” you even add) that says the “the media should get out of the way.” But when asked what it is, the best you can do is cajole MLQ to do the resarch for you (“What is the law???” you plead at 10:59 pm) and mutter something about having heard Puno say something (at 11:36 pm) but you’re not quite sure (“maybe I heard wrong,” you hedge.) When MLQ does ask two lawyers and they say that to their knowledge there’s no Philippine law that specifies what you asked, you resort to mocking MLQ (at 11:36 pm), “try another lawyer, maybe someone who usually disgarees with you.” (MLQ rightfully snaps, “geo, that’s two lawyers. where are yours?”) So unable to back up your claim (so far) that there is such a specific law, you resort to logic: “Isn’t it logical to expect the media to get out of such zone, especially when requested by police?” you ask at 11:23 pm. When Vi Massart engages you in this line of reasoning (“Logical? Depends on whether a police command is logical or not. I find police commands are not always logical,” he responds at 11:53 pm) you then deviously attack him (“ViM — No offense, but what you think is different from what the law is. If you disregard the law, if you think you are above the law, if you think you know better than those who made the laws…you’re screwed,” you disingenuously pontificate at 12:04 am.) My goodness!
Sorry for the rant. Na-irita lang ako about how you were going about your arguments, I thought you sometimes became too devious and intellectually dishonest, parang hindi na “good faith” arguments yung ibang comments mo.
mlq3 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 3:39 pm
brian, a fair point, but is the fear felt in equal measure?
silent waters: one problem we all face nowadays, are the proliferation of hardy, antibiotics-resistant germs, not to mention how easy it is to transfer germs from one place to another. someone told me, when i told them about my falling ill, that they had a friend who visited rp from the states, carrying a bug common enough in us hospitals, but it left doctors here stumped. the person almost croaked, but the enterprising doctors sent out blood samples and a hong kong hospital identified the bug, and luckily enough, the required medicines were also in stock there, because impossible to find in the rp.
mlq3 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 3:43 pm
grd, the first hand account is what ellen owes you, the reader, no? you can then judge whether you agree or disagree with what she did every step of the way.
cvj on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 3:53 pm
I understand where you’re coming from Jeg. It’s what you would call a stylized fact and i personally treated it as such. Unfortunately, impressionable minds like Benign0 ran away with it and presented it as further proof of his worldview.
benign0 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 4:36 pm
“Unfortunately, impressionable minds like Benign0 ran away with it and presented it as further proof of his worldview”
Hmmm, actually I’m not out here to prove my “worldview”. It simply proves itself everytime typical acts of moronism appear in the Pinoy media.
I’d say I have the easiest job in the world in running my site.
DevilsAvdc8 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 4:55 pm
tonio on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 5:15 pm
devils…
you can bet it’s got nothing to do with the improvement of the situation in this country, after all, he’s forsaken it, yeah?
Jeg on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 5:41 pm
and what exactly is the purpose of your site, benigs?
Im seriously interested in the answer to this one. I hope it doesnt disappoint. [place obligatory emoticon here]
benign0 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 6:00 pm
The purpose of my site FOR ME is to systematically expose the deeply ingrained dysfunction that underlies the chronic failure of Pinoy society to prosper.
As to its purpose IN GENERAL, that’s up to the each individual and how he/she CHOOSES to regard its content.
ace on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 6:05 pm
Was the handling of the Manila Pen incident by the government forces a case of incompetence or frustration?
Frustration because they have a plan A and they cannot swiftly execute it because of the presence of the Media.The presence of the Media entails two things:
1. They might get into harms way and be hurt in the process, at worst be killed.
2. The documentation of the arrest or assault by the Media in which any extra-judicial act (if any)cannot be executed lest it be caught by the Media on camera.
So,as we all know now, some members of the Media opted to stay and this cause the frustration and annoyance of the “one calling the shots” and those who will execute the plan on the ground, therefore Plan A was aborted and they just settled with plan B-Operation Teargas.
Incompetence because the questions that begs to be asked are:
When did they thought of the plan to use teargas? Was this plan an afterthought (after plan A became unfeasible)? Was this the only plan (plan A from the very start)? Were all the tactical preparations centered on this plan? If it is the plan all the while, why not execute it right away exactly at 3 p.m.? Why wait for two more hours if it has the same effect and use the benefit
of daylight? Why use an APC and riddle the lobby of the hotel with rounds of ammo if a harmless teargas alone can do it?
