COTABATO CITY, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / June 30, 2009) – Government troops briefly held Tuesday dozens of Filipino journalists who were on fact-finding mission in the strife-torn province of Maguindanao.
About 60 journalists from different outfits in Manila and Mindanao were stopped by army soldiers on a highway in Guindulungan town, scene of fierce fighting between military forces and Moro rebels. The area is also where soldiers allegedly burned houses owned by Muslim villagers.
“I don’t know why they are preventing us from inspecting villages affected by the fighting. This is a violation of the freedom of the press,” said Romy Elusfa, a freelance journalist.
He said soldiers stopped the journalists, but allowed other civilians to pass the village. GMA Television also reported that soldiers were insisting journalists get a clearance from the Army’s 601st Infantry Brigade headed by Colonel Medardo Geslani.
The journalists, who were on a convoy of eleven vehicles, were held for about an hour and eventually allowed them to go after news of the incident broke out and reached top military leaders in Manila.
Elusfa’s group is also schedule to inspect refugee shelters in Maguindanao to see the plight of those who fled their homes because of the strife.
Colonel Jonathan Ponce, a spokesman for the Army’s 6th Infantry Division in Maguindanao province, said the journalists were stopped because soldiers were clearing a road planted with improvised explosives on the village of Datu Piang near Guindulungan.
“It is for the safety of the journalist, soldiers have discovered explosives planted by rebels in Datu Piang and journalists can proceed after the area has been cleared,” Ponce said.
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front last week said an army shelling hit a house and killed a woman and injured another in Guindulungan, an accusation strongly denied by the military.
Ponce insisted the attack was launched by rebels to discredit the military ahead of the three-day fact-finding mission by journalists from June 29 to July 2. The mission was organized by various nongovernmental and media organizations for journalists to see the situation and plight of war refugees in Mindanao.
Ponce also linked the organizer of the media fact-finding mission to the MILF.
“An NGO identified with the MILF invited media from Manila paying all expenses and pocket money,” Ponce said.
Ponce did not identify the NGO, but the mission was organized and supported by independent and credible groups - the Mindanao ComStrat and Policy Alternatives, MindaNews, Center for Community Journalism and Development, National Union of Journalists in the Philippines, Peace and Conflict Journalism Network, the Institute of War and Peace Reporting and the Oblate Media’s I –Watch and the Asia Foundation.
The MILF has previously accused the military of shelling civilian targets on suspicion rebels were hiding in the area. It also charged army of widespread human rights violations in the Muslim autonomous region where soldiers looted and torched civilian houses.
Some 31,000 people are in different refugee shelters in Maguindanao’s Datu Piang town alone and that at least 95 civilians, many of them children, had been killed since fighting between military and rebel forces began last year.
“The world's largest new displacement last year happened when 600,000 people fled fighting between the Army and rebel groups in the southern region of Maguindanao,” reported the Oslo-based Norwegian Refugee Council.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines also reported that representatives of nongovernmental and humanitarian organizations were being prohibited by the military from going to evacuation centers in the guise of protecting humanitarian workers from being caught in the crossfire.
Ponce denied all the accusations against the army and branded them as propaganda. (Mindanao Examiner)
Showing posts with label Press Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Press Freedom. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Journalists visiting refugee shelters held by military in Mindanao
Friday, June 12, 2009
Journalist shot in central Philippines
MANILA, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / June 12, 2009) – Unidentified gunmen wounded a journalist in an attack Friday in the central Philippines province of Masbate, reports said.
It said Antonio Castillo was shot by motorcycle gunmen in Masbate. It was unknown whether the attack on the 45-year old tabloid reporter was connected to his job.
Castillo, who works for the tabloid “Bigwasan,” was riding also on his motorcycle when gunmen shot him in the body. He was able to escape and hid on a village until police arrived.
The Philippines has been tagged as one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists. Dozens of journalists have been killed since 2001 in the country under President Gloria Arroyo’s watch, according to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines. (Mindanao Examiner)
It said Antonio Castillo was shot by motorcycle gunmen in Masbate. It was unknown whether the attack on the 45-year old tabloid reporter was connected to his job.
Castillo, who works for the tabloid “Bigwasan,” was riding also on his motorcycle when gunmen shot him in the body. He was able to escape and hid on a village until police arrived.
The Philippines has been tagged as one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists. Dozens of journalists have been killed since 2001 in the country under President Gloria Arroyo’s watch, according to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines. (Mindanao Examiner)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
SEAPA Alert: Filipino journalist, media groups included in military's hi
The Philippine Army in southern Mindanao allegedly included a journalist and two media organizations in a 2007 watch list of persons and organizations it claims to be connected to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New People’s Army (NPA).
It has been noted that many of the persons in the watch list later became victims of extra-judicial killings. The military, however, has disowned the watch list, officially known as an "order of battle".
A PowerPoint presentation titled "JCICC ‘Agila’ 3rd QTR 2007 OB Validation Result” marked "SECRET" and allegedly prepared by the intelligence arm of the Philippine Army’s 10th Infantry Division includes journalist Carlos Conde in its "order of battle".
Conde, a journalist for 15 years, is a correspondent for the "International Herald Tribune" and the "New York Times", and also writes for local newspapers and online news sites.
An "order of battle" is a list of persons the Philippine military claims to be combatants or supporters of the CPP and NPA. A number of political activists who have appeared in such lists are among those who have been killed in the Philippines allegedly by military and paramilitary units.
Over a thousand political activists and 40 journalists have been killed in the Philippines since 2001. Extra-judicial killings have been the subject of concern by the United Nations and human rights groups.
In an interview with the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) on 19 May 2009, Conde said he was surprised at his inclusion in the "order of battle" validation report.
Conde received the information from the International Solidarity Mission (ISM) which last week concluded a fact-finding mission into the effects of the government’s counter-insurgency program in Southern Mindanao. The CPP is not illegal, but the government has been fighting the NPA since 1968.
Although the list was dated 2007, Conde believes those included in it are still under threat. One person in the list, Celso Pojas, a peasant leader in Davao City, was killed in 2008.
Conde believes his inclusion is connected to his being the former coordinator of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) in Davao City. Conde, also the secretary-general of NUJP from 2004-2006, led local campaigns against the killing of journalists in their province.
"Why my name is included in the 'order of battle' is a mystery. Unless, that is, the armed forces considers my and NUJP’s advocacy for press freedom, as well as pressuring the government to end the killings, as the work of enemies of the state (and) unless the Armed Forces of the Philippines views my job and my writing as threats to my country," he said in a 19 May statement.
The NUJP, which was previously tagged by the Armed Forces of the Philippines as an "enemy of the state", and the defunct Media Mindanao News Service are also in the list. The College Editors Guild of the Philippines, an alliance of college publications, was also mentioned. But Conde was the only journalist specifically named in the alleged "order of battle".
"Needless to say, this 'order of battle' has caused anxiety and fear in my family because, as we all know, an 'order of battle' in the Philippines is a veritable hit list," Conde said in his statement.
Bayan Muna (Nation First) Rep. Satur Ocampo also showed the document during the presentation of the results of the fact-finding mission of the International Solidarity Mission in Davao, a 20 May 2009 "Sun. Star" Cagayan de Oro report said. "Sun. Star" quoted Ocampo as saying that ISM got the document from a "conscientious soldier." Davao is a province approximately 946 km south of Manila.
But officials of the 10th Infantry Division denied authorship of the document. Col. Lysander Suerte, the chief of staff of the 10th Infantry Division, said in an interview with CMFR that whoever came out with the document only wants to misinform and agitate the public. Suerte also denied that the list presented by ISM was a list of persons targeted by the army.
"An 'order of battle' does not target individuals; it is mainly an assessment of the general threat to national security. What the ISM presented is not a list of targets, but that is how they want the public to see it so that unsolved/unexplained killings can be attributed to the military. They presented the list to create confusion and paranoia and eventually agitate the people to go against the military," the 10th Infantry Division said in a statement.
The "Philippine Daily Inquirer" reported on 20 May 2009 that Maj. Gen. Reynaldo Mapagu, the commanding officer of the 10th Infantry Division, has ordered an investigation into the origins of the watch list.
It has been noted that many of the persons in the watch list later became victims of extra-judicial killings. The military, however, has disowned the watch list, officially known as an "order of battle".
A PowerPoint presentation titled "JCICC ‘Agila’ 3rd QTR 2007 OB Validation Result” marked "SECRET" and allegedly prepared by the intelligence arm of the Philippine Army’s 10th Infantry Division includes journalist Carlos Conde in its "order of battle".
Conde, a journalist for 15 years, is a correspondent for the "International Herald Tribune" and the "New York Times", and also writes for local newspapers and online news sites.
An "order of battle" is a list of persons the Philippine military claims to be combatants or supporters of the CPP and NPA. A number of political activists who have appeared in such lists are among those who have been killed in the Philippines allegedly by military and paramilitary units.
Over a thousand political activists and 40 journalists have been killed in the Philippines since 2001. Extra-judicial killings have been the subject of concern by the United Nations and human rights groups.
In an interview with the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) on 19 May 2009, Conde said he was surprised at his inclusion in the "order of battle" validation report.
Conde received the information from the International Solidarity Mission (ISM) which last week concluded a fact-finding mission into the effects of the government’s counter-insurgency program in Southern Mindanao. The CPP is not illegal, but the government has been fighting the NPA since 1968.
Although the list was dated 2007, Conde believes those included in it are still under threat. One person in the list, Celso Pojas, a peasant leader in Davao City, was killed in 2008.
Conde believes his inclusion is connected to his being the former coordinator of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) in Davao City. Conde, also the secretary-general of NUJP from 2004-2006, led local campaigns against the killing of journalists in their province.
"Why my name is included in the 'order of battle' is a mystery. Unless, that is, the armed forces considers my and NUJP’s advocacy for press freedom, as well as pressuring the government to end the killings, as the work of enemies of the state (and) unless the Armed Forces of the Philippines views my job and my writing as threats to my country," he said in a 19 May statement.
The NUJP, which was previously tagged by the Armed Forces of the Philippines as an "enemy of the state", and the defunct Media Mindanao News Service are also in the list. The College Editors Guild of the Philippines, an alliance of college publications, was also mentioned. But Conde was the only journalist specifically named in the alleged "order of battle".
