Another happy ending for the Palace
January 30, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
My Arab News column for this week is The Same Mistakes Eventually. A further reflection on this past entry.
The Inquirer editorial takes a look at Suharto’s legacy. In his column, William Pesek does the same in Suharto’s corrupt legacy lives on in Indonesia, and says a lack of enthusiasm for investing in Indonesia is one of them. See Orde Baru for a timeline of the Suharto years.
Oh: and my gosh, he’s lost! Where in the world is Mike Arroyo? Maybe Austria? Lichtenstein?
A few days ago, Ricky Carandang, in his blog, said that the testimony of a new witness regarding the ZTE affair, would be used as an excuse to declare the leadership of the House vacant, and thus pave the way for a new Speaker. He predicted that the consensus candidate would be Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali Gonzales, Jr.:
When Congress resumes sessions at the end of the month, the Senate is expected to quickly resume hearings on the ZTE Broadband deal. A former associate of Romulo Neri, Jun Lozada, who was brought in by Neri as a consultant on technical matters, will provide more details based on first hand knowledge, about how the ZTE deal was clinched.
The ZTE hearings will be used by members of the House majority as a trigger to the call for a change in the House leadership. It will be recalled that it was the Speaker’s son, Joey, who accused presidential husband Mike Arroyo of intervening in the ZTE deal, thus opening a rift between Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and JDV that never really healed.
Sources tell me that sometime after the resumption of the Senate hearings, a member of the House coalition will take the floor to ask that the speakership be declared vacant. He will supposedly have the numbers.
I’m told further that backroom talks have nearly settled the matter of who takes over from JDV.
In a response to a readers’ comment, Carandang predicted,
He’s in a position to corroborate previous testimony. He has first hand knowledge. I’m not sure what his agenda is, if any.
But whatever he has the Palace is trying its best to keep him from talking.
as I mentioned the other day, scuttlebutt was that if Speaker de Venecia’s removal is in the cards, it’s scheduled for the end, and not the start, of this year. But there are those who’d like to accelerate the transfer of power: Mindanao solons uncloak selves, bare oust-JDV plot. Or do they? It could simply be posturing to extract concessions, or as a rear-guard action to save face.
After all, the Palace could be working at cross-purposes when it comes to congressmen who want to topple the Speaker sooner rather than later. But, as the next portion of this entry suggests, if the pretext for the toppling’s removed, then people have to sound the retreat while still banging the drums.
De Venecia, Nograles draw up battle lines for speakership. Maybe. But what if, as Carandang says, neither one will be the winner?
The news today began with the breaking news, New witness backs off NBN deal probe. This, despite Senate offers witness protection to Lozada. The Philippine Star has to have absolutely the worst -because utterly useless- system for online articles, you can never link anything! So I’ll have to quote from Jarius Bondoc’s column today, without providing a link.
His column, “Lozada was in Palace meetings on NBN,” accuses Sen. Cayetano (Allan Peter) of turning Lozada, who was supposed to be a surprise witness, into a non-surprise and thus, giving the Palace time to put pressure on him. This what Bondoc wrote today:
It’s all the fault of Blue-Ribbon Committee head Alan Peter Cayetano, according to Sen. Panfilo Lacson. Lozada allegedly had wanted to tell all he knows about the deal from which kickbackers would have got $200 million, three-fifths of the contracted price. But then, Malacañang operatives got to Lozada and convinced him to shut up with a combination of death threats and blandishments, Lacson lamented. And how did Palace men find out about Lozada? Well, by Cayetano’s own admission, he revealed the name of the secret witness last weekend. He had to, he said, for transparency, since the subpoena he issued Lozada last month was a public document signed not only by him but also Senate President Manny Villar, and Mar Roxas and Rodolfo Biazon of the two other committees investigating the fraud. Cayetano nonetheless acknowledged to being the leak. He told reporters he purposely had avoided them during the Christmas break so that they wouldn’t force him to break secrecy — until days ago. And so was redefined the meaning of secret witness.
What would Lozada have revealed had he not been put in jeopardy? The answer lies in part in the testimony of Joey de Venecia III, who blew the lid off the $330-million cheating. Roxas had asked him in a hearing in Sept. if he knew a certain Jun Lozada. De Venecia said yes, and that Lozada was present in some meetings with ZTE executives, presidential spouse Mike Arroyo, and then-Comelec chief Benjamin Abalos.
Lozada was no longer mentioned after that. But Lacson and Roxas apparently continued to receive more info. Word reached them that Lozada was conscience-stricken seeing Joey and other whistleblowers lay their lives on the line while he who knew more about the high crime was comfortably silent. And so Lozada decided to talk.
The first senator Lozada approached to tell his story was not of any help. If at all, it only proved to him that some opposition figures have been co-opted, although it’s not readily seen through their pretentious posturing. That senator allegedly told Lozada to not bother testifying because the tri-committee already was wrapping up the probe and drafting a report. (Cayetano said Monday he definitely will set more hearings if new evidence turns up.)
Lozada reportedly then prepared an affidavit of what he knows. The most telling segment allegedly is about a meeting in Malacañang on Apr. 19, 2007, two days before Arroyo witnessed the signing of the DOTC-ZTE deal in China. (That’s also the day then-Economic Secretary Romy Neri told me he nearly resigned due to unconscionable terms of the telecom supply.) Luzon’s main water source would have been sacrificed, along with soldiers’ housing, just to accommodate the overpriced deal.
What else is in the affidavit, the few remaining truly opposition senators prefer that Lozada himself say under oath. They’d rather not jump the gun. Too often have witnesses recanted testimonies freely given, because Palace fixers also got to them.
This is all very tantalizing, but now moot and academic -as it has been, since Cayetano gave the Palace a free pass by wrapping up the hearings before the holidays. We shall have to see if Senate to order arrest of Lozada, Neri has any effect, and how many in the Senate will stand by their institution or cave in to the Palace.
The Business Mirror editorial points out that Congress has abandoned trying to hold the budget hostage, because it only enabled the executive department to spend without congressional oversight by doing so:
Time was, not too long ago, when lawmakers tried to put the squeeze on the Executive branch by prolonging their budgetary deliberations. Opposition senators, in particular, made the debates and discussions drag on—if only to press the point that the legislature possesses the power of the purse. Unfortunately for them, the dilatory tactic tended to backfire.
Instead of being intimidated by Congress’s authority to withhold funds, Malacañang simply resorted to realigning the previous year’s appropriations. The Executive prerogative to adopt “reenacted†budgets merely gave the Palace a free hand to dig into the national coffers—then spend billions of taxpayer pesos as it saw fit, with members of Congress unable to do anything about it save for rant and rave before the media.
As one pundit pointed out, a reenacted budget is nothing more than a huge pork barrel that Congress—intentionally or otherwise—gifts to the incumbent administration. During an election year, in particular, congressional dereliction of its duty to produce a budget often left the Palace crying all the way to the bank.
This time, Congress has managed to pass the national budget pretty much on time. Along the way, the editorial points out that one tangible benefit of the appreciation of the Peso was freeing up 16 billion that would otherwise have gone to foreign debt payments. It also praises Senators Trillanes and Lacson for saving the government 300 million pesos, the amount of the pork barrel they gave up.
But there remain some causes for concern, as these stories indicate: Budget OK ‘pleases’ Palace, but realignment veto looms. From the same article, a glimpse into the revenue-raising problems the government faces:
[S]enators put the burden on the government to boost revenue collection in order to bankroll the recently-ratified P1.23-trillion budget for 2008.
Senators cautioned that the P1.226-trillion national budget bill ratified by both chambers of Congress Monday night relies heavily on the state’s ability to finance the annual spending measure through more efficient revenue collection.
Stressing that a key element of this is “the capture of tax lost to smuggling,†Sen. Francis Escudero, Senate ways and means committee chairman, noted that “budget funds can only flow if the tax leaks are plugged.â€
In order to finance the spending measure, Escudero said government must raise the corresponding amount in tax, plus P10 billion more, as the total cash budget of the government for the year is actually P1.236 billion.
According to him, the P10 billion is the projected cost of the planned 10-percent hike in the basic pay of 1.1 million national government workers that takes effect July. This amount, while factored in this year’s public expenditures, was not included in the budget. “This means that government must raise an average P3.386 billion daily to finance its operations,†he added.
The burden of raising this amount would fall on the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which is targeting to collect P844.9 billion, or 68.3 percent of total requirement, and the Bureau of Customs, whose assigned target of P254.5 billion makes up 20.6 percent of overall, or a combined P1.099 trillion.
And P75-B stimulus plan OK’d in principle; DBM balks. According to the article, Albay Gov. Joey Salceda is the guy behind the President’’s stimulus package, meant to help overcome whatever economic challenges will arise from the Subprime contagion (by the way, Manuel Buencamino in his column distills what the whole mess overseas is all about):
The country’s economic managers and Albay Gov. Joey Salceda, the President’s economic adviser who presented the proposal to the President and her Cabinet that day, will meet on Thursday to study the feasibility of such a scheme and to see how it can fit into the administration’s fiscal framework.
This, amid contradictions in principles between the budget secretary and the stimulus-package proponent, Salceda…
…Salceda’s package includes P16 billion in tax rebates for middle-class working families and P8 billion in power rate discounts for those consuming a maximum of 200 kilowatt-hours per month; and increased spending for agriculture (P15 billion), food-for-school projects (P6 billion), education (P6 billion), health (P4 billion), housing (P4 billion) and infrastructure (P16 billion).
He said among the funding sources mentioned were the privatization of the remaining shares of the government in San Miguel Corp., Food Terminal Inc., and other government assets; and, for the power rate discounts, the government royalties from Malampaya…
…The proposed package is suited for a “sharp but short†US recession, he added…
…Salceda said former President Estrada took the same tack to minimize the impact of the Asian crisis on the country by releasing P40 billion for priming activities in 1999; Mrs. Arroyo released P60 billion for the same purpose to help the Philippines cope with a US recession.
“They were very successful in reversing a growth slowdown into an acceleration,†Salceda said. But Andaya said such schemes had also led to the ballooning of the budget deficit beyond what was expected: in 1999, the target deficit was P17 billion but swelled to P114 billion because of pump-priming activities; in 2002, the target was P40 billion but the deficit at year-end was over three times higher at P150 billion.
See also In rare moment, Tetangco cites fiscal concerns.
You might have noticed, above, that Salceda proposes that Malampaya royalties be put on hold. He has backing for this: Competitiveness council wants Malampaya royalties halted. To do so, however, would further endanger the precarious situation local governments are finding themselves in, because of gerrymandering.
In his column today, Quagmire rule, Juan Mercado not only says “I told you so” (he’s been a long-time opponent of creating new provinces and cities motived by gerrymandering) but points to the very real fiscal problem city governments are facing:
Mayor Celestino Martinez prints new letterheads for Bogo City in Cebu. The bill is dumped on others, including next-door Toledo City. Instead of a P307-million IRA check, Mayor Arlene Zambo will get P277 million – a hefty P31-million cut.
From Iloilo to Davao and Jolo, IRAs are being castrated sans anesthesia. Puerto Princesa in Palawan is hemorrhaging from a P144 million cut. Instead of receiving P146 million, Mayor Edward Hagedorn may get only P1.7 million. This is a policy for upheaval.
He asks, how did it happen? By juggling the figures and granting exemptions too freely and too often:
How did we stumble into this quagmire? We, Filipinos, have a nasty habit of meeting high performance standards by lowering them instead, noted Viewpoint (Cebu Daily News & Inquirer, Feb 12, 2007 ). Thus, Congress “exempted†16 towns from criteria that other cities met.
This wont for self-delusion infects other sectors. Juggling statistics on class sizes “solved†the shortage in classrooms. Flunkers in National Elementary Achievement Tests wrestled the passing mark down to 50 percent. That wasn’t low enough. So, they wangled a “bonus†of 60 points. “This meant the criterion passing score was 37.5 percent,†Philippine Human Development Report notes. “Whom are they kidding?â€
Many lost count in the frenzy to set up city halls. In 1991, we had 60 cities, many of dubious viability. By 2003, that had ballooned to 114. “National government’s ability to finance such local government units… is strained,†the World Bank and Asian Development Bank cautioned. “The small size of LGUs prevents them from generating their own resources.â€
Finally, Mercado points out something long a-borning:
Migrants swap rural penury for urban penury. In 2005, six out of every ten Filipinos lived in urban sprawls. By 2030, urban residents could crest at 85 million.