If the fracas between the police and media was a result of the absence of an impregnable and airtight tactical plan then incompetence is it.
If the fracas between the police and media was a result of the police blowing its top then frustration is it or maybe,just maybe, a combination of both.
sparks on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 6:15 pm
And the purpose of my comments is to systematically expose Manong Benigs for the ideologue that he is, i.e. putting Filipinos on a special category of morons. Unfortunately, the last one didn’t pass muster. Manong Manolo?
Bokyo on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 6:18 pm
If they have done it without using force or things that would endanger those media people, I believe it is justified to arrest those media people for interferring with police line of work. The question is why the use of force knowing there are civilians and media people inside. They are being congratulated because of its success, but how about the worst case scenario. What if Trillanes group became desperate and did not surrender?
The Ca t on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 7:35 pm
It would never happened. Their contingency plan
1. did not include the quick response from the police because someone must have “paved” the way for their trouble-free-kilometer-walk from the court. No Makati Police in sight?As a cat would say, you’re free to play. Sus. Kita no tear gas lang wala pa silang panlaban.
2. did not include that no one is going to show up not even their sponsors/advisers and invisible supporters.
And finally my friend, because they have no plan to become heroes when there is no audience.
MAhilig lang talaga sa spotlight ang mga yan. Sheesh.
DevilsAvdc8 on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 8:04 pm
napatawa naman ako dito. benigno my friend, the dysfunctions you are trying to “expose” have long been known to many Filipinos. those who do not know it, lie in squallor, in poverty. so i hardly think you’ll be able to reach them through your site.
and what abt solutions benigs?
you fault filipinos who are problem centered, but it seems you’re no different.
Silent Waters on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 9:26 pm
It’s a conclusion if it’s anti GMA…it’s an assumption if it’s pro opposition….yeah
Not an assumption, but rather a conclusion derived from the above discussion among the three parties i mentioned. As late as 11:45am today, Geo is still looking for a legal opinion on regulating media presence to back him up. He hasn’t found any yet. (Where’s Bencard when you need him?)-cvj
Vi Massart on Thu, 6th Dec 2007 10:56 pm
Jeg said Max Soliven wrote, ““If he was able to do that to me, a memeber of the Media, then he could most certainly to that to the ordinary citizen.—
Those words do seem rather pompous.
You were surely referring to the incident involving the German consul general or deputy head of mission at a reception in Manila in 1998?
I’m not sure those were Max Soliven’s (my former ‘boss’) exact words but if they were, I believe there was logic in what he said in the sense that quite often, people, especially those who hold official functions, are usually careful about what they say to members of media but can be rather “casual” to those who are not ‘non-media’. This is neither to make excuses nor to provoke you but my interpretation of the words you quoted — quite often, devoid of context, words can be interpreted in a different light.
David on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 12:33 am
“The question is why the use of force knowing there are civilians and media people inside. They are being congratulated because of its success, but how about the worst case scenario. What if Trillanes group became desperate and did not surrender?”
Bokyo, since we are speculating, out of curiosity, how would you have resolved the situation if your were Dir. Geary Barias without the use of force?
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 12:38 am
he he
David
Pakikiusapan nila…..magmamakaawa sila…..
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 12:39 am
In fact…kowtow to them…kasi anti GMA sila…so dapat we should treat them like they’re our friends…
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 12:41 am
Also, mga santo sila who can do no wrong….si GMA lang ang evil sa mundo….
vic on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 1:09 am
now that the smoke has cleared there must be an inquest so as to established quidelines that should be followed next time the same situation arise, otherwise we will be debating who’s wrong or right again, which law had been violated or not or the force used been reasonable under the circumstances or been abused, instead of each side stubbornly standing their grounds, where both their grounds not even established solidly, otherwise they should not be arguing forever.
We’ll we never know, if there’s no guidelines as to the police and the media behaviour during another crisis, then maybe it will be late to establish one until then. why not now, instead of being confrontational?
Bokyo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 2:12 am
First of all you have to show your sincerity of exhausting all possible peaceful means to the group of Trillanes as well as to those media who do not want to leave.
For me, I will try negotiations after negotiations. Use of force will only be the last option when several attempts is unsuccessful. Even to a point of entering the hotel with hundred of my men unarmed and forcing them to surrender. If they will fire the first shot, then next option will be tried.