"Needless to say, this 'order of battle' has caused anxiety and fear in my family because, as we all know, an 'order of battle' in the Philippines is a veritable hit list," Conde said in his statement.
Bayan Muna (Nation First) Rep. Satur Ocampo also showed the document during the presentation of the results of the fact-finding mission of the International Solidarity Mission in Davao, a 20 May 2009 "Sun. Star" Cagayan de Oro report said. "Sun. Star" quoted Ocampo as saying that ISM got the document from a "conscientious soldier." Davao is a province approximately 946 km south of Manila.
But officials of the 10th Infantry Division denied authorship of the document. Col. Lysander Suerte, the chief of staff of the 10th Infantry Division, said in an interview with CMFR that whoever came out with the document only wants to misinform and agitate the public. Suerte also denied that the list presented by ISM was a list of persons targeted by the army.
"An 'order of battle' does not target individuals; it is mainly an assessment of the general threat to national security. What the ISM presented is not a list of targets, but that is how they want the public to see it so that unsolved/unexplained killings can be attributed to the military. They presented the list to create confusion and paranoia and eventually agitate the people to go against the military," the 10th Infantry Division said in a statement.
The "Philippine Daily Inquirer" reported on 20 May 2009 that Maj. Gen. Reynaldo Mapagu, the commanding officer of the 10th Infantry Division, has ordered an investigation into the origins of the watch list.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
New York Times Writer on Philippine Military's Order of Battle
A deeply disturbing development.
PRESS STATEMENT
PRESS STATEMENT
May 19, 2009
I am Carlos H. Conde, a journalist based in Manila.
I found out yesterday that my name is included in the Armed Forces of the Philippines’s “order of battle,” specifically in a document titled “JCICC `AGILA’ 3rd QTR 2007 OB VALIDATION RESULT” purportedly prepared by the intelligence staff of the armed forces’ 10th Infantry Division in Southern Mindanao.
In this “order of battle,” more than a hundred individuals – mostly leaders and members of progressive and leftist groups like Bayan, Bayan Muna, among others – are listed and classified as “organized,” “dominated,” or “targeted.” As far as I can tell, I am the only journalist on the list, which classifies me as “targeted,” whatever that means.
It would seem that the army considers me an enemy of the state, as the document, which shows the alleged links of these individuals with the communist movement, seems to be implying.
Needless to say, this “order of battle” has caused anxiety and fear in my family because, as we all know, an “order of battle” in the Philippines is a veritable hit list. Indeed, at least one of the individuals in the document – Celso Pojas, a peasant leader in Davao City — has been assassinated and several others have either been attacked or subjected to harassment and intimidation by agents of the armed forces.
Just to be clear, I am a journalist and [have] been so in the past 15 years. Presently, I work as a freelance correspondent for US-based publications, namely The New York Times, the International Herald Tribune and GlobalPost.com. I also contribute stories and reports every now and then to other foreign and local publications.
I used to be the coordinator of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines in Davao City and Southern Mindanao, where I resided until three years ago. I was the NUJP’s secretary-general from 2004 to 2006. Part of my job at the time was to lead the campaign in the Philippines to stop the killings of journalists. The Philippines, as we all know, is notorious for being the world’s most murderous place for journalists.
Why my name is included in the “order of battle” is a mystery. Unless, that is, the armed forces considers my and NUJP’s advocacy for press freedom, as well as pressuring the government to end the killings, as the work of enemies of the state. Unless the armed forces views my job and my writing as threats to this nation.
Carlos H. Conde
Manila, Philippines
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Lawmaker drops support for Right of Reply Bill
MANILA, Philippines - With the House leadership's announcement that the Right of Reply Bill (RORB) can be tackled "anytime" in plenary, Deputy Majority Leader Juan Edgardo Angara sought for a review of the current list of authors and co-authors as he reiterated that he has already withdrawn support for the measure.
Angara said he withdrew authorship to consolidated House Bill 3306, or "An Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties in Violation Thereof" after realizing the overwhelming unity of campus press, media practitioners and concerned groups over the bill's threat to press freedom and freedom of expression.
"There is really a need to review the present list of authors and co-authors because despite the fact that I've already withdrawn authorship on the RORB since late 2007, I'm being treated as if I'm still one of the authors," Angara said.
"I have listened to feedbacks from different media groups around the country and their position seems to be that media groups, as a matter of practice and self-regulation, already extend this right of reply to persons who are the subjects of a negative story or article. This has led me to a decision to no longer pursue the bill," he added.
Angara made the statement as he cited reports in which he is still being acknowledged as one of the proponents of the bill.
Angara, a lawyer, stressed he realized “there may be some practical difficulties” in the implementation of the RORB once enacted into law.
"Nonetheless, we still appeal to our friends in media for fairness and judicious, as we believe that editorial functions are privately exercised prerogatives," he added.
House Bill 3306, under Committee Report No. 207, is currently up for consideration on second reading approval in plenary.
The bill mandates media companies, outfits and entities to provide “equal space or airtime” to anyone who is a subject of critical reports, to reply or react as form of the latter’s freedom of expression, thus, the right to reply. The bill, furthermore, stipulates that this be done within three (3) days of a news item’s publication or airing.
It also seeks to punish publisher and editor-in-chief of a publication or the owner and station manager of a broadsheet outfit if they fail to comply or give "equal treatment" to a complaint's right to a specific report.
Angara said he withdrew authorship to consolidated House Bill 3306, or "An Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties in Violation Thereof" after realizing the overwhelming unity of campus press, media practitioners and concerned groups over the bill's threat to press freedom and freedom of expression.
"There is really a need to review the present list of authors and co-authors because despite the fact that I've already withdrawn authorship on the RORB since late 2007, I'm being treated as if I'm still one of the authors," Angara said.
"I have listened to feedbacks from different media groups around the country and their position seems to be that media groups, as a matter of practice and self-regulation, already extend this right of reply to persons who are the subjects of a negative story or article. This has led me to a decision to no longer pursue the bill," he added.
Angara made the statement as he cited reports in which he is still being acknowledged as one of the proponents of the bill.
Angara, a lawyer, stressed he realized “there may be some practical difficulties” in the implementation of the RORB once enacted into law.
"Nonetheless, we still appeal to our friends in media for fairness and judicious, as we believe that editorial functions are privately exercised prerogatives," he added.
House Bill 3306, under Committee Report No. 207, is currently up for consideration on second reading approval in plenary.
The bill mandates media companies, outfits and entities to provide “equal space or airtime” to anyone who is a subject of critical reports, to reply or react as form of the latter’s freedom of expression, thus, the right to reply. The bill, furthermore, stipulates that this be done within three (3) days of a news item’s publication or airing.
It also seeks to punish publisher and editor-in-chief of a publication or the owner and station manager of a broadsheet outfit if they fail to comply or give "equal treatment" to a complaint's right to a specific report.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
NUJP Primer on the Right Of Reply Bill
PRIMER ON THE RIGHT OF REPLY BILL. PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES.
1. What is the Right of Reply Bill (RORB)?
The RORB is Senate Bill (SB) 2150 being proposed by Senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Ramon Revilla Jr, and Francis "Chiz" Escudero, as a substitute bill to SB 1178.
In the Lower House, it is House Bill (HB) 3306 which is the merged version of HBs 162 and1001 authored by Representative Juan Edgardo Angara and Monico Puentevella.
2. What is the subject of this bill?
In the original version, the bill provides for the right of individuals and groups to respond to news stories released by the media that referred to or criticized them.
The RORB mandates media organizations to publish or broadcast the reply of an individual, group, company, agency, or institution that was criticized, accused, or quoted in a news story, statement, or opinion in newspapers, television and radio stations, the Internet, and any other electronic device, such as cellphones.
3. What are considered sufficient bases for an individual or group to reply to a released news story?
Based on the original version of the RORB, criticism based on innuendo, suggestion, and rumor constitutes a sufficient basis for them to have their reply published.
The version of the Lower House includes as an obligation of the media the responsibility to correct any previous story should the court find an accused not guilty of the crime imputed against him/her.
4. What is prescribed to be the length of the reply?
The RORB mandates that the reply to be published or broadcast be of the same length as the previously published or broadcast story involving the individual or group. In the Senate version, libelous allegations in the reply may be removed.
This means that the bill allows the release of a reply or rejoinder in newspapers, TV and radio stations, the Internet, and cellphones (through SMS news), regardless of its relevance or substance.
This also means that it�s possible for news stories to contain mere views or reactions by any person who wants to comment on any story which he/she feels are referring to their person.
In both versions, the publication or broadcast of the reply are free of any charges or fees.
5. In which part of the newspaper, TV and radio programs, Internet, and SMS news should the reply be published or broadcast?
RORB mandates that the reply be published in the same space of the concerned publication, or aired over the same program on television, radio, the Internet, or any other electronic device, where the subject story first appeared.
For example, if a story appeared in the upper fold of the front page of a newspaper, the bill mandates that the reply be published in the same exact position.
If the subject story appeared on the first gap of the TV or radio news program, the bill mandates that the reply be aired over the same slot.
6. When should the reply be published or broadcast?
In the Senate version of the RORB, it is mandated that the reply be published within three days after the concerned media organization receives the reply.
In the version of the Lower House, the reply needs to be published or broadcast a day after the publication or broadcast of the subject story.
7. Should it be passed, what are the penalties for violations of the RORB?
Senate version:
1st offense - P10,000
2nd offense - P20,000
3rd offense - P30,000
4th and subsequent offenses - P50,000
House version:
1st offense � P10,000
2nd offense � P30,000
3rd offense - P50,000 and imprisonment for no more than 30 days
4th offense - P100,000 and imprisonment for no more than 30 days
For subsequent offenses - P200,000, imprisonment for no more than 30 days, and closure or suspension of the franchise of the publication or broadcast station for 30 days.
8. Are block-timers also subject to the proposed law?
Block-timers are independent news and public affairs producers who pay TV and radio stations for the broadcast of their programs (e.g., The Probe Team). The RORB mentions that block-timers are subject to the Code of Ethics or to self-regulation being implemented by the TV or radio station from which they purchase time slots.
9. Why should the RORB be opposed?
The RORB clearly preempts and undermines the right of publishers, editors, and producers to decide on which news stories they will feature. The RORB dictates what should and should not be published or broadcast by media organizations way before the latter can even decide on which issues are to be discussed.