In the 1980s, Rigoberto Tiglao had already theorized that the “surrounding the cities from the countryside” Maoist strategy of the CPP-NPA was doomed to fail, because even then the majority of Filipinos were urban and not rural dwellers; he ended up leaving the party because of his challenge to its political orthodoxy. I point this out because to my mind, gerrymandering and the atomization of the provinces is a grave problem.
A very curious story in Nonong Guyala’s column, Poetic justice.
And for the record, the gist of the petition various people (including myself) filed before the Supreme Court: Media ask SC to stop gov’t threats, arrests: 70 journalists sign petition vs top gov’t execs. The rationale of the case in Maria Ressa’s statement, “We Have Press Freedom or We Don’t. There is No Middle Ground.”
Technorati Tags: Blogging, economy, House of Representatives, ideas, philippines, politics, president, Senate
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
balatucan on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 12:19 pm
The crusade to seek the truth about the NBN deal suffered another blow. Lozada cant be blamed. He fear for his and his family’s life.
inodoro ni emilie on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 12:53 pm
lozada backing off? baka wala ring bayag katulad ni neri. metaphorically speaking that is.
Jon Mariano on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 2:12 pm
Whoever silenced Neri and Lozada must be very powerful, that one is most obvious. But the delay in the investigations have again caused people to lose interest. Nakalimutan na naman! This issue needs another round of media hype to fly.
anthony scalia on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 4:41 pm
Just some comments on the SC petition:
At best, what the government is doing is all bark, no bite. They’re just ‘threats’. Once these ‘threats’ are externalized (put into action), thats the time you file the case.
In criminal law, there are ‘threats’ which are crimes by themselves. If someone will threaten another with a criminal act, the threat itself is a crime, even though the intended criminal act isn’t done yet.
What the government is barking out is a proposed legal governmental action. A legal, valid right on its part
This is not a matter of which is right or wrong. This is a battle of which right should prevail – the government’s, or media’s.
The writ of prohibition aims to stop an act which is being done already and continuing, or an act which has begun.
If the initial act is all talk, its not covered by the writ of prohibition.
Granted that talk is an initial act of several acts to follow, but there’s no situation yet, no actual event that would put in jeopardy media’s right to report and right to inform the public
The SC case is premature.
Though it can be argued that the ‘threats’ are a form of censorship, of prior restraint, it can also be argued that there is no actual event yet to report, to cover, to write about, so what is there to suppress?
Besides, the ‘threats’ are not a blanket censorship over everything and anything the media can cover/report – just events like the Manila Pen circus where media people can be in the cross-fire. Even though they are not at the site personally, nothing prevents them from reporting/writing/commenting about it (yun nga lang, second hand info na. pero as if naman media had no experience acting on second hand info)
But a civil case for damages suffered by media people arrested during the Manila Pen circus is an entirely different case.
By the way, the 72-hour TRO is no cause for celebration. Because government can still resume its barking at the 73rd hour onwards. Whats 3 days of waiting for them? Besides, there is no event like the Manila Pen circus yet.
Rob' Ramos on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 5:15 pm
@ Anthony Scalia
Maybe the utility of the TROs and the cases filed against Government and its agents isn’t the exactly the reason for media’s suits, but its symbolic effect: that the Fourth Estate can DO this to the First.
From what I understand about how the law operates, precedents are everything. And since a TRO, nevermind if only for 72 hours, can be got by Media to make Government “back off”, then it can be done by Media again.
At least now, Media knows the extent of the legal remedies it can get.
I kind of agree with many of the things you pointed out, though ^_^ But that’s a personal, gut-level thing. I’m still reflecting on Maria Ressa’s rather black-and-whitish statement on Full-or-None freedom of the press.
nash on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 5:29 pm
Hmmm,
MIke Arroyo probably had to do an ‘account balance’.
Otherwise, maybe some hunters mistook him for wild boar.
Beancurd on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 5:34 pm
Scalia,
I think you fail to grasp the concept of chilling effect or the deterrent effect. it is all subjective you know and the fact that some media persons are not cowed does not mean that no one else is cowed by the threats. But then again, i think you also fail to see an emerging pattern of threats or attacks against the media and it did not begin with the Manila Pen incident.
And once again, the government does not have rights, it only has powers and duties and one of its basic duty is to follow the law as its first option and not to explore its possible limits. If at all, that is a last recourse.
qwert on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 6:27 pm
“By the way, the 72-hour TRO is no cause for celebration. Because government can still resume its barking at the 73rd hour onwards. Whats 3 days of waiting for them? Besides, there is no event like the Manila Pen circus yet.” – Anthony Scalia
The 72 hours TRO is the time needed to determine the judge who will handle the case by a raffle. After the judge is known, the said judge will have to “weight things” if he will issue a preliminary injunction that will enjoin the concerned government officials from making threats of arrests against journalists until the case has been decided.
DevilsAdvc8 on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 10:47 pm
ngayon poporma ang senado kung kelan tapos na ang boksing. ano to, attempt to reclaim lost glory? attempt to reclaim public sympathy? lokohin nyo lelang nyo! mabulok kayo lahat sa kangkungan sa sunod na eleksyon!
anthony scalia on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 11:11 pm
Beancurd,
Look, what is ‘threatened’ is media’s presence in a place the government calls ‘cross-fire’ and the media calls ‘assignment’
Media are not prevented from writing about and reporting on the event. The government just wants them to steer clear of the cross-fire/assignment.
Media are not threatened to be shut out of writing/reporting altogether – just stay away from the cross-fire/assignment
Sorry to say, the government has rights. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the exercise of the government’s rights. Government only has powers? Exercising those powers requires a right to exercise them.
anthony scalia on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 11:16 pm
qwert,
No injunction can be issued against the ‘threats’ because the government is just exercising its rights. take note, government just wants media people to be out of the danger zone. Media are not prevented from writing and reporting about the event.
And if ever an injunction is issued, that injunction is only on the making of ‘threats’. Forcibly keeping media out of the danger zone will not be covered by the prohibition
anthony scalia on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 11:23 pm
Rob’ Ramos,
“Maybe the utility of the TROs and the cases filed against Government and its agents isn’t the exactly the reason for media’s suits, but its symbolic effect: that the Fourth Estate can DO this to the First”
The fact that media can is already a given. The Bill of Rights gives media freedom of expression.
“From what I understand about how the law operates, precedents are everything. And since a TRO, never mind if only for 72 hours, can be got by Media to make Government “back offâ€, then it can be done by Media again”
Only Supreme Court decisions are precedents – meaning, RTCs are obliged to follow SC decisions. But an RTC judge is not obligated to follow another RTC judge’s decision.
“At least now, Media knows the extent of the legal remedies it can get”
Media already know that. What makes the case interesting is that media are not prevented from writing about and reporting about an event. They are simply sought to be kept out of the danger zone. If the Manila Pen circus happened all over again, media can still write and report about it, they just have to be out of the cross-fire.
supremo on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 11:27 pm
On Quagmire rule.
Since the creation of cities can’t be avoided provinces should be abolished and replace with regions. To reduce opposition to abolishing the provinces the new regions must be given the power to collect personal income tax and to organize a police force. Maybe after several decades the regions will become states in a federation between the Philippines and Indonesia.
DJB Rizalist on Wed, 30th Jan 2008 11:52 pm
MLQ3,
If you guyz lose the suit, you will nonetheless all be famous for trying. And the court won’t reject it outright, but will give enough for the headline writers to declare victory but once more change the subject, even if anthony scalia is persuasive enough for me, above.
Is the gov’t “making threats” to enforce the Law? The SC ought to cough that up like a hairball. You can’t TRO the authorities for “threatening” to enforce the Law against journalists who get in the way of police operations.
Heck, look at any statue of Lady Justice. See that sword. That’s what I call a Threat!
But if you guyz do lose the suit, you will have damaged and not defended press freedom by chipping away at the only thing that keeps journalism afloat:credibility with the public.
Since ordinary citizens instinctively obey lawful authorities (though not blindly!) they see the journalists now as a bunch of spoilt brats trying to claim a space way above the same law that normally towers over the common tao.
Carl on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 12:12 am
The crusade to seek the truth about the NBN deal suffered another blow. Lozada cant be blamed. He fear for his and his family’s life. – balatucan
Gee, then why did he come up with an alleged affidavit then detailing among others, via Jarius, who-receives-what of the bribe?
Surely, he’s not stupid to think that whatever perceived threat imposed on him BEFORE his senate appearance will not appear AFTER his appearance had he decided to testify.
inodoro ni emilie: hindi “walang bayag”. “sinungaling” is more apt.
mlq3 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 12:13 am
In light of the above, I liked this particular discussion on the difference between rights, authority, and power:
http://www.patbratton.com/Rights.html
a more academic discussion on natural rights is in:
http://jim.com/rights.html
and if you want to refer to one of the classics (which one ignores at one’s own peril, as such thinkers are at the core of our constitutional setup and the law), there’s tom paine’s “common sense”:
http://www.bartleby.com/133/index.html
i’ve cited this discussion on whether there’s a difference between freedom of expression and freedom of the press:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1
for this, the doctrine of prior restraint is what goes to the heart of the particular rights the press enjoys:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/09.html#1
the question is who is imperiled in the sort of situations the government has in mind, in issuing its policy “warnings.” and then, what are the legitimate actions the government can take if, in its views, such a peril exists.
it’s clear that what is imperiled, from the government’s point of view, is its freedom of action. it prefers to be unencumbered by oversight of any sort, which is what reporting is. it says it wants this freedom of action, for the supposed safety of its personnel, and of the press, never mind whoever the government’s targets might be (which could be justifiable or unjustifed targets).
government, possessing the police power, is in the best position to protect its own. the press is not a threat not least because it’s busy doings its job, and ample precedents exist as to the means the government can use, to prevent the reporting of details potentially injurious to public safety (for example, in the 1897 and 1989 coups, media was asked not to report troop deployments and movements, and complied).
however, considering the nature of the job of the press, it is in the best position to judge when its people are imperiled, and in the exercise of their freedoms the government can counsel but shouldn’t compel. to do so could very well be a form of prior restraint, as would be government directives that impose restrictions on the press that are not within government’s province to impose, unless an ironclad basis for it is secured
(emergency powers, requiring an act of congress, for example; censorship at a time of war, as declared, again by congressional resolution). but not purely on a bureaucrat’s say-so.
as these readings suggest, individuals have rights. governments have powers. rights of the people limit the powers government can exercise. if a government were to have rights, it would place an intolerable -because rendering it essentially meaningless- limitation on the ultimate right of the people to overthrow their government if it harms and no longer guarantees their rights. to say otherwise is to grant to government a right -that of self-preservation- that only individuals have.
mlq3 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 12:32 am
djb,
media loses if it doesn’t petition the courts, because what the government wants to do is impose prior restraint, and deny the public any kind of meaningful oversight over its functions, by means of whatever goes on being reported and not just manufactured by ex-post-facto press releases.
the sc can determine if the law being cited justifies the actions made policy by the government. there could be no such law, or it could possible be blown up beyond all reasonable proportion, and infringe on a right government cannot modify except if it secures some sort of broad support by means of a declaration of war or state of emergency and emergency powers authorized by congress. but not by the say-so-of a cabinet official or officer on the ground.
if the suit is lost, then the inevitability of what government wanted to, would have been delayed at least.
don’t think bernas is the only voice on these issues and i really have to wonder why two specific freedoms -of expression and the press- have to written in; but there they are, and in the end its with ink and paper that this will be fought out, precisely because no one should want this settled by bullets.
vic on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 1:04 am
Fundamental Freedoms
Under our own Charter we are guaranteed these
Fundamental freedoms: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Subject to Section One of the Charter, Limitations to the Rights and Freedoms: and for the Freedoms is subsection (b) that would be the Hate Crime Law, under the Criminal code, the Libel and Slander under the Common Law (tort)and other than that, the Rights of Freedom of Expression and the Freedom of the Press and other Media of Communication is For All to enjoy…
BrianB on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 1:19 am
@Manolo,
Don’t you agree that media is privileged on certain ways with regards to the access it gets? This privilege is rooted on the right of citizens to be informed, correct? With this logic, the rights of media men is an extension of the rights of the people, but they are given “special privileges” not afforded other citizens based on the economics of space… You can’t simply allow everyone to go to Malacanang to listen to presidential announcements, now could you?