The problem here is the time limit. There is a time limit because the worst scenario of the government is different from the people. The government’s worst case scenario is Trillanes getting more sympathy or people gathering more and more if the situation gets longer. If you are an honest officer of law, you do not care who wins, you just have to prevent bloodshed.
supremo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 2:15 am
“The question is why the use of force knowing there are civilians and media people inside.”
The use of force is justified. Call it overkill but it’s better than a long drawn out siege.
Bokyo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 2:22 am
You can only say that, as I’ve said, because it became successful. I hope you can say that if it turned out the other way, wherein most of media men and civilans died, or just even one of them.
David on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 2:49 am
“For me, I will try negotiations after negotiations. Use of force will only be the last option when several attempts is unsuccessful. Even to a point of entering the hotel with hundred of my men unarmed and forcing them to surrender. If they will fire the first shot, then next option will be tried.”
Bokyo, by “several attempts”, you mean how many attempts?
“Entering the hotel with [a] hundred of my men unarmed and forcing them to surrender…” I, frankly, am at a loss as to what to say to this idea.
Bencard on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 2:57 am
Geo
“Where’s Bencard when you need him.” CVJ
sorry, geo, for being a little johnny-come-lately. i dont’ know exactly what legal provisions sec. puno and the police were invoking vis a vis the apprehended media men/women. but from what i understand of the incident, i believe there was a violation of the following provisions of the revised penal code, as amended by PD No. 299, 9/19/1973 and BP Blg. 873, 6/12/1985.
“Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. – The penalty of arrest or mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
“When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arrestor menor or a fine ranging from 10 to 100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.
“Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority – Who shall be deemed as such. – In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
“A person who by direct provision of law or by electiuon or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order, the protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio captain, barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
“In applying the provisions of of Articles 143 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority.”
as you can see, media people are NOT, in any way, shape or form, “person” in authority” under the above provisions. neither do i think they are under any other statute or executive order. they can ply their trade or business under the generic bill of rights of the constitution that applies to every individual, i.e., Sec. 4 which provides “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.” it appears that a media outlet’s press freedom is recognized by the constitution but not mandated by it. it is a right recognized to every “person”, not to media in a “special” way.
Bencard on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 3:00 am
erratum: “arrest or mayor” should read “arresto mayor”).
Bencard on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 3:08 am
erratum # 2: 2nd par., 3rd line, should read: …shall be imposed upon any person who not being included…
supremo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 3:50 am
Bokyo said ‘You can only say that, as I’ve said, because it became successful. I hope you can say that if it turned out the other way, wherein most of media men and civilans died, or just even one of them.’
For the record, THE USE OF FORCE IS JUSTIFIED. It doesn’t matter if media men and civilians are killed in the process. It sounds uncivilize but that’s reality. If they don’t want to be part of the ‘collateral damage’ then get out of harms way. If they want to be in the thick of the fight then they should accept the consequences that come with it.
Bokyo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 3:51 am
If you are good in logic you will know that that has the same calculated risk like when you ram an APC and firing a thousand rounds of bullets in the hotel. The only difference is that you are putting you and your men at the risk of getting killed or hurt rather than the civilians and the media men. You knew for sure that Trillanes group will not fire the first shot. Like I’ve said it’s good nobody was hit by that hundreds or thousands of rounds of those bullets. The worst thing that can happen if you came inside unarmed is that there can be a fist fight.
Bokyo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 4:03 am
The use of force is only and will only be justified if you are forced into it, by having to save more lives if you have to, only then when you can say that collateral damage is justified. You cannot just say that you can use force everytime you engage in such a situation. The primary duty of authorities in all cases is to save lives, even that of the criminal they are arresting.
supremo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 4:33 am
“If you are good in logic you will know that that has the same calculated risk like when you ram an APC and firing a thousand rounds of bullets in the hotel.The only difference is that you are putting you and your men at the risk of getting killed or hurt rather than the civilians and the media men.”
I’m sure the PNP knows the risk. They were willing to take it and the consequences that come with it.
“The primary duty of authorities in all cases is to save lives, even that of the criminal they are arresting.”
I’m sure that there will be bloodshed if 1000 negotiations were done before action were taken.
benign0 on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 8:31 am
“and what abt solutions benigs?”
I thought you’d never ask!
Check my proposals out here:
http://www.getrealphilippines.com/solution/
-
cvj on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 9:08 am
Benign0, i’ve read the above when you promoted two months back. I had a question which i hope you can answer:
I need to know the basis of your chart to be able to evaluate its validity either way.