This is undoubtedly a form of prior restraint. Prior restraint or any other form of legislation aimed at thwarting the freedom of the press is prohibited under the Constitution.
The bill, which prescribes the timeframe, length, and manner of publication or broadcast of replies, is a clear manifestation of an attempt to unduly impose upon media practice.
Also, the penalties prescribed in the RORB � such as imposition of fines, imprisonment, and closure and suspension of the franchise of the concerned media outlet � is an apparent breach of press freedom.
10. What does the sunset clause of the RORB state and why is it problematic?
The Senate version includes a sunset clause under section 10, or a period of effectivity should it be passed into law. The sunset clause states that law shall take effect for a period of seven years, unless the Congress extends its effectivity.
Therein lies one possible motive behind the bill: It must be remembered that the length of service of government officials are from three (local officials and district representatives) to six years (president, vice president, and senators).
The passage of the bill, which is currently being railroaded, also coincides with the 2010 elections, and with the term of the President, Vice President, and other government officials. Therefore, when passed into law, the bill will be very much open to abuse by a few high-ranking officials.
12. What are the other implications of the passage of the RORB?
It�s possible for news stories to contain mere replies by supposedly aggrieved parties which will result in reduced space for more important news stories and even for commercial advertisements. As such, it�s also possible for publications, TV and radio stations, and online news resources to incur losses and be compelled to cease operations.
The proposed law is also vulnerable to abuse by politicians and government officials for their own selfish interests.
13. What about the rights of people whose reputations have been marred by stories delving into their private life, profession, and person?
The rights of any person to an untainted reputation and to privacy are upheld by the Constitution. The media respect, support, and defend these rights.
If a person�s reputation, private life, and character have been the subject of accusations or criticism, it is that person�s right to be given the chance to defend himself/herself regardless of whether or not there exists a Right of Reply Law.
The media currently enacts its responsibility to the people to be fair and balanced in their reportage by getting all possible sides to an issue; it is certain and part of standard editorial procedures to get the side of a person or group involved in an issue.
14. Is there a guarantee that private people are given the right to defend themselves should they be the subject of a news story?
Journalists and media organizations have their own policies and a Code of Ethics which they are expected to adhere to. Also, other media organizations have their own and more specific policies and ethical codes which they implement.
15. If there is no Right of Reply Law and a publication or program fails or refuses to release the reply of an aggrieved person or group, what other recourses can be taken?
If a person or group has complaints against or reactions to a published or broadcast news story, there are a number of possible actions:
1. The complaint may be filed with the editor or publisher of the publication, or with the producer, news manager, or owner of the TV or radio station, or SMS news;
2. If the concerned media organization fails to act on the issue, the complaint may be filed with a press council if there exists one in your area;
3. Complaints may also be filed with organizations of journalists and media workers, like the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, a union of media workers, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, and other organizations;
4. A lawsuit can also be filed if there is a violation of the libel law (defamation, baseless accusation), contempt law (if speedy execution of justice is prevented or blocked by a person or group with a pending case in court), or sub judice (violation of the restriction on discussing in news stories the merits of a case currently pending in court)
16. Is there a Right of Reply Law in other countries?
The United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Right of Reply Law. And while similar laws exist in some countries in Europe, such laws cover only inaccuracy in information and not opinions or insights.
17. What is the current status of the RORB in Congress?
It was railroaded in the Senate on June 2008 and is currently on second reading in the Lower House.
In both instances, leading media organizations like the Philippine Daily Inquirer, GMA 7, ABS-CBN, DZBB, Inquirer.net, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines were not consulted. Community newspapers and provincial radio and TV stations were also not consulted. Simply put, there was no comprehensive consultation conducted by the Senate and the Lower House.
When the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines decried the RORB, a number of Senators withdrew their support for the bill. Only six to seven senators remain staunch in their call to enact the RORB.
18. What courses of action were taken by the majority of media organizations upon learning of the RORB?
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines immediately released a position paper after a thorough scrutiny of the issue.
NUJP leaders conferred with several media organizations to get their opinion about the bill. Some of the organizations that NUJP officials visited were GMA 7, ABS-CBN, ABC 5, Manila Bulletin, Manila Times, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, Malaya, DZRH, DZBB, RMN, and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
In a Roundtable Discussion and Unity Press Conference convened by the NUJP on February 10 and 24, all participating organizations agreed to express their unflinching opposition to the RORB.
In a first dialogue between the media and leaders of the Congress on March 3, the two parties remained steadfast in their position.
According to the legislators, led by House Speaker Prospero Nograles, they will persist in pushing for the approval of the RORB. Representatives Puentevella at Bienvenido Abante, primary authors of the bill, said they have amended the bill and removed some provisions, particularly those prescribing stiff penalties. Senador Aquilino Pimentel Jr., one of the authors of the RORB approved by the Senate, similarly proposed amendments to the RORB.
19. Now that there are amendments to the provisions, are media organizations withdrawing their opposition to the RORB?
No. The media reiterate that the Right of Reply Bill is a violation of the Constitution where the freedom of the press is enshrined. It translates to an undue imposition of what stories may or may not be published or aired.
The freedom of the press must not be compromised, as such is a fundamental threat to a democratic society such as ours.
The media are opposed to any amendments to the RORB as the bill still remains a material intervention to an unfettered journalistic practice.
Any law which seeks to impair or undermine press freedom should not be negotiated on and should be met with the fiercest resistance.
In light of this, all concerned media practitioners and organizations demand that the Right of Reply Bill be scrapped.
20. What should be done to block the passage of the RORB into law?
Make people understand that even while the media already uphold a person�s right to privacy, there are existing procedures and remedies for any one to be able to express his/her opinion on any news story and the Right of Reply law is hence unnecessary;
Make people appreciate the fact that issue of press freedom is also their issue; if press freedom were to be suppressed, much of what happens around us will be censored and the people will be left in the dark as to their country�s true state of affairs;
Encourage your district representatives to oppose the RORB;
Attend hearings, forums, and dialogues about RORB and express your position;
Text your friends to support the call of media practitioners to scrap the RORB;
Talk, write, and send a message via e-mail, Friendster, Facebook, and text to your district representatives and let them know your position about RORB;
If you are a media practitioner, sign the petition currently circulated across the nation.
For other details, please contact the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, landline (02) 411-77-68, email: nujphil@gmail.com or visit www.nujp.org.
TAGALOG BERSYON
1. Ano ang Right of Reply Bill (RORB)?
Ang RORB ay ang Senate Bill 2150 na ipinanukala nina Senador Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Ramon Revilla Jr, at Francis "Chiz" Escudero, bilang kahaliling panukalang batas sa SB 1178.
Sa Kamara, ito ang House Bill 3306 na mula naman sa pinagsamang House Bill 162 at 1001 nina Representative Juan Edgardo Angara at Monico Puentevella.
2. Tungkol saan ang panukalang batas na ito?
Sa orihinal na bersyon, binibigyan nito ng karapatan ang mga tao o grupo na sumagot sa balitang lumabas sa media na pinupuna, pinatatamaan o pinag-uusapan sila.
Inoobliga ng RORB ang mga organisasyon ng midya na ilabas ang sagot ng isang indibidwal, grupo, kumpanya, ahensya o institusyon na pinuna, inakusahan, o kinunan ng pahayag sa isang balita, pahayag, o opinyon sa dyaryo, telebisyon, radyo, Internet at anupamang elektronikong aparato, gaya ng cellphone.
3. Ano ang basehan ng isang tao o grupo para sumagot sa lumabas na balita?
Batay sa orihinal na bersyon ng RORB, sapat na basehan na ang pasaring (innuendo), tsismis, o puna sa balita para sila ay magpadala ng tugon.
Sa bersyon ng Kamara, isinasama ang obligasyon ng midya na iwasto ang anumang naunang balita sakaling ihayag ng korte na walang sala ang isang akusado sa isang krimen.
4. Gaano kahaba ang maaaring ipadalang tugon?
Ipinag-uutos sa RORB na ang ilalabas na tugon ay may kaparehong haba sa naunang nailathala o naibalita. Sa bersyon ng Senado, tatanggalin ang parte ng tugon na malisyoso o libelous.
Ibig sabihin, pinapayagan ng batas na ilabas sa dyaryo, Internet, telebisyon, radyo o cellphone (sa pamamagitan ng SMS news) ang isang tugon o rejoinder, may katuturan man ito o wala.
Nangangahulugan itong posibleng ang lamanin ng balita ay pawang mga tugon o sagot lamang ng sinumang taong nais magbigay ng pahayag sa anumang balita o lathalaing sa hinala nila�y pinatutungkulan sila.
Sa parehong bersyon, walang bayad ang paglalabas ng tugon.
5. Saang bahagi ng dyaryo, telebisyon, radyo, Internet, at sms news sa cellphone maaaring ilabas ang sagot?
Kung saang bahagi unang inilabas ang balita o lathalaing sinasagot, ipinag-uutos sa RORB na doon din ilalagay ang tugon.
Halimbawa, kung lumabas ang lathalain sa itaas na bahagi ng unang pahina ng isang dyayo, ipinag-uutos na doon din ilabas ang tugon.
Kung sa unang pasok ng mga balita sa telebisyon o radio lumabas ang inirereklamong balita, ipinag-uutos na doon din isahimpapawid ang tugon.
6. Kailan dapat ilabas ang tugon?
Sa bersyon ng Senado ng RORB, ipinag-uutos na ilabas ang tugon sa loob ng tatlong araw matapos matanggap ang tugon ng kinauukulang organisasyon ng midya.
Sa bersyon naman ng Kamara, kailangang ilabas ang tugon sa loob ng isang araw matapos ang pagpapalabas o paglalathala ng sinasagot na balita.
7. Ano ang parusa sa mga lalabag sa RORB kapag naisabatas na ito?
Sa bersyon ng Senado:
1st offense - P10,000
2nd offense - P20,000
3rd offense - P30,000
Para sa kasunod na mga paglabag - P50,000
Sa bersyon ng Kamara:
1st offense � P10,000
2nd offense � P30,000
3rd offense - P50,000 at pagkakakulong nang hindi hihigit sa 30 araw
4th offense - P100,000 at pagkakakulong nang hindi hihigit sa 30 araw
Para sa kasunod na mga paglabag - P200,000, pagkakakulong nang hindi hihigit sa 30 araw at pagpapasara at pagsuspindi ng prangkisa nang 30 araw.