Media men take it upon themselves to inform the public because the public needs to know but media does not have rights that go beyond the rights of ordinary people. In hazardous situations when the police need to be in control, the police have the authority to “force” people out of harm’s way and for other reasons including the one cited by the police during the Peninsula incident, that the media had to get out of the way.
BrianB on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 1:27 am
Ha. This is common sense but I keep hearing politicians talk about their political survival as if it’s their right to have a political career. During the time when Kings truly ruled, life and power may be taken as one and the same for rulers but not anymore. There is Imelda to prove that losing one’s power does not mean losing one’s life. Heck, she is even maintaining her old lifestyle. We are such a forgiving nation towards people of power that there is no excuse whatsoever for the power-hungry attitude that we have been.
Bencard on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 1:59 am
mlq3, my compliments to you for your nice ‘nutshell’ treatise on individual right of press freedom and expression. no discussion of “rights”, however, can be complete without mention of “responsibility”. in a civilized society of laws, no right is absolute, not even that of the ultimate earthly source of power – the people. anything and everyone must answer to a higher authority, i.e., the Law.
in almost all democratic societies i know that recognize press freedom, prior restraint by the government on its exercise is proscribed by constitution. however, this precept is not without limitations. thus, “irresponsible” or “abusive” exercise of free press and expression are unprotected. among these are exercise that violates laws on national security, libel, health and safety, morals and public order.
maria ressa’s doctrine of absolute freedom or none at all is irresponsible, dangerous, naive and arrogant. a business for profit built on the generic “people’s right to know” must always be suspect.
i do agree with you that the controversy must be settled in a court of law, not with bullets. but to cite just one example of the danger of absolutism, people thoroughly aggrieved by a libelous, yet unpunishable, media account to the point of despair could turn to guns and bullets to avenge the loss of honor or livelihood. i believe this is already happening, albeit (apparently) in the local political arena.
nash on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 3:56 am
Hmmm,
If this Manila Pen event happened, every second of it,here in Europe, I (naively) think there will be no case at all. They will probably question the journalists as eyewitnesses, but that’s all.
So I wonder.
Bencard on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 4:10 am
i don’t think you know what you’re talking about. law enforcers, even in europe, have the duty and responsibility to enforce the law. they can only ignore it at their own risk.
BrianB on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 4:33 am
@mlq,
“it prefers to be unencumbered by oversight of any sort, which is what reporting is.”
This is a fallacious argument, I think. Usually, it is committees that do oversights. I mean, people sitting down and discussing points. The police telling you to get out of the way isn’t really a process of “overseeing,” is it?
I think media is wrong, knows its wrong but doesn’t want to give government the momentum in a very, very tense environment.
One thing is clear, Manolo, Maria Ressa, et al. The people are not going to give you the same power the politicians are enjoying right now, i.e. the power to think of yourselves as having more right than the rest of us. I know your jobs are sometimes dangerous and you need to protect yourselves from enemies of press freedom, including the police and the military. But for Gods sakes find another way that will not cost ordinary people.
Media and media men are already too powerful in this country and they are feared. People, ordinary people, fear media just as much as they fear politicians, the military and the police. What the hey!
BrianB on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 4:39 am
OK, correct that. Page kept loading and it skipped and so did my reading.
The full quote:
J. Cruz on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 5:00 am
Ever since becoming a senator, like many before him, Peter Alan Cayetano had lost his voice but found his “true” calling.
BrianB on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 5:14 am
J. Cruz,
It’s almost unbelievable how the likes of Joker and Peter can suddenly turn like that. Maybe they have something up their sleeve. Maybe they are working as double-agents, pretending to be pro-GMA or a semi-neutral pol until the opportunity arises to save the people arises.
nash on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 5:45 am
@bencard,
those 70 journalists have not broken any law.
inodoro ni emilie on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 6:18 am
i don’t understand the logic here: if they fear for their lives, why won’t they just stand up and deliver. if they think that they’d find themselves 6 feet under later on, they might as well bury themselves while still alive and talking. or are they really gonna talk now? i-youtube na ninyo!
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 7:22 am
mlq3,
“Freedom of speech” applies to all persons. but Press Freedom refers to ORGANIZED free speech, as newspaper, tv or radio. As such Press Freedom is a Right of Commerce with the Duty to comply with the laws.
Journalism is, Constitutionally speaking, a commercial enterprise–the industry of buying and selling information. (The Public must BUY the information from organized free speech outlets called the media). Broadcast journalism is strictly regulated by the Franchise laws.
Journalism is NOT “pubic service” under the constitution. Being a cop is.
Journalism is not there for oversight on govt. It is there to gather and scatter information. About everything. including what telecomm load to buy, which starlet is pregnant, and yeah what antonio trillanes is trying to do at a luxury hotel.
But I assert to you that the rights of a gossip column are EXACTLY the same as the rights of the Front Page.
What you don’t point out in the little study list is where it discusses the Priority of the Liberties. We are all created equal, but not our liberties
Every specific liberty or kind of freedom is a compound composed a specific Right and a specific duty.
The Right to Life has self-evident priority over the right to find stuff out and tell others about it, which in turn his higher than the right to pursue happiness.
In the case of the right to know the duty of journalists is to gather the information and scatter it later, as a commercial enterprise.
In the case of the right to life, the duty to protect and preserve it is the job of the police, as a public service.
Whose duty must have priority? Well it is the Duty that corresponds to the higher priority right!
Even Tom Paine agrees with this in Common Sense.
Prior Restraint. Ahem. They just want reporters to do their jobs from 50 meters away not 5 inches!
No one is “restraining” them other than when they endanger the lives of the cops, waiters and law-abiding journaists who did obey the cops.
You guys actually look to the grown up public like a very smart student, who knows all the books and big words, but whom common sense is seen by everybody else as having stepped out of line, and just can’t admit it and is now writing reams and reams of eloquent but fallacious essays claiming rights and priorities witth little moral or logical consistency.
That is why the Public has turned a cold shoulder on such an important issue.
You are not advancing Freedom at all, but destroying it the way the Communists like to redefine democracy==ie so it is really communism. Here the Press is claiming to protect Press Freedom. They are really batting for the lawlessness for the elite of liberal fascism.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 7:37 am
Every single one of those arrested was an EMPLOYEE of a commercial, for-profit media corporation. Their “right” to be there and exercise “press freedom” is entirely contained in the rights and limitations of those corporations, including especially the Franchise Laws. They cannot wear two hats at the same time as being journalists, they cannot claim to be just ordinary citizens either.
And so, I would say that PRESS FREEDOM refers to a lower order right to free speech than ordinary people, because of the legal restrictions placed upon organized free speech.
So Bernas is only half right. While it is true journalists don’t have more rights than ordinary citizens, the full truth is, they may actually have LESS.
They have free speech less the binding restrictions in the Franchise Law!
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 7:43 am
The right to sell telecomm load through the air waves is actually a precious and lucrative privilege, granted by the State to private commercial enterprises called radio stations and tv networks, owned and operated by the biggest Media Moguls and Mavens. You cannot be a member of the Broadcast Press unless you are an employee of such a corporation that owns such a franchise. Of course “owning a franchise” actually means accepting the provisions in the Law that establishes the Franchise. These restrictions are clearly limitations on ordinary free speech in exchange for the privilege.
It is an inescapable conclusion. The reason the Constitution distinguishes ordinary freedom of speech from Press Freedom is that the latter refers to a clearly lower order priority right because of the Duties and Limitations imposed in exchange for the right to make money on tsismis and ads and scoops uysing the electromagnetic spectrum, which is wired directly to everyone’s eyes and ears.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 7:51 am
That is why BLOGGING, or citizen journalism is a superior form for practicing the Freedom of Speech and satisfying the public’s right to know. Our freedom is not “press freedom” as such, but something much closer to the pure individual right to freedom of expression.
Press Freedom, as organized free speech contains the limits and separations that are familiar also from other forms of organized expression, such as Religion.
The idea that specific freedoms have organized forms that are more restricted is completely natural. They come from the invention of private property, which also placed similar restrictions upon the relations of men to each other.
It is because information is itself a commodity that Press Freedom must by necessity be considered to be a Right of Commerce and NOT fundamental and generic right, like ordinary free speech. Press Freedom is a degraded and highly restrict form of Free Speech.
If we did not recognize such rankings and limits on rights and freedoms, we would never, ever get around to seeing and doing our DUTIES.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 8:01 am
Freedom of Religion, which comes right after Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights, is in my view, just like Press Freedom, a derivative right from the fundamental Right of Privacy, which is the Mother of all private rights, including freedom of speech.
Freedom of Speech comes from the concept that our opinion is also our private property, like our bodies, clothes, cars and material possessions.
Thus Freedom of Speech is a right of privacy very much like the right to private property in material form. It’s organized form, Press Freedom is exercised by corporations licensed or enfranchised by the state to exploit the air waves commercially and uhmm journalistically (entertainment, news, views).
“Church Freedom” is the organized form of Freedom of religion–a freedom of assembly of belief as it were.
“Press Freedom” is the organized from of freedom of speech, as I’ve said.
But the organized forms are always more restricted than the individual purely private right to an opinion about God and or the Government.
Otherwise you would have to say that the Catholic Church is like the PDI and ought to be able to go into our bedrooms to check on God’s Right to Know if we are being moral and good and to save our soul–which is their professed purpose. (The Church, not Pdi, silly!)
Just as individual persons
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 8:23 am
My ideas here professed are not entirely original. They are inspired by a close reading of John Rawls, Harvard Law School, A Theory of Justice, which I highly recommend to all. (National Bookstore, $19.95)
“Justice as Fairness” is a powerful analytical and rhetorical invention of his, a moral and political theory in the best traditions of the English speaking civilizations. Not since Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson has so much sense been made of Liberty, Truth, Justice and Equality applicable even to the bizarre version of democracy found in this here archipelago.
Here the Constitution is treated as a Social Contract, not a Bible or recipe book to be redacted by do-gooders and Utilitarians.
Cheers! Am going mountain biking with a beautiful Igorot Maiden. She’s all titanium steel and carbon composite in a silky aerodynamic skin. I carry my Freedom of Speech in a backpack, where I, and I alone, must keep an eye on it.
I just don’t trust some of the Media any more. My Right to Know, is also my Right to Find Out. I don’t always have to pay someone for it, especially those who don’t seem to respect the Law and are interested in converting me to their Religion.