Jeg on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 9:42 am
Bencard: i believe there was a violation of the following provisions of the revised penal code, as amended by PD No. 299, 9/19/1973 and BP Blg. 873, 6/12/1985.
But what happens when those laws smack into the Bill of Rights, Section 4? “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
For example, if a person in authority says, “Dont speak against the president in this rally.” Or, “You reporters, leave now and stop reporting!!” The Constitution says those ‘persons in authority’ could be ignored, correct?
Jeg on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 9:45 am
Vi Massart: You were surely referring to the incident involving the German consul general or deputy head of mission at a reception in Manila in 1998?
Honestly, I dont recall the details. What I do recall is my reaction after reading it. It was as if Mr. Soliven (God rest his soul) considered an affront to him an affront to the Filipino people.
The Ca t on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 10:29 am
So why are you surprised that any effort to remove GMA does not succeed?
Because the opposition groups do not agree even to the choice of leaders.
Geo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 12:42 pm
Ay naku –
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. In sum, there is a law that allows the law enforcers to establish a yellow line; a no go zone. That is common in many countries. And it is very logical, as well.
What is NOT clear is what is the law when some people (like media) are already INSIDE the zone? MUST they come out?
After talking with several lawyers at a get-together last night, it seems the police can dictate MANY things at a crime scene, especially DURING the commission of a crime.
They also have quite a bit of latitude in detaining anyone who was at the scene of a siege, hostage-taking, etc.
That is not a carte blanche to make whimsical arrests, however. The ultimate decision would, of course, depend on the judiciary…if ever a suit is brought to court.
If anyone ignores the commands of an officer in these cases (for ex — doesn’t come out voluntarily when the opportunity is presented), they might now be considered innocent, unwittingly obstructing justice (which can simply be the serving of a warrant), aiding and abeting the criminals, or as being one of the criminals.
Having a media ID doesn’t clearly point to which category a mediaman belongs to. Those who aren’t even media will have a harder time claiming innocence and non-participation in the crime.
NOTE: This info still doesn’t give a final answer. That’s why there are lawyers and courts. The nature of the crime and the level of participation of each individual will have to be argued. The actions of the police can be judges as well, of course…especially regarding the media arrest/non-arrest question.
We can argue til blue in the face, but it’s the courts who will decide. The authorities have rights to enforce the law, but these rights have limits. Civilians (incl media) have freedoms, but these are also not limitless.
leah on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 3:13 pm
we can start by repealing Commonwealth Act #1
grd on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 3:28 pm
what a question. try asking the russians.
grd on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 4:57 pm
mlq3, owes who? maybe the anti-gma forces, no? but yeah, thanks to her & the others who insisted on staying to cover the event (not to protect trillanes et al, no?) the rambunctious phil media is once again in the limelight.
mlq3 on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 5:00 pm
grd, the reader, the reader, the reader. and as always, if you are so appalled, please, get your tax pesos’ worth and restrict your news and views to the government networks.
mlq3 on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 5:09 pm
leah, sen. biazon has proposed a new law to replace ca no. 1. although, you have to recall that ca no.1 was establishing the basis for national defense (an essential attribute of sovereignty) and ca. no. 2 established the national economic council, today’s neda, planning one’s own economy being the other attribute of sovereignty. the purpose of the law was far different from that of the law that established the revised penal code. both laws represented basic building blocks of nationhood.
grd on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 5:53 pm
mlq3, so again, and as always, you think it’s all about the pro-govt & anti-govt forces why people like me are so disgusted with the participation and attitude of the media before and after that manila Pen siege?
mlq3 on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 6:07 pm
grd, no. it reflects fundamental attitudes towards law and order, authority, government legitimacy in general, but of course one’s fundamental attitudes towards all these will be informed by views on the administration. obviously though, there are anti admin people also upset by what trillanes did, pro government people upset by how the government handled it, and every possible permutation, including those who maintain scrupulous neutrality on political issues in general.
but if you are upset with media, i’m just saying you have every right to take your viewership/readership elsewhere, which means reading/viewing nothing at all, or taking your patronage to the government networks, or the other networks that aren’t the big two or the government propaganda corps.
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 6:25 pm
I think what grd is getting at is that media should have just been recording the event, if possible from a safe distance. The moment media decided to stay put, they decided to become part of the event and therefore, should not be protesting if they are rounded up after operations for so called processing.