8. Sakop din ba ng panukalang batas ang mga block-timer?
Ang tinatawag na mga block-timer ay ang independiyenteng mga news and public affairs producer na nagbabayad ng renta kada oras sa isang istasyon ng telebisyon o radyo para mailabas ang kanilang programa (halimbawa, The Probe Team). Binabanggit ng RORB na saklaw ang mga block-timer ng Code of Ethics o ng self-regulation na ipinatutupad ng istasyon ng telebisyon o radyo kung saan sila nagbabayad ng upa sa pagpapalabas ng kanilang programa.
9. Bakit dapat tutulan ang pagsasabatas ng RORB?
Malinaw na pinangungunahan ng RORB ang mga publisher, editor, o producer sa mga balita o lathalaing ilalabas nila. Bago pa man makapagpasya ang mga organisasyon ng midya sa kung ano ang kanilang ibabalita, idinidikta na ng RORB ang mga balita o usaping dapat at hindi dapat ihayag.
Ang tawag dito ay prior restraint. Ang prior restraint o anupamang uri ng batas na susupil sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag ay ipinagbabawal ng Konstitusyon.
Ang pagtatakda ng batas ng oras, haba, at paglalapat ng ilalabas na tugon ay isang malinaw na anyo ng pagdidikta sa mga editor o producer ng balita.
Ang parusang krimen sa paglabag sa RORB kapag naisabatas ito - gaya ng pagbabayad ng mga multa, pagkakakulong, at pagsususpindi ng prangkisa at pagpapasara ng media outlet - ay malinaw ding paglabag sa malayang pamamahayag.
10. Ano ang sinasabi ng sunset clause sa RORB at bakit ito problematiko?
Sa bersyon ng Senado, may tinatawag na sunset clause o tagal ng pagpapatupad ng batas, na nakapaloob sa seksyon 10. Nakasaad dito na magkakaroon lamang ng bisa ang RORB sa loob ng pitong taon, maliban kung muli itong ipatupad ng Kongreso.
Mahihinuha mula rito ang isang posibleng motibo sa likod ng RORB: Matatandaang ang termino ng mga opisyal ng gobyerno ay mula tatlo (lokal na mga opisyal, mambabatas) hanggang anim na taon (mga senador, pangulo at pangalawang pangulo).
Kasabay ng minamadaling pagpapatupad ng batas ang halalan sa 2010, at maging ang panahon ng panunungkulan ng Pangulo at Pangalawang Pangulo, at ng iba pang opisyal ng pamahalaan. Bukas, kung gayon, ang batas sa pang-aabuso ng iilang makapangyarihan.
12. Ano ang iba pang implikasyon ng pagsasabatas ng RORB?
Posibleng puro tugon na lamang ang lamanin ng mga balita, na magbubunsod ng mas kaunting espasyo para sa mas mahahalagang balita at maging para sa mga patalastas. Dahil dito, posibleng malugi at mapilitang magsara ang mga dyaryo, istasyon ng telebisyon at radyo, at online na mga mapagkukunan ng balita.
Posibleng ring gamitin at abusuhin ng mga kandidato, pulitiko at iba pang opisyal ng pamahalaan ang RORB para sa kanilang pansariling interes.
13. Paano naman ang karapatan ng mga taong nasira ang reputasyon dahil sa pakikialam sa kanilang pribadong buhay, trabaho o pagkatao?
Ang karapatan ng sinumang tao sa malinis na reputasyon at pribadong pamumuhay ay itinataguyod ng Konstitusyon. Iginagalang, sinusuportahan at ipinagtatanggol ng midya ang mga karapatang ito.
Kung kinuwestyon ang reputasyon o pribadong buhay at pagkatao ng isang tao, karapatan ng apektado na magkaroon ng pagkakataong ipagtanggol ang sarili may Right of Reply Law mang umiiral o wala.
Kasalukuyan nang ginagampanan ng midya ang responsibilidad nito sa mamamayang maging patas at balanse sa pagbabalita sa pamamagitan ng pagkuha ng iba�t ibang panig sa isang isyu; awtomatiko at karaniwan nang patakarang editoryal ang ilabas ang panig ng apektadong tao o grupo.
14. May garantiya bang nabibigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga pribadong tao na maipagtanggol ang kanilang sarili at linisin ang kanilang reputasyon sakaling maging paksa sila ng anumang balita?
May sariling mga panuntunan at Code of Ethics na sinusunod ang mga mamamahayag. Gayundin, may sarili at mas detalyadong mga panuntunan at code of ethics ang ilang mga organisasyon ng midya.
15. Kung walang Right of Reply Law at hindi inilabas ng pahayagan o programa ang tugon ng naagrabyadong tao o grupo, ano ang maaaring gawin?
Kung may reklamo o reaksyon ang isang tao o grupo sa inilabas na balita, maraming aksyong maaaring isagawa:
1. Maaaring maghain ng reklamo sa mga editor o publisher ng dyaryo, o sa producer, news manager o may-ari ng istasyon ng telebisyon at radio, o SMS news;
2. Kapag hindi inaksyunan ng kinauukulang partido, maaaring magreklamo sa press council kung mayroong itinatag sa inyong lugar;
3. Maaari ring magreklamo sa mga samahan ng mga mamamahayag o manggagawa sa midya, gaya ng National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, unyon ng mga manggagawa sa midya, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, at iba pa;
4. Maaari ring maghabla kung nagkaroon ng paglabag sa libel law (paninirang-puri, walang basehang puna), contempt law (kapag pinigilan o hinarangan ang mabilis na pagkuha ng hustisya ng isang tao o grupo na may kaso sa korte), sub judice (pagsuway sa patakarang naghihigpit sa pagtalakay sa balita ng kasong kasalukuyang dinidinig sa hukuman)
16. May Right of Reply Law ba sa ibang bansa?
Idineklara ng Korte Suprema ng Estados Unidos na labag sa Saligang Batas ang Right of Reply Law. Bagamat may ipinatutupad na katulad na batas sa ilang mga bansa sa Europa, saklaw lamang nito ang maling mga impormasyon at hindi ang mga opinyon o saloobin.
17. Ano ang kasalukuyang katayuan ng RORB sa Kongreso?
Mabilisan itong ipinasa sa Senado noong Hunyo 2008 at nasa pangalawang pagdinig na ito sa Kamara.
Sa parehong pagkakataon, hindi inimbitahan ang maraming malalaki at pangunahing samahan sa midya gaya ng Philippine Daily Inquirer, GMA 7, ABS-CBN, DZBB, Inquirer.net, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility at National Union of Journalists of the Philippines. Sa madaling salita, walang malawakan at komprehensibong konsultasyong isinagawa ang Senado at Kamara.
Kung ang malalaking organisasyon ng media ay hindi inimbitahan, lalong hindi kinonsulta ang mga pahayagang pang-komunidad, at mga provincial radio at TV station.
Nang ipamandila ng National Union of Journalists of the Philippines ang usapin sa RORB, iniurong ng maraming senador ang kanilang suporta para rito. Anim hanggang pitong senador na lamang ang naninindigan para isabatas ang RORB.
18. Ano ang ginawang aksyon ng malaking bahagi ng midya nang malamang may RORB na ipinoproseso sa Kongreso?
Agad na naglabas ng position paper ang National Union of Journalists of the Philippines matapos pag-aralan ang usapin.
Inikot ng mga lider ng NUJP ang maraming mga samahan ng midya upang kunin ang kanilang saloobin. Kasama sa mga binisita ng NUJP ang GMA 7, ABS-CBN, ABC 5, Manila Bulletin, Manila Times, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, Malaya, DZRH, DZBB, RMN, at Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Sa isang Roundtable Discussion at Unity Press Conference na ipinatawag ng NUJP noong Pebrero 10 at 24, nagkaisa ang lahat ng nakilahok na mga samahan na tutulan ang RORB.
Sa unang paghaharap ng midya at mga lider ng Kamara noong Marso 3, parehong nanindigan ang dalawang partido sa kani-kanilang posisyon.
Ayon sa mga mambabatas, sa pangunguna ni House Speaker Prospero Nograles, itutuloy nila ang pagtutulak na isabatas ang RORB. Binanggit din ng mga may-akda ng panukala na sina Puentevella at Bienvenido Abante, inamyendahan nila ang panukala. Marami raw silang tinanggal na probisyon gaya ng mabibigat na parusa. Ganito rin daw ang ginawa ni Senador Aquilino Pimentel Jr. na isa sa may-akda ng ipinasang RORB sa Senado.
19. Ngayong may mga pag-amyenda na sa mga probisyon, sinasang-ayunan na ba ng midya ang RORB?
Hindi. Nanindigan ang media na ang Right of Reply Bill ay paglabag sa Saligang Batas na nagtataguyod ng malayang pamamahayag. Ito ay pagdidikta sa mga balitang ilalabas ng midya.
Hindi dapat ikompromiso ang karapatan para sa malayang pamamahayag. Makakasira ito sa demokrasyang umiiral sa lipunan.
Tutol ang media sa anumang pag-amyenda sa RORB dahil nananatili pa rin itong panghihimasok sa karapatan sa malayang pamamahayag.
Hindi matatawaran o maidaraan sa negosasyon ang anumang batas na sisira o magpapahina sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag.
Dahil dito, hinihingi ng lahat ng mga kasapi ng midya na tuluyan nang ibasura ang Right of Reply Bill.
20. Ano ang maaring gawin upang mapigilan ang pagsasabatas ng RORB?
Ipaunawa sa taumbayan na bukod sa itinataguyod ng midya ang karapatan sa pagkapribado ng isang tao, marami nang umiiral na paraan upang maipahayag ng sinuman ang kanyang reaksyon o pagtutol sa anumang balita at hindi na kailangan kung gayon ang Right of Reply Law.
Ipaalam sa taumbayan na ang usapin sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag ay usapin din nila: kung susupilin ang malayang pamamahayag, hindi mailalabas ang maraming katotohonan sa nangyayari sa ating paligid at gagawing mangmang sa katotohanan ang maraming mamamayan;
Himukin ang mga mambabatas sa inyong lugar na tutulan ang pagsasabatas ng RORB;
Dumalo sa mga pagdinig, forum o pakikipag-usap tungkol sa RORB at ipahayag ang inyong posisyon;
I-text ang mga kakilala upang suportahan ang panawagan ng midya na na ibasura ang RORB;
Kausapin, sulatan, i-e-mail, i-friendster, i-facebook at i-text message ang inyong mambabatas at ipaalam ang inyong posisyon tungkol sa RORB;
Kung ikaw ay isang kasamahan sa media, pumirma sa petisyong kasalukuyang ipinakakalat sa buong bansa.
Para sa iba pang detalye, makipag-ugnayan sa National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, landline (02) 411-77-68, email: nujphil@gmail.com o bumisita sa www.nujp.org.
1. What is the Right of Reply Bill (RORB)?
The RORB is Senate Bill (SB) 2150 being proposed by Senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Ramon Revilla Jr, and Francis "Chiz" Escudero, as a substitute bill to SB 1178.
In the Lower House, it is House Bill (HB) 3306 which is the merged version of HBs 162 and1001 authored by Representative Juan Edgardo Angara and Monico Puentevella.
2. What is the subject of this bill?
In the original version, the bill provides for the right of individuals and groups to respond to news stories released by the media that referred to or criticized them.
The RORB mandates media organizations to publish or broadcast the reply of an individual, group, company, agency, or institution that was criticized, accused, or quoted in a news story, statement, or opinion in newspapers, television and radio stations, the Internet, and any other electronic device, such as cellphones.
3. What are considered sufficient bases for an individual or group to reply to a released news story?
Based on the original version of the RORB, criticism based on innuendo, suggestion, and rumor constitutes a sufficient basis for them to have their reply published.
The version of the Lower House includes as an obligation of the media the responsibility to correct any previous story should the court find an accused not guilty of the crime imputed against him/her.
4. What is prescribed to be the length of the reply?
The RORB mandates that the reply to be published or broadcast be of the same length as the previously published or broadcast story involving the individual or group. In the Senate version, libelous allegations in the reply may be removed.
This means that the bill allows the release of a reply or rejoinder in newspapers, TV and radio stations, the Internet, and cellphones (through SMS news), regardless of its relevance or substance.
This also means that it�s possible for news stories to contain mere views or reactions by any person who wants to comment on any story which he/she feels are referring to their person.
In both versions, the publication or broadcast of the reply are free of any charges or fees.
5. In which part of the newspaper, TV and radio programs, Internet, and SMS news should the reply be published or broadcast?
RORB mandates that the reply be published in the same space of the concerned publication, or aired over the same program on television, radio, the Internet, or any other electronic device, where the subject story first appeared.
For example, if a story appeared in the upper fold of the front page of a newspaper, the bill mandates that the reply be published in the same exact position.
If the subject story appeared on the first gap of the TV or radio news program, the bill mandates that the reply be aired over the same slot.
6. When should the reply be published or broadcast?
In the Senate version of the RORB, it is mandated that the reply be published within three days after the concerned media organization receives the reply.
In the version of the Lower House, the reply needs to be published or broadcast a day after the publication or broadcast of the subject story.
7. Should it be passed, what are the penalties for violations of the RORB?
Senate version:
1st offense - P10,000
2nd offense - P20,000
3rd offense - P30,000
4th and subsequent offenses - P50,000
House version:
1st offense � P10,000
2nd offense � P30,000
3rd offense - P50,000 and imprisonment for no more than 30 days
4th offense - P100,000 and imprisonment for no more than 30 days
For subsequent offenses - P200,000, imprisonment for no more than 30 days, and closure or suspension of the franchise of the publication or broadcast station for 30 days.
8. Are block-timers also subject to the proposed law?
Block-timers are independent news and public affairs producers who pay TV and radio stations for the broadcast of their programs (e.g., The Probe Team). The RORB mentions that block-timers are subject to the Code of Ethics or to self-regulation being implemented by the TV or radio station from which they purchase time slots.
9. Why should the RORB be opposed?
The RORB clearly preempts and undermines the right of publishers, editors, and producers to decide on which news stories they will feature. The RORB dictates what should and should not be published or broadcast by media organizations way before the latter can even decide on which issues are to be discussed.
This is undoubtedly a form of prior restraint. Prior restraint or any other form of legislation aimed at thwarting the freedom of the press is prohibited under the Constitution.
The bill, which prescribes the timeframe, length, and manner of publication or broadcast of replies, is a clear manifestation of an attempt to unduly impose upon media practice.
Also, the penalties prescribed in the RORB � such as imposition of fines, imprisonment, and closure and suspension of the franchise of the concerned media outlet � is an apparent breach of press freedom.
10. What does the sunset clause of the RORB state and why is it problematic?
The Senate version includes a sunset clause under section 10, or a period of effectivity should it be passed into law. The sunset clause states that law shall take effect for a period of seven years, unless the Congress extends its effectivity.
Therein lies one possible motive behind the bill: It must be remembered that the length of service of government officials are from three (local officials and district representatives) to six years (president, vice president, and senators).
The passage of the bill, which is currently being railroaded, also coincides with the 2010 elections, and with the term of the President, Vice President, and other government officials. Therefore, when passed into law, the bill will be very much open to abuse by a few high-ranking officials.
12. What are the other implications of the passage of the RORB?
It�s possible for news stories to contain mere replies by supposedly aggrieved parties which will result in reduced space for more important news stories and even for commercial advertisements. As such, it�s also possible for publications, TV and radio stations, and online news resources to incur losses and be compelled to cease operations.
The proposed law is also vulnerable to abuse by politicians and government officials for their own selfish interests.
13. What about the rights of people whose reputations have been marred by stories delving into their private life, profession, and person?
The rights of any person to an untainted reputation and to privacy are upheld by the Constitution. The media respect, support, and defend these rights.
If a person�s reputation, private life, and character have been the subject of accusations or criticism, it is that person�s right to be given the chance to defend himself/herself regardless of whether or not there exists a Right of Reply Law.
The media currently enacts its responsibility to the people to be fair and balanced in their reportage by getting all possible sides to an issue; it is certain and part of standard editorial procedures to get the side of a person or group involved in an issue.
14. Is there a guarantee that private people are given the right to defend themselves should they be the subject of a news story?
Journalists and media organizations have their own policies and a Code of Ethics which they are expected to adhere to. Also, other media organizations have their own and more specific policies and ethical codes which they implement.
15. If there is no Right of Reply Law and a publication or program fails or refuses to release the reply of an aggrieved person or group, what other recourses can be taken?
If a person or group has complaints against or reactions to a published or broadcast news story, there are a number of possible actions:
1. The complaint may be filed with the editor or publisher of the publication, or with the producer, news manager, or owner of the TV or radio station, or SMS news;
2. If the concerned media organization fails to act on the issue, the complaint may be filed with a press council if there exists one in your area;
3. Complaints may also be filed with organizations of journalists and media workers, like the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, a union of media workers, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, and other organizations;
4. A lawsuit can also be filed if there is a violation of the libel law (defamation, baseless accusation), contempt law (if speedy execution of justice is prevented or blocked by a person or group with a pending case in court), or sub judice (violation of the restriction on discussing in news stories the merits of a case currently pending in court)
16. Is there a Right of Reply Law in other countries?
The United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Right of Reply Law. And while similar laws exist in some countries in Europe, such laws cover only inaccuracy in information and not opinions or insights.
17. What is the current status of the RORB in Congress?
It was railroaded in the Senate on June 2008 and is currently on second reading in the Lower House.
In both instances, leading media organizations like the Philippine Daily Inquirer, GMA 7, ABS-CBN, DZBB, Inquirer.net, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines were not consulted. Community newspapers and provincial radio and TV stations were also not consulted. Simply put, there was no comprehensive consultation conducted by the Senate and the Lower House.
When the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines decried the RORB, a number of Senators withdrew their support for the bill. Only six to seven senators remain staunch in their call to enact the RORB.
18. What courses of action were taken by the majority of media organizations upon learning of the RORB?
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines immediately released a position paper after a thorough scrutiny of the issue.
NUJP leaders conferred with several media organizations to get their opinion about the bill. Some of the organizations that NUJP officials visited were GMA 7, ABS-CBN, ABC 5, Manila Bulletin, Manila Times, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, Malaya, DZRH, DZBB, RMN, and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
In a Roundtable Discussion and Unity Press Conference convened by the NUJP on February 10 and 24, all participating organizations agreed to express their unflinching opposition to the RORB.
In a first dialogue between the media and leaders of the Congress on March 3, the two parties remained steadfast in their position.
According to the legislators, led by House Speaker Prospero Nograles, they will persist in pushing for the approval of the RORB. Representatives Puentevella at Bienvenido Abante, primary authors of the bill, said they have amended the bill and removed some provisions, particularly those prescribing stiff penalties. Senador Aquilino Pimentel Jr., one of the authors of the RORB approved by the Senate, similarly proposed amendments to the RORB.
19. Now that there are amendments to the provisions, are media organizations withdrawing their opposition to the RORB?
No. The media reiterate that the Right of Reply Bill is a violation of the Constitution where the freedom of the press is enshrined. It translates to an undue imposition of what stories may or may not be published or aired.
The freedom of the press must not be compromised, as such is a fundamental threat to a democratic society such as ours.
The media are opposed to any amendments to the RORB as the bill still remains a material intervention to an unfettered journalistic practice.
Any law which seeks to impair or undermine press freedom should not be negotiated on and should be met with the fiercest resistance.
In light of this, all concerned media practitioners and organizations demand that the Right of Reply Bill be scrapped.
20. What should be done to block the passage of the RORB into law?
Make people understand that even while the media already uphold a person�s right to privacy, there are existing procedures and remedies for any one to be able to express his/her opinion on any news story and the Right of Reply law is hence unnecessary;
Make people appreciate the fact that issue of press freedom is also their issue; if press freedom were to be suppressed, much of what happens around us will be censored and the people will be left in the dark as to their country�s true state of affairs;
Encourage your district representatives to oppose the RORB;
Attend hearings, forums, and dialogues about RORB and express your position;
Text your friends to support the call of media practitioners to scrap the RORB;
Talk, write, and send a message via e-mail, Friendster, Facebook, and text to your district representatives and let them know your position about RORB;
If you are a media practitioner, sign the petition currently circulated across the nation.
For other details, please contact the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, landline (02) 411-77-68, email: nujphil@gmail.com or visit www.nujp.org.
TAGALOG BERSYON
1. Ano ang Right of Reply Bill (RORB)?
Ang RORB ay ang Senate Bill 2150 na ipinanukala nina Senador Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Ramon Revilla Jr, at Francis "Chiz" Escudero, bilang kahaliling panukalang batas sa SB 1178.
Sa Kamara, ito ang House Bill 3306 na mula naman sa pinagsamang House Bill 162 at 1001 nina Representative Juan Edgardo Angara at Monico Puentevella.
2. Tungkol saan ang panukalang batas na ito?
Sa orihinal na bersyon, binibigyan nito ng karapatan ang mga tao o grupo na sumagot sa balitang lumabas sa media na pinupuna, pinatatamaan o pinag-uusapan sila.
Inoobliga ng RORB ang mga organisasyon ng midya na ilabas ang sagot ng isang indibidwal, grupo, kumpanya, ahensya o institusyon na pinuna, inakusahan, o kinunan ng pahayag sa isang balita, pahayag, o opinyon sa dyaryo, telebisyon, radyo, Internet at anupamang elektronikong aparato, gaya ng cellphone.
3. Ano ang basehan ng isang tao o grupo para sumagot sa lumabas na balita?
Batay sa orihinal na bersyon ng RORB, sapat na basehan na ang pasaring (innuendo), tsismis, o puna sa balita para sila ay magpadala ng tugon.
Sa bersyon ng Kamara, isinasama ang obligasyon ng midya na iwasto ang anumang naunang balita sakaling ihayag ng korte na walang sala ang isang akusado sa isang krimen.
4. Gaano kahaba ang maaaring ipadalang tugon?
Ipinag-uutos sa RORB na ang ilalabas na tugon ay may kaparehong haba sa naunang nailathala o naibalita. Sa bersyon ng Senado, tatanggalin ang parte ng tugon na malisyoso o libelous.
Ibig sabihin, pinapayagan ng batas na ilabas sa dyaryo, Internet, telebisyon, radyo o cellphone (sa pamamagitan ng SMS news) ang isang tugon o rejoinder, may katuturan man ito o wala.
Nangangahulugan itong posibleng ang lamanin ng balita ay pawang mga tugon o sagot lamang ng sinumang taong nais magbigay ng pahayag sa anumang balita o lathalaing sa hinala nila�y pinatutungkulan sila.
Sa parehong bersyon, walang bayad ang paglalabas ng tugon.
5. Saang bahagi ng dyaryo, telebisyon, radyo, Internet, at sms news sa cellphone maaaring ilabas ang sagot?
Kung saang bahagi unang inilabas ang balita o lathalaing sinasagot, ipinag-uutos sa RORB na doon din ilalagay ang tugon.
Halimbawa, kung lumabas ang lathalain sa itaas na bahagi ng unang pahina ng isang dyayo, ipinag-uutos na doon din ilabas ang tugon.
Kung sa unang pasok ng mga balita sa telebisyon o radio lumabas ang inirereklamong balita, ipinag-uutos na doon din isahimpapawid ang tugon.
6. Kailan dapat ilabas ang tugon?
Sa bersyon ng Senado ng RORB, ipinag-uutos na ilabas ang tugon sa loob ng tatlong araw matapos matanggap ang tugon ng kinauukulang organisasyon ng midya.
Sa bersyon naman ng Kamara, kailangang ilabas ang tugon sa loob ng isang araw matapos ang pagpapalabas o paglalathala ng sinasagot na balita.
7. Ano ang parusa sa mga lalabag sa RORB kapag naisabatas na ito?
Sa bersyon ng Senado:
1st offense - P10,000
2nd offense - P20,000
3rd offense - P30,000
Para sa kasunod na mga paglabag - P50,000
Sa bersyon ng Kamara:
1st offense � P10,000
2nd offense � P30,000
3rd offense - P50,000 at pagkakakulong nang hindi hihigit sa 30 araw
4th offense - P100,000 at pagkakakulong nang hindi hihigit sa 30 araw
Para sa kasunod na mga paglabag - P200,000, pagkakakulong nang hindi hihigit sa 30 araw at pagpapasara at pagsuspindi ng prangkisa nang 30 araw.
8. Sakop din ba ng panukalang batas ang mga block-timer?
Ang tinatawag na mga block-timer ay ang independiyenteng mga news and public affairs producer na nagbabayad ng renta kada oras sa isang istasyon ng telebisyon o radyo para mailabas ang kanilang programa (halimbawa, The Probe Team). Binabanggit ng RORB na saklaw ang mga block-timer ng Code of Ethics o ng self-regulation na ipinatutupad ng istasyon ng telebisyon o radyo kung saan sila nagbabayad ng upa sa pagpapalabas ng kanilang programa.
9. Bakit dapat tutulan ang pagsasabatas ng RORB?
Malinaw na pinangungunahan ng RORB ang mga publisher, editor, o producer sa mga balita o lathalaing ilalabas nila. Bago pa man makapagpasya ang mga organisasyon ng midya sa kung ano ang kanilang ibabalita, idinidikta na ng RORB ang mga balita o usaping dapat at hindi dapat ihayag.
Ang tawag dito ay prior restraint. Ang prior restraint o anupamang uri ng batas na susupil sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag ay ipinagbabawal ng Konstitusyon.
Ang pagtatakda ng batas ng oras, haba, at paglalapat ng ilalabas na tugon ay isang malinaw na anyo ng pagdidikta sa mga editor o producer ng balita.
Ang parusang krimen sa paglabag sa RORB kapag naisabatas ito - gaya ng pagbabayad ng mga multa, pagkakakulong, at pagsususpindi ng prangkisa at pagpapasara ng media outlet - ay malinaw ding paglabag sa malayang pamamahayag.
10. Ano ang sinasabi ng sunset clause sa RORB at bakit ito problematiko?
Sa bersyon ng Senado, may tinatawag na sunset clause o tagal ng pagpapatupad ng batas, na nakapaloob sa seksyon 10. Nakasaad dito na magkakaroon lamang ng bisa ang RORB sa loob ng pitong taon, maliban kung muli itong ipatupad ng Kongreso.
Mahihinuha mula rito ang isang posibleng motibo sa likod ng RORB: Matatandaang ang termino ng mga opisyal ng gobyerno ay mula tatlo (lokal na mga opisyal, mambabatas) hanggang anim na taon (mga senador, pangulo at pangalawang pangulo).
Kasabay ng minamadaling pagpapatupad ng batas ang halalan sa 2010, at maging ang panahon ng panunungkulan ng Pangulo at Pangalawang Pangulo, at ng iba pang opisyal ng pamahalaan. Bukas, kung gayon, ang batas sa pang-aabuso ng iilang makapangyarihan.
12. Ano ang iba pang implikasyon ng pagsasabatas ng RORB?
Posibleng puro tugon na lamang ang lamanin ng mga balita, na magbubunsod ng mas kaunting espasyo para sa mas mahahalagang balita at maging para sa mga patalastas. Dahil dito, posibleng malugi at mapilitang magsara ang mga dyaryo, istasyon ng telebisyon at radyo, at online na mga mapagkukunan ng balita.
Posibleng ring gamitin at abusuhin ng mga kandidato, pulitiko at iba pang opisyal ng pamahalaan ang RORB para sa kanilang pansariling interes.
13. Paano naman ang karapatan ng mga taong nasira ang reputasyon dahil sa pakikialam sa kanilang pribadong buhay, trabaho o pagkatao?
Ang karapatan ng sinumang tao sa malinis na reputasyon at pribadong pamumuhay ay itinataguyod ng Konstitusyon. Iginagalang, sinusuportahan at ipinagtatanggol ng midya ang mga karapatang ito.
Kung kinuwestyon ang reputasyon o pribadong buhay at pagkatao ng isang tao, karapatan ng apektado na magkaroon ng pagkakataong ipagtanggol ang sarili may Right of Reply Law mang umiiral o wala.
Kasalukuyan nang ginagampanan ng midya ang responsibilidad nito sa mamamayang maging patas at balanse sa pagbabalita sa pamamagitan ng pagkuha ng iba�t ibang panig sa isang isyu; awtomatiko at karaniwan nang patakarang editoryal ang ilabas ang panig ng apektadong tao o grupo.
14. May garantiya bang nabibigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga pribadong tao na maipagtanggol ang kanilang sarili at linisin ang kanilang reputasyon sakaling maging paksa sila ng anumang balita?
May sariling mga panuntunan at Code of Ethics na sinusunod ang mga mamamahayag. Gayundin, may sarili at mas detalyadong mga panuntunan at code of ethics ang ilang mga organisasyon ng midya.
15. Kung walang Right of Reply Law at hindi inilabas ng pahayagan o programa ang tugon ng naagrabyadong tao o grupo, ano ang maaaring gawin?
Kung may reklamo o reaksyon ang isang tao o grupo sa inilabas na balita, maraming aksyong maaaring isagawa:
1. Maaaring maghain ng reklamo sa mga editor o publisher ng dyaryo, o sa producer, news manager o may-ari ng istasyon ng telebisyon at radio, o SMS news;
2. Kapag hindi inaksyunan ng kinauukulang partido, maaaring magreklamo sa press council kung mayroong itinatag sa inyong lugar;
3. Maaari ring magreklamo sa mga samahan ng mga mamamahayag o manggagawa sa midya, gaya ng National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, unyon ng mga manggagawa sa midya, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, at iba pa;
4. Maaari ring maghabla kung nagkaroon ng paglabag sa libel law (paninirang-puri, walang basehang puna), contempt law (kapag pinigilan o hinarangan ang mabilis na pagkuha ng hustisya ng isang tao o grupo na may kaso sa korte), sub judice (pagsuway sa patakarang naghihigpit sa pagtalakay sa balita ng kasong kasalukuyang dinidinig sa hukuman)
16. May Right of Reply Law ba sa ibang bansa?
Idineklara ng Korte Suprema ng Estados Unidos na labag sa Saligang Batas ang Right of Reply Law. Bagamat may ipinatutupad na katulad na batas sa ilang mga bansa sa Europa, saklaw lamang nito ang maling mga impormasyon at hindi ang mga opinyon o saloobin.
17. Ano ang kasalukuyang katayuan ng RORB sa Kongreso?
Mabilisan itong ipinasa sa Senado noong Hunyo 2008 at nasa pangalawang pagdinig na ito sa Kamara.
Sa parehong pagkakataon, hindi inimbitahan ang maraming malalaki at pangunahing samahan sa midya gaya ng Philippine Daily Inquirer, GMA 7, ABS-CBN, DZBB, Inquirer.net, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility at National Union of Journalists of the Philippines. Sa madaling salita, walang malawakan at komprehensibong konsultasyong isinagawa ang Senado at Kamara.
Kung ang malalaking organisasyon ng media ay hindi inimbitahan, lalong hindi kinonsulta ang mga pahayagang pang-komunidad, at mga provincial radio at TV station.
Nang ipamandila ng National Union of Journalists of the Philippines ang usapin sa RORB, iniurong ng maraming senador ang kanilang suporta para rito. Anim hanggang pitong senador na lamang ang naninindigan para isabatas ang RORB.
18. Ano ang ginawang aksyon ng malaking bahagi ng midya nang malamang may RORB na ipinoproseso sa Kongreso?
Agad na naglabas ng position paper ang National Union of Journalists of the Philippines matapos pag-aralan ang usapin.
Inikot ng mga lider ng NUJP ang maraming mga samahan ng midya upang kunin ang kanilang saloobin. Kasama sa mga binisita ng NUJP ang GMA 7, ABS-CBN, ABC 5, Manila Bulletin, Manila Times, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star, Malaya, DZRH, DZBB, RMN, at Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Sa isang Roundtable Discussion at Unity Press Conference na ipinatawag ng NUJP noong Pebrero 10 at 24, nagkaisa ang lahat ng nakilahok na mga samahan na tutulan ang RORB.
Sa unang paghaharap ng midya at mga lider ng Kamara noong Marso 3, parehong nanindigan ang dalawang partido sa kani-kanilang posisyon.
Ayon sa mga mambabatas, sa pangunguna ni House Speaker Prospero Nograles, itutuloy nila ang pagtutulak na isabatas ang RORB. Binanggit din ng mga may-akda ng panukala na sina Puentevella at Bienvenido Abante, inamyendahan nila ang panukala. Marami raw silang tinanggal na probisyon gaya ng mabibigat na parusa. Ganito rin daw ang ginawa ni Senador Aquilino Pimentel Jr. na isa sa may-akda ng ipinasang RORB sa Senado.
19. Ngayong may mga pag-amyenda na sa mga probisyon, sinasang-ayunan na ba ng midya ang RORB?
Hindi. Nanindigan ang media na ang Right of Reply Bill ay paglabag sa Saligang Batas na nagtataguyod ng malayang pamamahayag. Ito ay pagdidikta sa mga balitang ilalabas ng midya.
Hindi dapat ikompromiso ang karapatan para sa malayang pamamahayag. Makakasira ito sa demokrasyang umiiral sa lipunan.
Tutol ang media sa anumang pag-amyenda sa RORB dahil nananatili pa rin itong panghihimasok sa karapatan sa malayang pamamahayag.
Hindi matatawaran o maidaraan sa negosasyon ang anumang batas na sisira o magpapahina sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag.
Dahil dito, hinihingi ng lahat ng mga kasapi ng midya na tuluyan nang ibasura ang Right of Reply Bill.
20. Ano ang maaring gawin upang mapigilan ang pagsasabatas ng RORB?
Ipaunawa sa taumbayan na bukod sa itinataguyod ng midya ang karapatan sa pagkapribado ng isang tao, marami nang umiiral na paraan upang maipahayag ng sinuman ang kanyang reaksyon o pagtutol sa anumang balita at hindi na kailangan kung gayon ang Right of Reply Law.
Ipaalam sa taumbayan na ang usapin sa kalayaan sa pamamahayag ay usapin din nila: kung susupilin ang malayang pamamahayag, hindi mailalabas ang maraming katotohonan sa nangyayari sa ating paligid at gagawing mangmang sa katotohanan ang maraming mamamayan;
Himukin ang mga mambabatas sa inyong lugar na tutulan ang pagsasabatas ng RORB;
Dumalo sa mga pagdinig, forum o pakikipag-usap tungkol sa RORB at ipahayag ang inyong posisyon;
I-text ang mga kakilala upang suportahan ang panawagan ng midya na na ibasura ang RORB;
Kausapin, sulatan, i-e-mail, i-friendster, i-facebook at i-text message ang inyong mambabatas at ipaalam ang inyong posisyon tungkol sa RORB;
Kung ikaw ay isang kasamahan sa media, pumirma sa petisyong kasalukuyang ipinakakalat sa buong bansa.
Para sa iba pang detalye, makipag-ugnayan sa National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, landline (02) 411-77-68, email: nujphil@gmail.com o bumisita sa www.nujp.org.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Another broadcaster is shot in southern Philippines
Broadcaster Nilo Labares, of Radio Mindanao Network, at a hospital in Cagayan de Oro City in Misamis Oriental province after unidentified gunmen shot him late Thursday, March 5, 2009 while he was heading for home. (Photo by Dante Sudaria)CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / Mar. 6, 2009) – Unidentified gunmen shot and wounded a broadcaster in latest attack on journalists in the southern Philippines.
Motorcycle-riding gunmen shot Nilo Labares several times in the body late Thursday as he was heading for home in Cagayan de Oro City in Misamis Oriental province. Labares is a broadcaster for the Radio Mindanao Network.
Cagayan de Oro Vice Mayor Vicente Emano has ordered the police to take steps to deter further possible attacks on local journalists and given a shoot-to-kill order against the assailants.
“My policy is for them to shoot the suspects if they resist. No more allowing them to flee. Besides, this may start a killing spree against the media,” Emano told RMN’s dzXL radio.
No group or individual claimed responsibility for the attack, but police suspect it has something to do with Labares criticism of illegal gambling.
Cagayan de Oro journalists say Labares informed his colleagues at RMN that he had been receiving threats before the attack and, at one point, was approached by an emissary of a "powerful" personality who warned him to stop his tirades against “video carera” and even asked how much it would take him to do so.
RMN said Labares has been declared out of danger.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) has condemned the attack on Labares.
“Again, while we reiterate that we see no proof of any official policy of directly attacking journalists, we nevertheless lay the blame for this and previous assaults on our colleagues, too many of who have been silenced permanently, on the government, whose inaction and apathy, as well as its actual attempts to muzzle the media and curtail freedom of the press and expression, have nurtured the culture of impunity that emboldens those who wish to silence us,” the NUJP said in a statement.
President Gloria Arroyo's spokesman, Cerge Remonde, condemned the shooting and ordered the police to leave no stone unturned to ensure justice is done.Just last month, unidentified gunmen also killed broadcaster Ernie Rollin, of dxSY in Oroquieta City in Misamis Occidental province.
Political killings have long been a concern in the Philippines, where about 60 journalists have been slain since 2001, including six last year, making the country one of the world's most dangerous places for reporters.
Government prosecutors earlier this year filed murder charges against a police officer in the August 2008 killing of Dennis Cuesta, program director of Radio Mindanao Network in General Santos City. (Mindanao Examiner)
Friday, February 27, 2009
Moro Youth, Campus Journalist Leagues Slam Statutory Right of Reply Bill
COTABATO CITY, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / Feb. 27, 2009) - Moro youth and student writer groups in Cotabato City in Mindanao have strongly criticized Friday the passage of Right of Reply bill in Congress.
The Liga ng Kabataang Moro and College Editors Guild of the Philippines- Cotabato City chapter made their standpoint after the Senate, by a vote of 21-0, approved the passage of the bill.
The CEGP chapter here expressed their disappointment – believing the said bill would only devastate the essence of freedom of expression in any form - articles or interviews, speech or debate in TV or radio programs.
The Right of Reply Bill would mandate media companies to provide equal space or airtime to anyone who is subject of their critical reports to reply or react as form of the latter’s freedom of expression, thus, the right to reply; be it in television, radio or publications.
The guild believes the bill, which requires or mandates publications like magazines, tabloids, broadsheets and news letter to publish replies in the same space; either front page or inside story, encroaches on the right of the editorial board to determine the content of publications according to the relevance of the issues.
"This will hamper both campus press and the mainstream media in determining what to air or publish. The bill would restrict the media from tackling sensitive issues and prevents the publication of valid criticisms against public figures, organization, company, etc. Even commercialized media would keep away from sensitive subjects knowing they will be obliged later on to provide equal space or air-time to the reply of the respondent. This will completely annihilate freedom of expression, it’s ultra-democracy", Michelle Tirol, CEGP chapter’s spokesperson, said in a statement sent to the Mindanao Examiner.
According to Liga ng Kabataang Moro (LKM) spokesperson Marbawi Edza, the bill will deflate the right of editors and publishers to determine the content of the publications. The group is also apprehensive about its negative implications to the web postings, writings and publications of political views and standpoints and statements of Moro people.
"We respect and advocate freedom of expression in all levels and so the right to reply but the statutory right to reply is another thing. We and the campus press stand with the journalists and publishers in appealing to Congress for the withdrawal of the said bill." Edza concluded.
Various media groups have also opposed the mandatory, legislated, compulsory, court-enforceable Right of Reply on the ground that prior compulsion violates a publication's editorial independence and is thus unconstitutional. Instead it supports a Voluntary Right of Reply through Press Council.
The Liga ng Kabataang Moro and College Editors Guild of the Philippines- Cotabato City chapter made their standpoint after the Senate, by a vote of 21-0, approved the passage of the bill.
The CEGP chapter here expressed their disappointment – believing the said bill would only devastate the essence of freedom of expression in any form - articles or interviews, speech or debate in TV or radio programs.
The Right of Reply Bill would mandate media companies to provide equal space or airtime to anyone who is subject of their critical reports to reply or react as form of the latter’s freedom of expression, thus, the right to reply; be it in television, radio or publications.
The guild believes the bill, which requires or mandates publications like magazines, tabloids, broadsheets and news letter to publish replies in the same space; either front page or inside story, encroaches on the right of the editorial board to determine the content of publications according to the relevance of the issues.