The Religion whose Sacred Cow is the right to sell tsismis and telecomm load even if it kills the lowly reporters and photographers. No thanks. I’d rather be a good Rizalist and Mason.
mlq3 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 8:50 am
brian, i find it curious when people insist media has no more rights than the rest of the population. in what sense? the ordinary citizen would no more try to find out what’s going on, beyond rubbernecking if there’s some sort of out of the ordinary going-on, than a journalist would try to respond to an emergency to the extent of performing life support on an accident victim. the point being that you will either conduct government business, including law and order, under the scrutiny of the public, or grant government the impunity to do what it wants, always, unlimited by public scrutiny. that is a risk i think most people ought to be unwilling to take -to always have everything be a fait accompli because the best you can hope for, is that government, out of the goodness of its heart, will excplain to you, not only patiently, but thoroughly, what it did and why and how.
and you say, “find a way that will not cause ordinary people” -what? life? limb? tranquility? the evacuation of staff and guests in the hotel was unimpeded by media; there were no risks faced by the police they weren’t prepared to contemplate even if media hadn’t been there.
bencard, harping on the press being profession like any other doesn’t seem particularly relevant as there are many other professions -including the law- that have a public service aspect; you might as well criticize both the police and the military for being composed of people who receive salaries, are concerned about pensions -these things do not make them mercenaries and it does not necessarily reduce the credibility or importance of the press.
and again, consider an alternative where you have no press, or it’s actions are so circumscribed your press is reduced to the level of the present government networks.
qwert on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 9:06 am
No injunction can be issued against the ‘threats’ because the government is just exercising its rights – Anthony Scalia
I was just pointing out the “rules of procedures”…and by the way the TRO can be extended but not exceed twenty days the 72 hours included if the judge believes that the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. Now, if the
case is raffled to Judge Winlove Dumayas (Makati City, Regional Trial Court Executive Judge), I think the TRO will be extended since it was the same judge who issued the 72 hour TRO based on the news report below:
mlq3 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 9:33 am
djb, perhaps you can list what the restrictions government imposes on franchise holders are? and whether it can go beyond those pre-set limitations, on the basis of anything other than a declaration of war or state of emergency.
then, whether your 5o meters or 50 inches distinction would really have mattered at the time.
then, whether there was only one way to handle the security concerns that belated emerged to justify frog-marching the journalists and whisking them off for “processing” -or whether a more temperatesince victorious, government could have handled things more rationally.
and third, where your idolatry of national security and its accompanying doctrines hasn’t led people down a path where official butchery that seems strikingly similar to the butchery of maoists and other extremists.
and why, for god’s sakes, your words start echoing mussolini’s:
“Was there ever a government in history that was based exclusively on the consent of the people and renounced any and every use of force? A government so constituted there never was and never will be. Consent is as changeable as the formation of the sands on the seashore. We cannot have it always. Nor can it ever be total. No government has ever existed which made all its subjects happy. Whatever solutions you happen to give to any problem whatsoever, even though you share the divine wisdom, you would inevitably create a class of malcontents…
“How are you going to avoid that this discontent spread and constitute a danger for the solidarity of the state? You avoid it with force –by employing force inexorably where it is rendered necessary. Rob any government of force and leave it only with its immortal principles, and that government will be at the mercy of the first group that is organized and intent on overthrowing it.â€
mlq3 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 9:35 am
djb, does your believe that freedom of the press is an inferior form of freedom, because a freedom of commerce, represent any sort of consensus view, or is it your personal contribution to philosophical thought?
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 10:12 am
mlq3,
In a society of 90 million people, how can we ignore the philosophical question of the Priority of Liberties, Rights and Duties, or allow one small sector to claim an unjust and unfair and impossible primacy over all others?
Lookit. Waiters have the duty to serve the Manila Pen’s famous halo halo (P350) because the Guests have the right to the pursuit of happiness by paying for a bit of it.
This is a simple example of a “right of commerce” that is however, “inferior” to the Right to Life of say a policeman trying to do HIS duty should a coup d’etat be attempted in the Pen’s elegant ballroom by armed rebel desperadoes using Media and leftist partisans present as apparently willing human shields.
Likewise the right of commerce that is journalism, which serves the so-called Right to Know part of Freedom of Speech (the right to hear commercial speech!) does not have priority (let’s leave out the emotion-laden word “inferior” with your indulgence) over the duty of the police to uphold public peace and order.
If there is any concensus on these concepts it must be that imposed by common sense.
I claim no other authority than that of English Grammar and Comprehension of a rather old fashioned sort.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 10:19 am
In The Limits of Press Freedom in Broadcast Journalism we find this from a typical broadcasting franchise:
SEC. 4. Responsibility to the Public.—The grantee shall provide adequate public service time to enable the government, through the said broadcasting stations or facilities, to reach the population on important public issues; provide at all times sound and balanced programming; assist in the functions of public information and education; conform to the ethics of honest enterprise; and not use its stations or facilities for the broadcasting of obscene and indecent language, speech, act or scene, or for the dissemination of deliberately false information or willful misrepresentation, to the detriment of the public interest; or to incite, encourage or assist in subversive or treasonable acts.
SEC. 5. Right of Government. – A special right is hereby reserved to the President of the Philippines, in times of war, rebellion, public peril, calamity, emergency, disaster or disturbance of peace and order, to temporarily take over and operate the stations or facilities of the grantee, to temporarily suspend the operation of any station or facility in the interest of public safety, security and public welfare, or to authorize the temporary use and operation thereof by any agency of the government, upon due compensation to the grantee, for the use of said stations or facilities during the period when they shall be so operated. The radio spectrum is a finite resource that is a part of the national patrimony and the use thereof is a privilege conferred upon the grantee by the State and may be withdrawn anytime, after due process.
…………………………………………….
Notice that “rebellion” is one of the conditions under which Moussolini, err, the President can exercise certain awesome powers under the Law.
It’s really none of my doing…it’s the genius of a constitutional democracy.
if we don’t think the media are capable of abusing freedom and discretion just like the govt, we are peddling fascism too.
benign0 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 10:43 am
“It is because information is itself a commodity that Press Freedom must by necessity be considered to be a Right of Commerce and NOT fundamental and generic right, like ordinary free speech. Press Freedom is a degraded and highly restrict form of Free Speech.” – DJB
Hmmm, this it seems succinctly sums up the FUNDAMENTAL flaw in what i perceive to be the hollow-headed rallying cry of the Media in the last 50 years (a rallying cry that, unfortunately, Filipinos simply lapped up over that same unfortunate period).
Information is a necessity that everyone is entitled to. But the Media is a special entity in this regard because it DIRECTLY PROFITS from information. Therefore information as far as the Media is concerned is an ECONOMIC asset rather than an entitlement. It seems to follow then that their efforts to acquire said asset should be governed more by commercial rules rather than ethical standards.
It’s hard indeed to trust an entity that profits from information while at the same time propagating a false impression that it heroically makes said information available altruistically to the public. An oxymoronic stance to say the least but nevertheless a triumph in spin engineering at best.
Media nga naman talaga…
Jeg on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 11:02 am
If I, an ordinary Filipino, would want to go to the latest coup and cover it for, say, my blog which anyone with internet access can see, and from which I do not profit, and the cops come in and say I better get the hell out and stop covering the event, can I, an ordinary citizen, refuse and invoke freedom of the press?
benign0 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 11:13 am
Back in the days when coup organisers would hole up themselves in Camp Aguinaldo and government troops would be attempting to storm the camp from the outside, the media — like the bunch of idiots that they are — would be giving blow-by-blow accounts of troop movements over free-to-air TV and radio.
Is that freedom of the press? Or is that just plain stupidity, ignorance, and blatant profiteering?
Go figure.
benign0 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 11:17 am
My point is, if you were a soldier, and you caught wind of some moron compromising your cover — and therefore your life — wouldn’t you be entitled to blow that morons brains out?
mlq3 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 11:35 am
if one adopts that logic there is no nobility in the profession of medicine, or of art, they are all pedestrian money grubbing activities.
re: benign0’s question, you would be entitled to blow the person’s brains out if you had no thinking officers in charge to ensure you didn’t shoot first then ask questions later.
the assumptions being made make me wonder if we were all watching the same events unfold. the assumption is, government ought to have used maximum force, that furthermore, media was obstructing the operations, that media then presented a menace to life and limb to heavily-armed troops armed with bulletproof vests, highpower arms, armored vehicles, with air support and the armed forces on standby -that a police action was and ought to have been, on par with operations of the armed forces.
yet if that were the case, then that sort of operation ought to have been the province of the armed forces, but they could not be trusted -so the police were sent in to do the military’s job.
again, return to the justifications of the government. they did their job by warning media of the consequences. they then said media had to be detained, to sort out who was who, then they said someone was helping the rebels, then they said they were going to throw the book at media for obstructing and menacing something or other.
in other words the assertion of powers was made as an afterthought, because not top of mind during the actual events, when cooler heads prevailed instead of the bloodbath some people wanted. to show you the importance of those cooler heads, if a massacre had been conducted with impunity, you would have made a hero and martyr of trillanes. it was because of cooler heads prevailing -in part because the media was there- that the supporters of the president could happily hoot afterwards.
Bencard on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 11:37 am
mlq3, you got it all wrong. i’m not criticizing the press and comparing it unfavorably with other professions with “public service” aspect. all i’m saying is that, in our scheme of things, the press or media cannot have a superior (let alone “absolute”) right over that of all the other professionals or individual citizens. all that is asked is that the media should obey the law and rules that everyone else in society is subject to. how could that create a “chilling effect” on the exercise of press freedom?
btw, you have neglected to address the “responsibility” aspect of this discussion that i raised in my previous comment.
vic on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 11:39 am
Jeg, let me attempt to answer your question if the cops have the authority to tell you to stop covering the events in your blog, as you said you don’t profit..
Profit in this case doesn’t mean just “monetary”. you could also profit by promoting your own belief or ideology and if in your jurisdiction their is a law or a declared emergency decree that prohibits the use of any medium to cover an event considered a Threat to the security of the State, and a Coup is, then invoking the Freedom of Speech and Espression will not absolve you…and if you take note, the Freedom of Speech is guaranteed to Everyone, even to ordinary citizens…
UP n student on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 11:53 am
The Press is “membership-only”, isn’t it? Are the board of directors of ABS-CBN considered “members of the Press”?
Jeg on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 12:01 pm
Profit in this case doesn’t mean just “monetaryâ€. you could also profit by promoting your own belief or ideology and if in your jurisdiction their is a law or a declared emergency decree that prohibits the use of any medium to cover an event considered a Threat to the security of the State, and a Coup is, then invoking the Freedom of Speech and Espression will not absolve you…and if you take note, the Freedom of Speech is guaranteed to Everyone, even to ordinary citizens…
Thanks, vic. Let’s eliminate all aspects of profit. Let’s say Im an altruistic sort or just a curious collector of ‘events’ for posterity. I just want to cover the event for my blog. Let’s assume I adhere to all the best qualities of journalism: objectivity, fairness, accuracy, and all that. Our constitution says no law shall be passed curtailing the freedom of speech, the press, etc. I take that to also mean “No ORDER shall be given curtailing the freedom the speech, the press, etc.” Is the police and DOJ’s ‘advisory’ an order? I submit it is not. Was it a warning? If by warning you mean ‘If we ask you to leave and you dont, we’ll arrest you’, then it is a warning, and a pretty reasonable one I think, faced with a situation such as the one at the Manila Pen. The Press can ignore the warning, as is their right, in the pursuit of the story, and fight the arrest in the courts AFTER theyre actually arrested. What they shouldnt do is — forgive me MLQ3 — waste the court’s time with a suit. Use the press to hammer at those who gave the warning and reiterate the resolve to cover all future events in all objectivity, fairness, honesty, and accuracy.
An ordinary citizen doesnt have that power of Big Media. An ordinary citizen has the right to cover the event, but he doesnt have the power to fight the arrest later. Big media has less reason to complain than the ordinary citizen which is why I think the ordinary citizen isnt rallying to support Big Media’s cause.
Jeg on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 12:04 pm
What they shouldnt do is — forgive me MLQ3 — waste the court’s time with a suit.
What I meant was ‘What they shouldnt do is waste the court’s time with a suit BEFORE any arrest is made.
ptt on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 12:25 pm
Here’s a journalist account on Manila pen. Notice the last paragraph showing how media was obstructing and actually being part of the stand off:
“After the 3 p.m. deadline set by the government for them to surrender, tension was building up. Apparently, the expected massive civilian and military support didn’t come. TV reported that the PNP’s Special Action Force and Army troops were preparing for an assault. Rebel officers would constantly look out the glass window to scour for possible snipers.
Reporters were getting text messages from editors and friends of the government order to vacate the hotel because they were going to force their way in to arrest the rebels. Initially, we were about a hundred journalists covering the standoff from inside the hotel, limited to the corridor leading to the Rizal Room.
When the warning came, one by one some reporters left. Only a little over 20 of us stayed put. WE TALKED AMONG OURSELVES AND AGREED TO LINK ARMS JUST IN CASE WE WOULD BE FORCIBLY REMOVED. We also gathered and moistened table napkins to counter the effects of tear gas. “
Jeg on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 12:34 pm
But ptt, I submit there’s nothing wrong with staying to cover the event to its very end, if that was indeed their purpose in staying (we can’t tell one way or another from the snippet you quoted). And I submit the cops can detain anybody they find there afterwards for ‘processing.’ I just didnt like it that they had to haul them all off (the guilty and innocent alike) in buses to Camp Wherever. The processing shouldve been done right then and there.
Silent Waters on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 12:48 pm
MLQ3
I think in all the rhetoric going around about rights and such between government and media, the prevailing issue that people keeps forgetting is: who is the constituted authority in this problem? Is media above any other citizen wherein if government orders them to move away, they won’t? It’s not as if government was choosing who goes and who stays, right?
I believe this whole brohaha is brought about by the fact that a lot of people are against the administration. If it was the other way around, meaning, it was a government “trusted” by the people, this whole brouhaha would not have even be page one in the papers.
ricelander on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 1:01 pm
MLQ3, if the Pen occupants were Abu Sayyafs, would you get that close and would you be as stubborn? I believe not.
That’s where you disagree with DJB and company: Trillanes to you represents a valid complaint against authorities where DJB thinks he’s a “terror” to the pursuit of happiness and peace of the rest of society. Well, that’s how I read it. But I suppose Rizal, Bonifacio, and the rest of the gang were as much a nuisance to the order of things then, disturbing others’ right to happiness, peace and order, and therefore destabilizers, back in their time. If Dean were alive then, he’d be saying the same things, wouldn’t you think?
Depends where your sentiments lie really.
ptt on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 1:20 pm
“But ptt, I submit there’s nothing wrong with staying to cover the event to its very end, if that was indeed their purpose in staying (we can’t tell one way or another from the snippet you quoted). And I submit the cops can detain anybody they find there afterwards for ‘processing.’ I just didnt like it that they had to haul them all off (the guilty and innocent alike) in buses to Camp Wherever. The processing shouldve been done right then and there.”
You say they were covering the event, I say they were willing human shields that supported the “cause” and wanted the “rebels” to succeed. Hauling off everybody to camp wherever (guilty and innocent alike) was a sound tactical decision that would have been done by law enforcement professionals elsewhere.
Jeg on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 1:34 pm
ptt: You say they were covering the event, I say they were willing human shields that supported the “cause†and wanted the “rebels†to succeed.
Yes. But without access to their thoughts at the time, I suppose it would be safe to assume that what you and I say mean diddley squat in determining what their motives were for staying.
Hauling off everybody to camp wherever (guilty and innocent alike) was a sound tactical decision that would have been done by law enforcement professionals elsewhere.
I would have to question the accuracy of that, ptt. Everywhere is a pretty large place.
inodoro ni emilie on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 1:42 pm
so, ppt, where’s obstruction there? for all the police care, they can still frisk those journalists away, only that the journalists still be linking their arms. nothing seditious in that plan. it makes for an obstructive viewing though, if the police were trying to peer pass through those linked arms.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 2:09 pm
MLQ3,
There is no shame in Journalism being an organized, commercial enterprise. No more than the practice of Medicine, or -gulp- Physics is.
That Mass Media is lucratively profitable is a measure of how precious people think is their right to know.
If people aren’t willing to pay for your information the journalistic enterprise will wither and die.
But the bloodless manner in which the Pen incident was handled is a tribute to the skill and patience of the police. It was no thanks to the Media, who, got in the way and are lucky no one was hurt.
So why then did they insist on being so obtrusive? Why did they disobey lawful authorities and then squeal fascism when they got into trouble for it? Doctors would not think to do so unless it was to save someone’s life, not to get a scoop. I think the Cops would respect a doctor’s demand to be let into the Pen, because even simple cops understand instinctively the priority of rights.
I emphasize the essentially commercial nature of organized journalism to fight the obscurantist tendency to aggrandize press freedom and claim its most extreme practice to be socially acceptable or even indispensable. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Journalists do not have a monopoly in the love of liberty and an obligation to defend it. But press freedom is not the highest liberty. Not by a long shot.
benign0 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 2:19 pm
“But press freedom is not the highest liberty. Not by a long shot.” – DJB
What good is all the crap published by the media if a large chunk of Pinoy society live and eat off mounds of garbage?
In contrast, the media are pretty well muzzled in places like Singapore and South Korea. But the basic needs of their people are more than adequately met.
In Australia, the Media are silent during a police investigation (other than to report that ‘investigations are on-going…’), don’t go around stuffing their cameras and mikes into staff’s faces in emergency rooms, respect the dignity of the dead, and actually publish INFORMATION rather than just scoops (though that of course is a reflection of the collective intellect of their consumers).
More importantly, they don’t pretend to be some kind “hero of the masses” or some sort of BS like that.
DevilsAdvc8 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 2:24 pm
clap, clap, clap!
this is a very nice discussion going on.
kudos to DJB. very convincing posts. except for that mussolini-sounding part easily debunked by Manolo. and more shocking, I find myself agreeing with Benigno on this (emphasis mine)
Manolo counters
ahh, but isn’t that exactly the case now Manolo? doctors going out on streets to protect big pharmaceuticals’ and their interests rather than their patients, artists selling out to Da Company…
it then becomes a question of personal integrity, nobility. the profession is only so noble as the people practicing it. same as the govt. only as trustworthy as the people running it.
this goes to the heart of the matter. not many are as quick to agree with media on this score because of one thing: resentment. the people resent the media bec they feel (including me) that media is not out there so much as to protect THEIR FREEDOMS, as to protect media’s OWN FREEDOMS (to continue being irresponsible as they are, profit driven unethically, etc). in short, in the people’s eyes, the media is itself warping to become another force that oppresses people. media has lost credibility, that’s it.
as DJB said, hence blogging is the more truer version of FREEDOM of SPEECH. because it is not driven by commercialization (unless of course that blogsite earns from ads).
ptt on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 2:29 pm
“Yes. But without access to their thoughts at the time, I suppose it would be safe to assume that what you and I say mean diddley squat in determining what their motives were for staying.â€-Jeg
Exactly, hence law enforcement did the right thing when they hauled everybody off.
“so, ppt, where’s obstruction there? for all the police care, they can still frisk those journalists away, only that the journalists still be linking their arms. nothing seditious in that plan.â€
They willingly made a high risk entry for law enforcement more complex that it already was and that’s obstruction. With the amount of training and discipline required for shoot and don’t shoot scenarios, I’m surprised none of the reporters got shot.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 2:32 pm
MLQ3,
It is most unfair and presumptuous of the Petitioners to claim to the Supreme Court, (with the malice aforethought of cunningly veiled emotional blackmail), that the “future of democracy in the Philippines” rides on the fate of their Petition. Yet their prayer is essentially a forlorn wish to be granted immunity from the ordinary laws of the land and to be beyond the reach of its duly constituted authorities just because they are journalists and press freedom is so precious.
It’s as if the Fast Food Industry, right after a major food poisoining incident, were to petition against threats by BFAD to impose the Sanitation Laws, so they can continue to practice their culinary rights of commerce and satisfy the Public’s Right to hamburger without all those interfering fascist meat inspectors.
Jeg on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 2:37 pm
(unless of course that blogsite earns from ads).
An aside. Off-topic. If you find a blog you really like and you find yourself going back to it again and again (like this one), I suggest you take the time to click on the ads. It’s an incentive for the blog owner to continue blogging. It won’t take a minute of your time.
Jeg on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 2:43 pm
ptt: Exactly, hence law enforcement did the right thing when they hauled everybody off.
But there’s this thing called presumption of innocence, ptt. Hauling everybody off is presuming everybody is guilty. The more prudent thing to have done is to process everybody on-site before hauling off anybody. Law enforcement did the wrong thing. ABS-CBN wouldnt have made such a big deal out of this had law enforcement detained everybody on-site til they were cleared. I saw a photo from Singapore once when after a hijacking, everybody was detained on-site til the cops determined who was a hijacker and who was a legit passenger. The processing was done on-site. No handcuffs, but everybody was told to ‘assume the position’. Hands on heads and all that.
DevilsAdvc8 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 2:47 pm
Jeg, you could do that, but at your own risk. not all sites are user-friendly (by which i mean, security-wise). you could be clicking a spyware, virus-infested link for all you know, redirecting you to god knows where. even known sites aren’t guaranteed safe.
i do click some ads, but only those that i’m interested in. and even then, i have ad-blockers and filters galore in my browser. also, i only bother with trusted sites.
Jeg on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 3:06 pm
Good tip, Devils. The ads on this site look safe, though. Unless Amazon is secretly sending you spyware.
DJB Rizalist on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 3:12 pm
MLQ3,
Gonzalez’s assailed advisory was directed at the owners of media outfits. It says they ought to police their own ranks or face criminal sanctions and the action of real police.
In retrospect this was a reasonable, if “threatening” thing to do, since who can deny that those who stayed, would have all left if ordered out by their bosses?
Who could’ve died at the Manila Pen but journalism’s rank and file?
Instead the Media responds with a Supreme Court petition they are sure to lose?
It’s not a justiciable case, but it WILL generate headlines.
ptt on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 3:31 pm
“ But there’s this thing called presumption of innocence, ptt. Hauling everybody off is presuming everybody is guilty….†– Jeg
Oh yes the presumption of innocence. For a law enforcement high risk entry, there is also the presumption that everybody on the scene is a threat until rendered safe or proven otherwise. It is a tactical call based on the threat, location, situation and available assets whether to haul everyone off, or process on site. There’s a big difference between an airfield in Indonesia and a hotel in a city. Philippine police and crime scenes have always been such a gaggle f**k, but that time around they did well.
grd on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 3:32 pm
Right, if those Pen occupants were Abu Sayyafs, would those over 20 media men have insisted in staying put AND LINK ARMS JUST IN CASE THEY WOULD BE FORCIBLY REMOVED?
Silent Waters has raised a valid question, who is the constituted authority? Given that situation, can media choose not to follow the order of the police to move away? Is media above the law?
grd on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 3:52 pm
no obstruction if they were not surrounding trillanes and co. that time acting as human shields. what if a shoot-out ensued and people died (police, media, rebels)? will those mediamen not be held accountable for their actions?
benign0 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 5:16 pm
The think with these media bozos, when they get shot at, they then proceed to anoint themselves as “heroes”.
Hirap talaga when you live in a society starved for heroes. Any bozo can be one.
BrianB on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 6:28 pm
@MLQ, All,
Ah, people, herein lies the difference between Manolo and some of us. If thou accept the idea that an active population is divided into “estates” – First estate(church), second Estate(nobility), third estate (middle class), fourth (press), and fifth estate (those that are none of the former, e.g. bloggers and citizen journalists and critics) – thou will understand Media’s stubborn refusal to be corralled by the police like they and we belong to the same flock. Seriously, they make a good point, that is, if you accept this Middle Accept divisions of the Realm.
Manolo, honestly, I’ll to think about this. Maybe you know more about these “Estates” than me. Give us some links?
BrianB on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 6:32 pm
That’s “Seriously, they make a good point, that is, if you accept this Middle [Ages] divisions of the Realm.
Manolo, honestly, I’ll [have] to think about this. Maybe you know more about these “Estates†than me. Give us some links?
vic on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 6:34 pm
http://www.torys.com/NewsRoom/IntheMedia/Documents/Media2006SvonkinS.pdf
Judge slams RCMP’s use of criminal law to undermine press freedom:
Note: the case doesn’t have to go the SC to set a Precedent..any Trial Court Decision that declared a Law Unconstitutional and is not appealed by the Crown rendered the Law Null and Void and has no force and effect…
nash on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 6:50 pm
hay naku,
Let’s just all go to Fr. Suarez to be healed. I heard he is the new Judiel Nieva.
cvj on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 7:06 pm
Correlation does not imply causation. Besides, what makes you think that muzzling the press will enable us to eat better? Also, South Korea has had a free press since 1987 so your example needs some updating.
mlq3 on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 9:35 pm
let me react in general terms to some of the comments.
slient has a point when he says that if we had a government beloved or at least trusted by the public, this whole thing wouldn’t even be an issue. not least, because you wouldn’t have events like the peninsula caper, and no corresponding over-acting on the part of either government or the media. cause and effect.
to be sure, i don’t think the public is either particularly sympathetic or concerned over media on this one. basically as i’ve seen it and heard it, public opinion is pretty clear: the media’s being a crybaby. but that will always be public opinion in matters of little immediate concern to it. until that is, the public then gets the short end of the stick, finds the institutions aren’t working, runs to media to act as a countervailing force to official wrongdoing, then finds out media’s been silenced. this is what the public experienced when it heaved a sigh of relief with the shutting down of media and the imprisonment of journalists during martial law.
brian points to the term “fourth estate” which is interesting, in that it points to media, in the eyes of british politicians who invented the term, who came to view media (initially, the press) as a kind of separate constituency and even power center in contrast to the preexisting ones of three estates of nobility, clergy, and commoners. the pen can be mightier than the sword and those who wield the swords have never appreciated the pen unless firmly under their thumb. whether formally or informally, the press will emerge as either a major component in government control or a powerful challenger to it. the question is which is healthier, overall, granting that individual media people can either be absolutely corrupt, completely irresponsible, or not.
on the whole -and this addresses benign0’s comments- in a society where checks and balances are observed, there is less reason for media to be confrontational, again, cause and effect; yet even in australia media can be a thorn in the side of government, needling it and at times actively opposing it in terms of reporting news and views, whether public opinion over iraq, or the past government’s handling of refugees, or covering the guy who got into costume and intruded on a summit.
a good example of how these things come together is say a government embarks on a policy that is rash or simply unpopular. the public can express disapproval in many ways, and they include writing angry letters, petitioning their representatives, publishing manifestos, or rallying. governments can either respect these manifestations of disagreement, modify their policy, or ignore them. if it ignores public opinion, then the public can either shut up or raise pressure -they can recall officials, they can support rival candidates, they can rally some more. again, a government, faced with this, can either club people on the head, hold dialogues, etc.
the duty of the press in this situation is to cover all sides but cover things to their conclusion, whatever that is. in a western country it would include darting in and out of alleys covering protests like the anti-WTO ones where a kind of urban insurrection took place; it can cover rallies and reveal whether the police used tear gas or dumdum bullets; it can find out if government abided by the law, or pushed the law towards an interpretation never experienced before, or exercised admirable self control in the face of public hostility. in a place like burma, covering a rally will get journalists killed, along with members of the public. in either case, civilian casualties are civilian casualties. in wartime, media can be embedded, or it can also cover both sides, or no side by sending journalists on their own to take their chances in no man’s land.
you take the risks but that doesn’t mean that you take it sitting down, when governments start raising the risks; it also means that media can and should challenge actions that serve to actively limit or even circumscribe coverage, because every official action sets a precedent. you cannot sit and wait and then go, gosh, you know what, they just got darned nasty because the point is not to react to the nastiness but prevent its happening, because it serves everyone’s -the public’s, the press’s, even government, if government is going to be about more than worshiping might makes right- interest.
there will come a point where no one will defend you except yourself and of course if you go to DJB’s hierarchy of freedoms, self-defense and self-protection is a very high freedom; no writer, broadcaster, worth their salt ever rolled over and meekly submitted to authority, nor should they. which is not to say they are unreasonable people, but it suggests their not wanting to roll over has to have some good reasons behind it beyond egotism. what reasons could those be? a track record, on the part of authorities, to take a mile when given an inch, and to bludgeon if not simply liquidate, members of the press not in their pocket. even with thoroughly apolitical people who are seething with contempt for media, when i explain the reason the press is touchy about itself, they can understand this point.
and again, it goes to the overall place one envisions the press has, in a society. if you worship order above all else, well that defines it. if you are willing to endure a certain amount of noise and even disorder because it is better than forced regimentation, then that settles the question. if you are confident you can get all the information you want to be a good citizen, without anyone else’s help, including people who devote their working life to obtaining information for you, then you won’t care.
UP n student on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 9:47 pm
mlq3: I hope the petitioners have good lawyers because they don’t have a groundswell of public opinion on their side. And I agre with scalia above — Ressa-et-al should file, not before the Supreme Court immediately, but before a lower-level court.
UP n student on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 10:05 pm
Just as there are bad laws, there are bad court decisions. A reason to have a lower court make a decision first is that the ramifications of that (lower-level) court decision can be tested over time, and when bad, then an appeal to a higher authority can be made. There has to be a way out from a bad decision.
Which is why divorce should be made legal in the Philippines.
anthony scalia on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 10:14 pm
qwert,
the judge who issued the TRO will decide whether to give a preliminary injunction while the case is pending. if the media people win, the injunction becomes permanent.
my goodness, at best, all the media can hope for is for government to shut up. but no court will stop the government from maintaining a civilian-free zone within the radius of an event like the Manila Pen circus.
anthony scalia on Thu, 31st Jan 2008 10:30 pm
to all ‘defenders of press freedom’:
lets put aside all discussions on general statements.
it all boils down to this – the government simply wants media to steer clear of a danger zone, a cross-fire. those who will ignore this directive will be arrested. Whats the violation on press freedom there? Government IS NEVER STOPPING MEDIA FROM WRITING AND REPORTING ABOUT THE EVENT!
by the way, that event hasn’t happened yet.
i foresee that the SC will dismiss the petition, but on a technicality – there’s no controversy yet. the government can be gagged from making the ‘threats’ but it cannot be stopped from keeping civilians out of harm’s way.
(government could even be protecting the media people from themselves! at least the government shows concern – it will never ever tell media shot in the cross-fire “don’t say we didn’t warn you” or “told you so”)
(and to show how media can be presumptous – it reported that the government respondents were ordered by the SC to answer the petition. making it sound that their petition has solid bases. whenever a petition is filed with the SC, its already SOP to require the respondents to file a comment to the petition. thats what happened – the respondents were simply told to file a comment to the petition)
nash on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:11 am
“the government simply wants media to steer clear of a danger zone, a cross-fire”
True. But please ask them not to use Threats to emphasize this. It does make our country look rather silly.
UP n student on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:22 am
A quote from Ressa:
Our petition before the Supreme Court explains our reasons, and I quote:
“(i) The arrests of the journalists who covered the hotel siege;
(ii) the threats, warnings and “reminders†of re-arrest and/or criminal liability;
(iii) the public denunciation of the press as coddlers of military rebels;
and (iv) the treatment of the press as combatants
++++are unconstitutional because they unduly restrict petitioners’ rights to free speech and expression, vitiate the freedom of the press…â€
I guess, for Item (ii), Ressa wants a grammarian or editor to vet what the government writes so the words come out more pleasing to the ear. And for item (i), that anyone with a press-card should never be detained or arrested.
Bert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 2:03 am
Anywhere in the world where there is conflict or war, media is always in the danger zone, the cross-fire. Why the rant against that from all you guys? Would we rather be for the cause of the police who have an inviable record of brutality against the citizen, or for the cause of the media who almost always is a defender of the oppressed citizen?
ptt on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 2:20 am
“Anywhere in the world where there is conflict or war, media is always in the danger zone, the cross-fire. Why the rant against that from all you guys? Would we rather be for the cause of the police who have an inviable record of brutality against the citizen, or for the cause of the media who almost always is a defender of the oppressed citizen?” – Bert
I haven’t heard of any media linking arms around Iraqi Insurgents being engaged by coalitions forces, Have you? Although there was this journalist who decided to place himself in between US forces and Iraqi gunmen during a firefight so he can take a cool picture. He died of gunshot wounds.
Bert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 2:41 am
Imagine scenarios like these:
(i) The Iraq gov’t. arrested all mediamen covering the war for being in the danger zone/crossfire
(ii) Also Pakistan
(iii) Also Sri Lanka
(iv) Also Thailand
(v) so on and so forth
Bencard on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 2:49 am
“i believe this brouhaha is brought about by the fact that a lot of people are against the administration.” silent waters.
why am i not surprised that mlq3 finds agreement with your comment as quoted. but i don’t. this whole “brouhaha” arises from the media’s self-serving perception that in pursuing their business (gathering and reporting news), their “right” is untouchable even against legitimate law enforcement. the people themselves, as manolo concedes (especially as shown by the overwhelming consensus in this blog), appear to be unsympathetic to the media’s cause. i think their disapproval of the media’s behavior, in general, has nothing to do with their sentiment vis a vis the administration, for or against.
manolo’s assessment of the media as just being a “crybaby” is the understatment of the year. i see it as organized media’s attempt to challenge every vestige of official control over it so it can enjoy untrammeled exercise of the “power” it claims to have.
the organized media is so vociferous about every hint of censorship or “prior restraint” upon it by the government. but what about censorship and prior restraint the media itself perpetrates upon opinions and points of view that run counter to their institutional agenda on the pretextual reasons of “space limitations”, “editorial policies”, “unsuitable writing style”, “controversial” or just plain “unreportable”. how many bloggers here have submitted something for publication to mainstream media and were rejected for one lame reason or another?
this probably is a very minority view. in this day and age of cybercommunication, the mainstream media’s claim to being the “fourth estate” in a democratic society such as ours is fast losing currency. it is well on its way to irrelevance, and this “manila pen brouhaha” will certainly not slow it down.
in this day and age of
Bert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 2:55 am
“I haven’t heard of any media linking arms around Iraqi Insurgents being engaged by coalitions forces, Have you? Although there was this journalist who decided to place himself in between US forces and Iraqi gunmen during a firefight so he can take a cool picture. He died of gunshot wounds.”-ptt
So the journalist wants to take a cool picture, that’s his job, and he died of gunshot wounds. That’s bad for him. That also bad for you, sitting comfortably in your high chair blogging and blagging the media for doing their job, and for denouncing police abuse which could one day be your complain, too?
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:11 am
And MLQ draws the lines:
“and again, it goes to the overall place one envisions the press has, in a society. if you worship order above all else, well that defines it. if you are willing to endure a certain amount of noise and even disorder because it is better than forced regimentation, then that settles the question. if you are confident you can get all the information you want to be a good citizen, without anyone else’s help, including people who devote their working life to obtaining information for you, then you won’t care.”
Those behind DJB: form a line for your jackboots, whips, and brown shirts.
Those behind MLQ: no need to form a line, you are free men.
UP n student on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:16 am
Bert: Ressa is basically saying that the arrests of the other bystanders during ManilaPen is legal and okay to continue, but that the arrest of The Press is illegal. Ressa does not say that it is out-of-bounds for Police and Military to ask civilians (even doctors and nurses) to stay away from a specific area where there is or there can be a firefight, but that The Press should be treated differently.
I’m curious as to how the courts will proceed. I actually sense that our courts will rule against Ressa-et-al. I have not seen mention of where Ressa or deQuiros can demonstrate that they have been damaged (as in the Canadian court-case referred to by Vic). Journalism and investigative work is the normal answer to the complaint of “We can’t report if we’re not there”.
cvj on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:27 am
If or when the local press is silenced, we better get used to Bencard’s presentation of reality.
manuelbuencamino on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:30 am
The sympathy of pro police state advocates for Il Douchebag’s philosophy does not surprise me at all. Hitler’s spawns are Il Douchebag’s clones.
Bencard on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:57 am
cvj, rest assured that the local press would not be silenced unless your “alternative”, junta-ruled, version of democracy prevails.
mb, obedience to lawful orders of duly-constituted authorities is NOT being “pro-police state”. you are a columnist/journalist. shouldn’t you know better?
cvj on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 4:04 am
Thanks Bencard, keeps those samplers coming.
DJB Rizalist on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 4:47 am
MLQ3 asks, “djb, does your believe that freedom of the press is an inferior form of freedom, because a freedom of commerce, represent any sort of consensus view, or is it your personal contribution to philosophical thought?”
Is the concept of a hierarchy of freedoms my “personal contribution to philosophical thought?”
Hardly! my friend, you flatter me no end.
For the balancing and ordering of the hierarchy of these rights, interests, freedoms and duties, determiing and punishing the violations thereof based on what has been contracted between and among the parties via their Constitution and Laws — that is precisely the work and vocation of the Courts.
Such a hierarchy of freedoms is not just a concensus. It’s a philosophical underpinning of the Constitution!
Yes indeed, Freedom of the Press and the Right to Know stand lower in that hierarchy than Freedom from Death and the Right to Live. Call it “inferior” if you like but that might lead to a complex.
If this common sense does not suit a few who are aggrieved and perhaps secretly uphold a DIFFERENT hierarchy, where perhaps the Right to Sell tsismis is deemed higher than any other because of its allegedly salvific effect, then I must insist, though but gently, that it is these aggrieved who need “to come over to DJB’s side” — the commoner’s side– and accept that there IS a hierarchy of freedoms, rights and duties and that it is daily practice of the Courts to use a moral and logical calculus upon that hierarchy in determining what is just and fair resolution of the various actual controversies that arise between and among men.
In this case it is a controversy between Media and Police in which an abuse of discretion is basically alleged against the police by the Petitioners.
All I have shown is that it is the other way around. It is the Petitioners who abused freedom of speech by their disordered idea of Press Freedom (“We don’t have to obey public safety and security authorities in dangerous situations and never even want to be told to do so!”)
It is the Press that has abused its discretion and distorted the totem pole by insisting they sit highest upon it.
Ugh!
To grant this silly Prayer, the Court would have to saw the totem pole in two places and put Press Freedom uber alles.
Double Ughh!
I’ve gladly suffered the innuendo that my passion for national security and public order is somehow a devotion to Italian dictators that ended up hung by their toes.
But liberals can be fascists too and this conservative does not accept their claimed monopoly on the love of Liberty.
I insist that Journalism is essentially a commercial activity for profit, buying and selling information as a commodity, not a charity nor a League of Superheroes. Contrary to their own self-conceptions, the media are not a privileged caste of benevolent, omniscient brahmins, but purveyors of data which they dress up, buy and sell as news, views and entertaining Lazarus idiotics.
Thus, your precioussss Press Freedom is as safe from national security Right-to-Lifers like me as Free Enterprise Capitalism is!
DJB Rizalist on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 5:07 am
Which brings us round to the substantial issue of the Franchise Laws.
These ought to either be abolished in toto or applied in toto. It is most unfair that the Franchise Laws apply only to broadcast. They should also apply to print. Perhaps with an added penalty or tax for being the biggest environmental polluters among the trimedia.
The Print Media are responsible for HALF of the municipal solid waste stream, yet they have about TWICE the Press Freedom as Broadcast tv and radio.
Is that fair?
hvrds on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 6:28 am
Till today a lot of right wing hawks bemoan the fact that it was the American free press that lost the war in Vietnam. The Tet offensive was brought to American living rooms in living color. We celebrate the 40th anniversary this year.
All the pronouncements then of Defense Secretary MacNamara, the briliant technocrat with his charts and graphs and mathematical calculations of body counts. General Westmoreland came crashing down with moving pictures of the battle for the U.S. Embassy, the battle at Khe San, the battle for Hue and the battle in Cholon, Saigon.
The planned and executed offensive brought almost total war to the Americans in S. Vietnam. They American were shocked and surprised at the ability of the enemy to mount a coordinated offensive when they had declared the war as good as over.
It changed the mood of the people and the war was lost then. It took Nixon and Kissinger a further 5 years to work out their peace with honor defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese.
LBJ knew he had lost the support of the American people when Cronkite of CBS declared after the Tet offensive that the Americans should withdraw. It was only then that the highest officialdom of the U.S. government realized that they were fighting a war for national liberation. They were the invaders.
The freedom of the press prevented the U.S. government from censorship of the war. No one was charged with treason for aiding and abetting the enemy then.
The Philippine press (all forms of media) is more a tabloid type of media. Even in the U.S. it is the same. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and the network news are essentially tabloids.
Don’t expect to see real news except on a few business journals, newspapers, public media and on some satirical comedy shows.
ABS-CBN, ANC and the rest are essentially more tabloids than anything else. The power of the broadcast media today even in its tabloid form put a man like Bush in the White House.
It is utterly amazing how they shape people’s perceptions. So far one man stands out pointing the way for the rationale behind the problems of the U.S. -Ron Paul. Fiscal and Monetary policy of the U.S. is broken. It has been broken since 1972.
Yet there is no discussion on ways to work out the problems behind this strategic anomaly.
anthony scalia on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 8:18 am
nash,
“True. But please ask them not to use Threats to emphasize this. It does make our country look rather silly.”
The gravity of the ‘threats’ is directly proportional to the stubbornness of media.
anthony scalia on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 8:40 am
Bert,
lets define cross-fire, danger zone.
1. the whole of Iraq and Pakistan can be classified as a cross-fire danger zone. reporters can still roam around, stay inside a military base
2. but its a lot different if a reporter accompanies a company of soldiers patrolling a specific area in Iraq
if soldiers can die in no. 2, so can ordinary civilians. the risk is almost 100% in no. 2.
what our local media want is to be in a place like no. 2. actually the Manila Pen incident isn’t simply police making a routine patrol, its the police about to engage armed military men! and media want to be in the midst of this looming engagement!
anthony scalia on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 8:52 am
Bert,
“So the journalist wants to take a cool picture, that’s his job, and he died of gunshot wounds. That’s bad for him. That also bad for you, sitting comfortably in your high chair blogging and blagging the media for doing their job, and for denouncing police abuse which could one day be your complain, too?”
My goodness! What police abuse are you talking about? The police are not preventing media from writing and reporting about the event – they just want media out of the site of engagement! Media can still do their job from a safe distance!
How come media do not complain whenever the PNP or AFP declares a news blackout? Because the blackout simply means the media won’t get any feed from the PNP or AFP. But the media can still write and report about the event in question, they just have to get their sources elsewhere.
nash on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 8:58 am
“The gravity of the ‘threats’ is directly proportional to the stubbornness of media.”
Sorry but I do hope we know the meaning of ‘threat’.
I thank god you are a blog comments pundit and not a supreme court justice (as your handle) or a government minister. It would be a scary thought. But then again, Gonzalez (the most idiotic justice secretary in the world) is already scary on his own.
vic on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 9:34 am
But then again, Gonzalez (the most idiotic justice secretary in the world) is already scary on his own.
And thanks goodness, his thoughts don’t have much weights the same as his person…
Jeg on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 11:16 am
“The gravity of the ‘threats’ is directly proportional to the stubbornness of media.â€
On the whole, I’d rather have a stubborn media than a meek one, anthony scalia. I suspect so do you.
There is a way out of this Manila-Pen-situation mess and it is through technology. ANC certainly is rich enough to apply the use of cameras and recording devices in the room after they have been ordered to leave. Leave a celfone with the coup plotters for interviews. A videophone even. Then have one reporter embedded with the cops that will storm the place. If I remember correctly, it was the media people (ANC) that rejected the embedded reporter option, which I thought was pretty silly. It would not be silly if they only have one reporter. But they have lots. There would be no danger of a one-sided coverage.
The media people who covered the Manila Pen did a great job, dont get me wrong. The main criticism I have with media’s position on this is that theyre practically asking the SC for immunity from the law just because theyre the ‘heroic media’. (That’s the way ABS-CBN portrayed them in their ads with the obligatory close-ups of the raised, plastic-shackled fists and dramatic music.)
DevilsAdvc8 on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 11:23 am
agree to the dot. (you can check out the link i’ll post below for an article abt this)
but then Manolo says this
yes we do understand the point. only that we see it differently. i also think that i may be too harsh on media simply bec my feelings are being colored by my contempt for it. but then, it really balances out as my contempt for govt is just as equal if not more than that of the press’.
maybe it’s a case of not giving too much of a f*@k bec we’re not directly affected. or giving too much of a f*@k bec we’re affected by it.
DevilsAdvc8 on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 11:24 am
headline reads:
“Fishermen Beat Rare Dolphin to Death”And other tabloid headlines from CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and Foxnews.com.
http://www.slate.com/id/2183032
cvj on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 11:47 am
Devils, i think the compelling portions of your critique of media, along with that of hvrds and DJB (who has turned himself into a neocon version of Al Gore for this purpose), are the quality of reporting as driven by news as profit center mindset and concentration of ownership. However, with regards to the Manila Pen issue, these are peripheral to the main points as expressed by the journalists’ petition. The former is a chronic issue that needs to be addressed by on its own terms but should not be mixed up with the fundamental debate on press freedom.
Jeg on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 11:54 am
“The gravity of the ‘threats’ is directly proportional to the stubbornness of media.â€
On the whole, I’d rather have a stubborn media than a meek one, anthony scalia. I suspect so do you.
There is a way out of this Manila-Pen-situation mess and it is through technology. ANC certainly is rich enough to apply the use of recording devices in the room after they have been ordered to leave. Leave a celfone with the coup plotters for interviews. A vidfone even. Then have one reporter embedded with the cops that will storm the place. If I remember correctly, it was the media people (ANC) that rejected the embedded reporter option, which I thought was pretty silly. It would not be silly if they only have one reporter. But they have lots. There would be no danger of a one-sided coverage.
The media people who covered the Manila Pen did a great job, dont get me wrong. The main criticism I have with media’s position on this is that theyre practically asking the SC for immunity from the law just because theyre the ‘heroic media’. (That’s the way ABS-CBN portrayed them in their ads with the obligatory close-ups of the raised, plastic-shackled fists and dramatic music.)
Jeg on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 11:56 am
Another mystery solved: Call if ‘vidfone’ and not ‘videophone’ and it passes MLQ3’s spam filter.
Although I also eliminated references to camras (intentionally misspelled) so I dont know if it was the change of spelling to vidfone or elimination of camra that did it.
Jeg on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 11:57 am
Another mystery solved: Call it ‘vidfone’ and not ‘v-i-d-e-o-p-h-o-n-e’ and it passes MLQ3’s spam filter.
Although I also eliminated references to camras (intentionally misspelled) so I dont know if it was the change of spelling to vidfone or elimination of camra that did it.
ptt on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:13 pm
The media people who covered the Manila Pen did a great job, dont get me wrong—Jeg
They did? oh ya I remember, that was when the media reporters were the news. Yes it was very entertaining.
qwert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:14 pm
“my goodness, at best, all the media can hope for is for government to shut up.” – Anthony Scalia
… and pay P10 million to boot.
cvj on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:17 pm
Are you suggesting that government regulate the issuance of newsprint? How will that work? Should the newspapers be printed in government approved printers just like the way it regulates the printing of money with serial numbers and all that?
anthony scalia on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:21 pm
nash,
sorry to say this, but this is the reality – the petitioners would have to wait for another Manila Pen circus-like event to happen, be there, get warned again, get arrested again, before they can file a case with the SC.
the “threat” is not directed at media’s responsibilities per se, but is aimed at media’s insistence to be at the same line of fire as the police/military! there’s no violation of press freedom there!
and no, it won’t be scary if I were the secretary of justice. if you will notice, I have made a distinction between media rights in general and media being out of line of fire/harm’s way/danger zone/cross-fire. please give me credit for that.
i have to hear a comment from you on the ’stubbornness of media’ to be at the line of fire/harm’s way/danger zone/cross-fire
cvj on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:25 pm
I’m sure with you as Secretary of Justice, Bencard as Secretary of Information and DJB as Supreme Court Justice, we can all sleep well at night.
Jeg on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:30 pm
cvj: I’m sure with you as Secretary of Justice, Bencard as Secretary of Information and DJB as Supreme Court Justice, we can all sleep well at night.
You forgot ptt. He deserves a cabinet position, too. Homeland Security?
anthony scalia on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:32 pm
Jeg,
“On the whole, I’d rather have a stubborn media than a meek one, anthony scalia. I suspect so do you”
True. I commend media for their stubbornness in unearthing the NBN-ZTE deal. But insisting to be in the middle of a police/military operation is different.
“The media people who covered the Manila Pen did a great job, dont get me wrong”
to second ptt’s comment – didn’t you notice, that close to 95% of media coverage were on the arrests of the media people, and not on coup pals Trillanes and Lim?
anthony scalia on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:35 pm
qwert,
“… and pay P10 million to boot.”
thats a longshot. they (media) have to prove that they deserve to be paid P10 million in moral damages.
anthony scalia on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 12:43 pm
cvj,
“I’m sure with you as Secretary of Justice, Bencard as Secretary of Information and DJB as Supreme Court Justice, we can all sleep well at night”
of course! that’s saying a lot, coming from the great cvj.
eh paano kung ikaw ang secretary of justice, si manuelbuencamino ang secretary of information, at si mlq3 ang SC justice?
DJB Rizalist on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 2:08 pm
We should not be over-awed by the Supreme Court. Although it has awesome authority, it can only win the assent of reasonable men when it produces Decisions that our sense of Justice intuitively approves of. In this respect, the Philippine Supreme Court has a pitiable record.
We can read many of this Court’s decisions like any other English composition. Some are definitely better than others both as prose and as jurisprudence. And too many are no better than the looser ends of bloggers’ comment threads, where they cut and paste reams and reams from some rollo, but don’t really end up making any sense of it all!
Some, even by Chief Justices penned, have embarrassing errors of historical fact lifted from low grade textbooks that are nonetheless brazenly used to back up some point of clear ideological prejudice. As in the IPRA decisions.
And to the extent that the Truths of 1776 are known to be SELF-EVIDENT, I have trusted a direct interpretation of them more than the dubious innovative Rules and carpenterial constructions of the Philippine Court in adjudicating important Constitutional cases.
It is largely a failed Court from the standpoint of moral and logical consistency, after usurping Senate powers in 2001 and overthrowing the presidency as well as separation of powers. Born to activism in 1987’s guilty conscience of a Constitution, it cannot now make up for the failure of the TEXT by suddenly pretending to be a champion of Human Rights and making up new RULES.
Our secret consolation lies in the genius of the democratic construction: Every Supreme Court can reverse virtually any past decision a past incarnation of that Court has made.
Corrigibility is every court’s true recourse for salvation: to correct its own past mistakes and not to make new ones.
But talk about SECRETIVE.
The Supreme Court, imho, would’ve made J. Edgar proud. You can’t even look at their public [sic!] guest logbooks to figure out who Santa Claus was…
Jeg on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 2:18 pm
scalia: didn’t you notice, that close to 95% of media coverage were on the arrests of the media people, and not on coup pals Trillanes and Lim?
I said Manila Pen incident, tony. Not the post-coup ‘heroification’ of ANC.
cvj on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:30 pm
Of course, he should be with the Commission on Human Rights. I could just visualize his post-mortem report that goes…”Pumagitna kasi eh…“
anthony scalia on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:39 pm
Jeq,
yes. i was referring also to the Manila Pen circus. the resulting media coverage (by all media – print, audio, visual) was more on the arrests than on the coup pals
qwert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:45 pm
“I’m sure with you as Secretary of Justice, Bencard as Secretary of Information and DJB as Supreme Court Justice, we can all sleep well at night.” – cvj
“eh paano kung ikaw ang secretary of justice, si manuelbuencamino ang secretary of information, at si mlq3 ang SC justice?”- Anthony Scalia
I wonder who will be your respective presidents.
mlq3 on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 3:54 pm
kakatawa naman. only bencard is qualifed to be sec. of justice or on the sc because he’s a lawyer, unlike djb or myself.
benign0 on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 4:46 pm
mlq3
re your comment # 708762
You expressed in three paragraphs a simple point I was trying to make: that whatever way the Media behaves, the way it sees itself and its place in Pinoy society, the quality of the input it acquires, and the quality of the output it delivers, quite simply reflects the nature of Pinoy society itself.
To be bit more specific (referring to the menu of scenarios in your last paragraph) in the case of Pinoys, we worship freedom above everything else (certainly above order, due process, and any form of regimentation) so much so that it is the be-all end-all of just about any form of spin, sloganeering, and appeals delivered to the intellectual faculties of Filipinos. So therefore the Media is the way it is, our politicians are the way they are, our celebrities are the way they are, and so on and so forth BECAUSE Pinoy society is the way it is.
It just so happens that the Media is the topic in this thread. But your analysis can be extended to just about anything that REFLECTS the nature and quality of our society.
All of the above channels of said reflection share a common adjective. They are all RIDICULOUS.
Our Media, our politiicians, and our celebrities (just to name a few of these channels of reflection) all exhibit RIDICULOUS characteristics — i.e. in behaviour, substance, and presentation. Considering the utter smallness of the stature of these channels of reflection upon comparison with their equivalents in other societies, Media, politicians, and celebrities all occupy ridiculously and perversely disproportionate places in Pinoy society.
cvj on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 4:48 pm
In which case, we can combine Bencard’s cabinet portfolio so he can be Secretary of Legal Truth, which will of course be the only kind of truth allowed.
Bert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 5:19 pm
“My goodness! What police abuse are you talking about? The police are not preventing media from writing and reporting about the event – they just want media out of the site of engagement! Media can still do their job from a safe distance!-anthony s.
Mediamen,fully identified and armed with nothing but cameras, hands tied with wires then herded into an iron-grilled bus by heavily armed police, and that is not called police abuse. But that’s not the point. I can understand you, tony, if you are the police spokesman, or a part of this gov’t., which I suspect you are. Pardon me if I’m wrong. I am assuming that we here in Manolo’s blog are civilian citizens, all potential victims of police abuse given it’s notoriety, and given also that media is almost always on the side of the oppressed citizen when it happened, and we are discussing here something in the category of a grey area. What is hard to understand is for rational and very intelligent people condemning the cause of the complaining side allegedly abused, then espousing the cause of the alleged abusers.
benign0 on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 5:49 pm
“I am assuming that we here in Manolo’s blog are civilian citizens, all potential victims of police abuse given it’s notoriety, and given also that media is almost always on the side of the oppressed citizen when it happened”
Jeez. Who is this guy?
He sounds like an old relic from the 80’s
cvj on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 6:07 pm
I agree, and on top of everything, they think they’re doing the smart thing by taking the side of the abusers.
ptt on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 6:07 pm
“Mediamen, fully identified and armed with nothing but cameras hands tied with wires then herded into an iron-grilled bus by heavily armed police, and that is not called police abuse–Bert
Where is the police abuse? These poor media men REFUSED TO LEAVE and willingly acted as HUMAN SHIELDS. I’m surprised Philippine Police had the training and discipline to pull off the arrest without a reporter/sympathizer being shot. To zip tie/secure/handcuff everybody in the scene was tactically sound and at par with western and foreign law enforcement procedures. Police of course were “heavily armed” due to the fact that some moron former Navy Lt convicted senator walked out of his hearing with “heavily armed” men, and occupied a hotel uninvited.
ptt on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 6:25 pm
I could just visualize his post-mortem report that goes…â€Pumagitna kasi eh…“ – cvj
Ha Ha your close. I probably would have added: â€Pumagitna kasi eh, tatanga-tanga akala niya iilagan siya ng bala kasi meron siyang press ID.
qwert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 6:28 pm
“I’m surprised Philippine Police had the training and discipline to pull off the arrest without a reporter/sympathizer being shot” – ptt
I was surprised too, for a different reason. The reason why no reporter/sympathizer got shot was because the police used teargas but what took them so long to make that decision? What were they up to? Was the teargas approach the real and actual plan or was it just a contingency plan (just in case the original plan cannot be executed). The intent of the police, I think, is more important here than the alleged media abuse.
nash on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 7:57 pm
@Justice Anthony Scalia, Esq.
“stubbornness of media” – so what? no law broken there yet, so NO threats required. if it so happens that the media, by being in the crossfire, became an accessory to the crime, then by all means, throw the book at them.
All I’m saying is that you do not need threats to remind people that we actually have laws. Much the same way that you do not need to be OA and have two platoons guarding GMA all the time as if she was a G8 leader (who incidentally, don’t have as an elaborate security detail as GMA with the exception of Dubya and Putin)
wow.
lots of people putting forward their names for our new and glorious republic. Tama hinala ko, blog pundits are essentially narcissists (aminin)
as long as we keep miriam santiago, for theatrical effect.
let’s do a john edwards and hedge our bets. (ie, waiting muna tayo kung sino manalo sa tuesday tapos siya endorse natin….we can still be vp…)
Bert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 8:54 pm
“I am assuming that we here in Manolo’s blog are civilian citizens, all potential victims of police abuse given it’s notoriety, and given also that media is almost always on the side of the oppressed citizen when it happenedâ€-Bert
“Jeez. Who is this guy?
He sounds like an old relic from the 80’s -benignO
I told you I came from the most rural part of the country, it took me centuries to reach this far, not even near as coherent as all you guys here. No red face there admitting I’m no elite. Will somebody now tell me I’m an outcast here in Manolo’s blog?
qwert on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 9:12 pm
Bert,
No, you’re not an outcast. You just have to know early the great divide in this blog and which side of the fence you belong. By their blogs you shall know them.
nash on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 9:43 pm
what? there is a divide here? i thought we are just exchanging ideas.
@bert: i like the sarcasm
UP n student on Fri, 1st Feb 2008 10:20 pm
Bert,
but I know that comments from a wide variety of people get in. INkasts include those who know what they are talking about. Those who don’t know what they are talking about but believe they do, they get in, too. 
And those who don’t know what they are talking about, who know it, but still do the keystrokes entry because they are lonely 
or because they want to obfuscate 
— if they make a blog-entry comment, the comments get in, too.
This is Q3’s site, so I don’t know his rule about who are outcasts and who are INkasts
anthony scalia on Sat, 2nd Feb 2008 1:57 am
Diesel,
“…so what? no law broken there yet, so NO threats required. if it so happens that the media, by being in the crossfire, became an accessory to the crime, then by all means, throw the book at them”
in the same vein, the government hasn’t broken any law yet, hasn’t prevented media from being in another danger zone, yet why did the media crybabies go to court for a future event?
“All I’m saying is that you do not need threats to remind people that we actually have laws. Much the same way that you do not need to be OA and have two platoons guarding GMA all the time as if she was a G8 leader (who incidentally, don’t have as an elaborate security detail as GMA with the exception of Dubya and Putin)”
sorry to differ, but the media crybabies are acting as if they don’t know the law, or the only law they know is their freedom of expression. hence the resort to ‘threats’
my friend, all the government is asking is for media to stay out of the danger zone! no more, no less! to repeat for the nth time, media are not prevented from writing and reporting about the event!
as for the OA guarding of gloria – diskarte ng PSG yon
anthony scalia on Sat, 2nd Feb 2008 2:06 am
Bert,
“Pardon me if I’m wrong.”
oh yes you are wrong. but you are pardoned.
Pare ko, look at it this way:
all the government wants is for media to stay out of the danger zone, okay? government is not stopping media from writing and reporting about the event.
to refresh you of the issue:
we are not talking here about the case for damages suffered by the arrested media during the Manila Pen circus.
what we are talking about here is: if an event like the Manila Pen circus happens again, and if media will insist to be in the cross-fire again, government will arrest them. The media took issue with this, and want the court (1) to stop government from making the threats, and
(2) to compel the government to grant them entry in the danger zone
the next time another Manila Pen circus-like event takes place!
to borrow DJB’s words – government simply wants media to be 50 meters away from the scene, not 5 inches away!
nash on Sat, 2nd Feb 2008 7:36 am
Justice Anthony Scalia,
I guess I’ll leave it at that if you believe that a civil government retains the moral high ground by issuing “THREATS”.
Incidentally, I’m watching Antonin Scalia speak next week. I’ll send in a good word.
inodoro ni emilie on Sat, 2nd Feb 2008 9:59 am
on banning media coverage on anti-terrorism police activities from downunder:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/keelty-rebuffed-by-minister-over-media-comments/2008/01/31/1201714153269.html
anthony scalia on Sat, 2nd Feb 2008 10:46 am
Diesel,
“I guess I’ll leave it at that if you believe that a civil government retains the moral high ground by issuing “THREATSâ€.”
okay, as long as you put “threats” in quotations.
“Incidentally, I’m watching Antonin Scalia speak next week. I’ll send in a good word”
Thanks. Wow, are you going to meet him in person? If you ever meet Laurence Tribe also, please say hi to him for me, a big fan of his. Same with John Roberts.
nash on Sat, 2nd Feb 2008 4:42 pm
“In person”, no I will probably sit at the very back.
I’m not really a fan. Have you not noticed that I’m a liberal-wishy-washy tree free love for all tree hugger?
nash on Sat, 2nd Feb 2008 4:43 pm
@INE
tingnan mo naman ‘call’ lang ni-rebuff na agad. paano kaya pag mas grabe pa tulad ng ‘threat’.
anthony scalia on Sun, 3rd Feb 2008 10:20 pm
““In personâ€, no I will probably sit at the very back.”
you could raise up a small banner/placard
“I’m not really a fan. Have you not noticed that I’m a liberal-wishy-washy tree free love for all tree hugger?”
no. believing in media freedom per se isn’t an indicator of being “a liberal-wishy-washy tree free love for all tree hugger”
what i’ve noticed is an insistence on calling an endeavor to merely keep media out of the danger zone (not really preventing media from writing and reporting) an assault on press freedom
grd on Sun, 10th Feb 2008 11:06 pm
test