Correct me if I’m wronf grd…
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 6:26 pm
When people have the opinion that media was right to stay put so that nothing untoward will happen…it implies a huge assumption on their part and that is that the authorities are not trustworthy to do their job right.
grd on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 6:41 pm
grd on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 6:53 pm
silent, yes, that’s the idea. i just don’t get it. they were ordered to get out (about 100). the rest except the 20 something stayed put. and then after, they cried foul. clearly they have violated something for defying the authorities order.
someone up said, what if something wrong happened like trillanes et al did not surrender? as if the whole thing was just a game to them. those who stayed actually acted as a willing shield for trillanes et al.
When people have the opinion that media was right to stay put so that nothing untoward will happen…it implies a huge assumption on their part and that is that the authorities are not trustworthy to do their job right… silent
agree silent.
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 7:19 pm
Like I always said, some people here play too much counterstrike/rainbow six/combat grounds(?)…akala nila may 2 more lives sila…..:-)
Geo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 7:20 pm
People and groups and sectors have to start believing in one another.
If we don’t work together, who else is gonna fix this country?
All media and all police are not bad. Many — if not most — want things to get better. Energies can be spent growling at each other, or constructive dialogue can be pursued. Which one makes more sense?
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 7:27 pm
Geo
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem really boils down to the people who actually view things in Black and White (no pun intended on the B&W group). Compromise is not an option. The “pataasan ng ihi” then becomes the norm rather than the exception. Or I guess it’s a game of who blinks first.
Geo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 7:49 pm
I don’t even know if compromise is the most required ingredient.
The way I see it, Ramos was the one who most clearly spelled out the ultimate reality: It’s the Philippines vs the other countries in the region and the world.
This country doesn’t need compromises; it needs effective solutions. Now.
No more us vs us; lots more us vs them. How can we do that?
mlq3 on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 8:12 pm
grd, i think the default attitude of media, anywhere, is governments are not to be trusted. this is an attitude as old as the concept of a fourth estate or that of the press as an institution.
mlq3 on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 8:46 pm
grd, by all means criticize, as you have been. i’m just pointing out your nuclear option.
mlq3 on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 8:49 pm
i was being snarky at grd. he has an absolutely valid point, which is, if you don;t like what media’s doing, sock it to ‘em. and yes, media has to listen and learn because also, no one wants to drive people to watching nbn permanently… so apologies to grd, i was out of line.
i think commenter ace in the other thread dissected things quite well:
http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1608#comment-658254
note that i never opposed “processing,” just the manner, i thought it was excessive and was for other purposes than clearing the scene properly.
Bokyo on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 9:26 pm
“someone up said, what if something wrong happened like trillanes et al did not surrender? as if the whole thing was just a game to them. those who stayed actually acted as a willing shield for trillanes et al.” – grd
What I said was it would have been more justified if the police authorities have used less force not like what they’ve done. I also would have agreed filing cases against those journalists who stayed and defied the order of police authorities and the proper court will decide if they really have violated a certain law or not. But what strikes me is that the police authorities still have to use excessive force, not taking into consideration there are civilians and some journalists left inside (even if they chose to stay). I can’t see how can they say that they made it difficult or obstructing their line of work if they will still use excessive force that way anyway.
Silent Waters on Fri, 7th Dec 2007 11:18 pm
Geo
I agree with your comment. What I was actually pointing out really with respect to compromise is not in the sense of getting into a middle ground to agree to but rather being less extremist. Yun para bang it’s all or nothing stance that will just drive the opposing force to not even come to the table to talk as there is no point anyway.
Not engaging the boss lady and her minions, antagonizing them to no end means there’s less of a chance to somehow fix the issues hounding government.
grd on Sun, 9th Dec 2007 4:03 am
mlq3, no need for an apology really but appreciate the gesture. i understand where you’re coming from. being part of the media, i expect you to defend strongly the actions of your colleagues right or wrong. but it’s good enough for me ordinary citizen that you recognized the point i’m driving at (as with the others). IMHO, i still believe though nothing’s excessive with what the authorities did in the manila pen siege concerning those who chose to defy the order during police operation. no one was actually hurt except media’s bruised ego on the manner of the “processing”.
i’m not being biased against the media. i do appreciate a good story whenever i happened to view or read one but not with this particular incident, just like the rest of the public who happened to follow the stories behind the siege, i am equally disappointed.
carl wrote it quite well in another thread here: