In the news, State visit not a junket, say legislators:Deputy Speaker: ‘I’ve not been inside a store’ while the Inquirer editorial says most congressmen were there as a presidential perk.
Earlier today a very instructive dialogue took place, which ended up being broadcast despite government’s (typical) preference to keep it all hush-hush. In the end, the two parties had to agree to disagree, since Media will still be arrested if police are defied–Puno. I hope a transcript of the whole thing ends up on line.
Main points were three. Jake Macaset pointed out that media and government are classic adversaries. Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro pointed out we belong to a “codal culture,” but that the codification of behavior on both sides isn’t a practical goal. Maria Ressa pointed out whichever way the government slices or dices what took place at the Peninsula -a “hostage situation,” or “terrorism,” or whatever- she can find an identical scenario covered just as aggressively by media abroad, and no democratic government anywhere did to journalists what our government did here at home.
My Arab News column resumes this week with Impatience With Colonial Legislation, comparing the reliance of the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore on colonial laws that are incompatible with more modern notions of the relationship between the governors and the governed (two slight errors: autonomy was in 1935, independence in 1946, not both in 1946 as somehow crept into the article; and the Revised Penal Code dates back to 1930 and not 1933). I’ve been thinking about this since 2004, see my September 12, 2004 column Dangerous articles .An Inquirer editorial from June 24, 2007 explains why, and see, also, past entries in Peryodistang Pinay, San Juan Gossip Mills Outlet, and Red’s Herring.
In The Inquirer Current Blog, John Nery in his entry Dancing in the Senate, refers to his column, The limits of outrage.
And his interesting conclusion(s), reached after examining surveys and what they can tell us. In his column Nery says,
The lesson for regime-changers: Corruption scandals do not prematurely bring down an administration, but proof of something else entirely – brazen fraud, gross impunity, lewd dancing in the halls of the Senate.
And in the blog, he points out,
This also suggests that suspending the high-profile Senate hearings on the ZTE case, where revelations not only of corruption but of obvious duplicity or gross arrogance were a real possibility, was a strategic mistake on the part of the opposition.
My entry in the same blog is A new battle of the epistles, where I put together open letters and statements from students and teachers from the Ateneo and De La Salle, on the Peninsula caper.
In his column, Manuel Buencamino argues that,
The argument about means and ends does not apply to the exercise of a people’s sovereign will. The universally accepted principle and practice in that area is “by any means necessary.” Witness the American and Philippine revolutions and the struggle of the Israelis to establish their own country, to cite a few examples…
Thus, it’s a waste of time to argue over the righteousness or immorality of the course of action chosen by Trillanes and Lim. They had a right and a duty to act. And they did.
Agreeing on the form of government that will replace Gloria Arroyo and uniting behind that vision will better serve the public welfare.
I didn’t go to the Peninsula Hotel that Thursday because I saw Trillanes and Lim surrounded by junta advocates. I am against juntas.
An unelected government run by a coalition of ideologues and men in uniform, no matter how pure of heart they may be, is not my idea of a democracy.
Besides, ideologues have no qualms about sacrificing the principles that set apart civilized societies from barbarians–the rule of law, due process, human rights, and civil rights and liberties–on the altar of doctrine…
It would have been nice if Trillanes and Lim called for the ouster of Mrs. Arroyo followed by a snap election. That would have erased all doubts about their commitment to a democratic way of life. Unfortunately, they chose to be vague about the type of government they envisioned.
Be that as it may, I applaud Senator Trillanes and General Lim for their courage and patriotism. They may not have triumphed, but they didn’t lose. There are no losers among those who fight fearlessly for what’s right.
Gloria Arroyo can bully cowards and weaklings, but the courageous and the stouthearted will always remain defiant, undefeated and unbowed.
As for my thoughts on where we are and what to do, please take a look at this comment I posted earlier today.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, ideas, law, media, military, philippines, politics, president, society, surveys
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.)
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?
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?)
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.
And they can only shoot if they are in danger of being shot, meaning, guns are trained at them.
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.
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.
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.
tonio, so true. huwag tularan.
Beancurd, I agree with you above. It is about time that police and military act as real “authorities” rather than GMA agents.
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.
ang problema nga tonio, what if the seer is suffering from myopia? where now does the distortion lie?
For that matter, did the someone in the media really say ‘Punyeta!’?
“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.
hahaha. smart huh?
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.”
tonio :
you know cvj, he’ll oversimplify, reduce, conclude, etc. to further his agenda.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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. 😉
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?
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]
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. 😉
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
“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?
he he
David
Pakikiusapan nila…..magmamakaawa sila…..
In fact…kowtow to them…kasi anti GMA sila…so dapat we should treat them like they’re our friends…
Also, mga santo sila who can do no wrong….si GMA lang ang evil sa mundo….
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?
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.
“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.
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 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.
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.
erratum: “arrest or mayor” should read “arresto mayor”).
erratum # 2: 2nd par., 3rd line, should read: …shall be imposed upon any person who not being included…
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.