"This will hamper both campus press and the mainstream media in determining what to air or publish. The bill would restrict the media from tackling sensitive issues and prevents the publication of valid criticisms against public figures, organization, company, etc. Even commercialized media would keep away from sensitive subjects knowing they will be obliged later on to provide equal space or air-time to the reply of the respondent. This will completely annihilate freedom of expression, it’s ultra-democracy", Michelle Tirol, CEGP chapter’s spokesperson, said in a statement sent to the Mindanao Examiner.
According to Liga ng Kabataang Moro (LKM) spokesperson Marbawi Edza, the bill will deflate the right of editors and publishers to determine the content of the publications. The group is also apprehensive about its negative implications to the web postings, writings and publications of political views and standpoints and statements of Moro people.
"We respect and advocate freedom of expression in all levels and so the right to reply but the statutory right to reply is another thing. We and the campus press stand with the journalists and publishers in appealing to Congress for the withdrawal of the said bill." Edza concluded.
Various media groups have also opposed the mandatory, legislated, compulsory, court-enforceable Right of Reply on the ground that prior compulsion violates a publication's editorial independence and is thus unconstitutional. Instead it supports a Voluntary Right of Reply through Press Council.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Campaign against bill making right of reply obligatory
MANILA, Philippines - Reporters Without Borders supports Philippine journalists who are campaigning against a bill that would force news media to publish or broadcast the response of anyone claiming to have been unfairly criticized in that media.
The press freedom organization believes the right of reply should be respected but not imposed by force, and urges parliamentarians to throw out the bill.
The House of Representatives is due to vote soon on the Right of Reply Bill (RORB), which would impose heavy fines and censorship on news media that fail to comply, or even jail terms on the staff responsible.
The bill was described as an “act of terrorism against the media” by journalists’ organizations when they gathered yesterday to press their demand for its withdrawal.
The bill says anyone “accused of a crime or criticized for any lapse in behavior” shall be given the right to reply in the media that printed or broadcast the accusation.
A lawyer said the bill would violate a constitutional ban on laws that restrict free speech, freedom of expression and press freedom. As the country’s press councils already allow people to claim the right of reply, the proposed law is seen as way to pressure the media.
Editors and media executives fear candidates in next year’s elections will use it to harass journalists.
More than 130 journalists and media executives have already signed a petition against the bill.
The press freedom organization believes the right of reply should be respected but not imposed by force, and urges parliamentarians to throw out the bill.
The House of Representatives is due to vote soon on the Right of Reply Bill (RORB), which would impose heavy fines and censorship on news media that fail to comply, or even jail terms on the staff responsible.
The bill was described as an “act of terrorism against the media” by journalists’ organizations when they gathered yesterday to press their demand for its withdrawal.
The bill says anyone “accused of a crime or criticized for any lapse in behavior” shall be given the right to reply in the media that printed or broadcast the accusation.
A lawyer said the bill would violate a constitutional ban on laws that restrict free speech, freedom of expression and press freedom. As the country’s press councils already allow people to claim the right of reply, the proposed law is seen as way to pressure the media.
Editors and media executives fear candidates in next year’s elections will use it to harass journalists.
More than 130 journalists and media executives have already signed a petition against the bill.
Monday, February 09, 2009
EDITORIAL: When Press Freedom Is Under Threat
We have been noticing suspicious persons near our office in Zamboanga City. Suspicious in a way, that these men - some on motorcycles, others in vans - are watching our movement. We sense danger. Others who noticed these men say they speak in Tausug, a dialect widely used in the province of Sulu. Our staffs are being followed by these men and we have reasons to believe that our safety is under threat.
Last December 28, somebody fired a shot at our editorial office. The bullet pierced the Mindanao Examiner signboard, left a hole on our shutter door and the thick glass stopped the slug. Daytime security guards say the shot was probably fired after midnight or else the one on duty should have at least seen the attacker. The security agency reported the matter to the building owner and to the police the next day, December 29.
Welcoming the Year of the Ox in 2009 is really not something to be happy about, especially when persons with ill motives are tailing us. The year 2008 was also not good for us. Our editor Al Jacinto was tagged persona non grata by the City Council of Zamboanga over news articles about the so-called Bangsamoro Juridical Entity that politicians did not like.
In Zamboanga, journalists have become an easy target for hired killers. With five journalists murdered in Zamboanga over the years, the threat to press freedom continues.
We don't know why our staffs are being targeted, but we believe that all these have something to do with the series of news stories we have been writing about politicians in Sulu. We have been receiving text messages from unknown people criticizing good politicians that we write about.
Who would dare to do all these things and dispatched armed men to intimidate us or perhaps hunt us down? We counted at least a dozen different Tausug-speaking men, in jackets, sunglasses, helmets, caps and guns tucked on their waist - in different motorbikes, in vans and they seemed so desperate to find us.
It's too bad that they cannot accept what we write or report about and that's the truth – the hatred in their hearts has already poisoned their mind.
We have prepared a short list of names of people, who, we believed should be held accountable in case anything happen to us. We have spoken to several people in authorities and told them the grim scenario. This is part of being in the media and the hazards of the job are just one thing journalists should always be prepared about.
Press freedom is all about democracy. It is all about the freedom to write the truth, to tell the truth and to speak the truth. We just hope that all these shall come to pass and the light of truth continues to shine. (The Mindanao Examiner)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Media Organizations Assail Rough Eviction Of Journalists From Dinagyang Festival
Joe Haresh Tanodra being dragged away by policemen. (Press Photographer of the Philippines / Arnold Almacen)
MANILA, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / Jan. 27, 2009) – Media groups have denounced how two photojournalists were forcibly ejected by policemen from covering the celebration of the Dinagyang Festival in Iloilo City in central Philippines.
The two photographers – Joe Jaresh Tanodra and Ricky Alejo – were physically removed from an area near the Iloilo Freedom Grandstand where journalists were covering the festival. The incident over the weekend was witnessed by hundreds of spectators and shown on television news.
The Press Photographers of the Philippines (PPP) in Iloilo has condemned the actions by the policemen and accused them; including a former police officer Dionisio Duco, the chief security of Mayor Jerry Treñas, for their brutality.
“The Press Photographers of the Philippines Iloilo Chapter condemns in the strongest term possible the callousness and insensitivity of retired Police Chief Inspector Dionisio Duco, chief security of the Iloilo City Mayor’s Office, and several policemen in physically removing internationally acclaimed photojournalist, Joe Haresh Tanodra, also president of PPP Aklan-Boracay chapter, and Ricky Alejo, of Pinoy Paparazzi from the Iloilo Freedom Grandstand while covering the festivities,” it said in a statement.
Duco‘s group reportedly evicted the two photographers after they failed to secure the proper accreditation card.
Witnesses said Tanodra was forcibly dragged out of the area in front of hundreds of shocked spectators and photojournalists. Different media groups have denounced how policemen manhandled Tanodra and demanded an apology from local officials and the authorities over the incident.
“Even if Mr. Tanodra and Mr. Alejo had failed to secure accreditation from the festival organizers to cover events at the Iloilo Freedom Grandstand, this does not justify the harsh treatment they suffered from the hands of Duco and his men, an act that befits only criminals and those who are threats to national security.”
“The physical removal of Mr. Tanodra from Iloilo Freedom Grandstand is a blatant display of contempt and disrespect to the Fourth Estate which has been an indispensable partner of the Iloilo Dinagyang Foundation and the Iloilo City Government in promoting Dinagyang and other tourism events in this part of the Philippines,” said Chris Fernandez, president of the PPP in Iloilo City.
Fernandez said the incident sends a wrong signal that the press can be bullied by anyone in power.
“This sends a wrong signal that the press can be bullied by anyone with power and authority from top guns to the lowly chief security officer like the brute Mr. Duco, that they can be hogtied and thrown out like pigs, or worse, can be slaughtered like the scores of journalists killed in the Philippines since the restoration of democracy in 1986,” he said.
The Dinagyang is a religious and cultural festival held on the fourth Sunday of January, or right after the Sinulog Festival In Cebu province and the Ati-Atihan in Aklan. It is held both to honor the Santo Nino and to celebrate the arrival Malay settlers in Panay and the subsequent selling of the island to them by the natives.
“Dinagyang may be the best tourism event in the Philippines, but if the likes of Mr. Duco are allowed to spoil the spirit of the festivities, then festival organizers – the Iloilo Dinagyang Foundation and the Iloilo City Government – there is really nothing to be proud about it.”
“We therefore call on Mayor Jerry Treñas and Chief Supt. Isagani Cuevas (the regional police chief) to mete necessary disciplinary actions on Mr. Duco and the policemen involved in this unfortunate incident, without prejudice to our right to file appropriate legal actions not only on the harm that Mr. Tanodra has suffered but also on the damages incurred on his camera,” Fernandez said.
Remy Pampolina, of the PPP in Manila, said different media groups also denounced the incident. “This is not good, we are condemning this incident,” he told the Mindanao Examiner. (Mindanao Examiner)
The two photographers – Joe Jaresh Tanodra and Ricky Alejo – were physically removed from an area near the Iloilo Freedom Grandstand where journalists were covering the festival. The incident over the weekend was witnessed by hundreds of spectators and shown on television news.
The Press Photographers of the Philippines (PPP) in Iloilo has condemned the actions by the policemen and accused them; including a former police officer Dionisio Duco, the chief security of Mayor Jerry Treñas, for their brutality.
“The Press Photographers of the Philippines Iloilo Chapter condemns in the strongest term possible the callousness and insensitivity of retired Police Chief Inspector Dionisio Duco, chief security of the Iloilo City Mayor’s Office, and several policemen in physically removing internationally acclaimed photojournalist, Joe Haresh Tanodra, also president of PPP Aklan-Boracay chapter, and Ricky Alejo, of Pinoy Paparazzi from the Iloilo Freedom Grandstand while covering the festivities,” it said in a statement.
Duco‘s group reportedly evicted the two photographers after they failed to secure the proper accreditation card.
Witnesses said Tanodra was forcibly dragged out of the area in front of hundreds of shocked spectators and photojournalists. Different media groups have denounced how policemen manhandled Tanodra and demanded an apology from local officials and the authorities over the incident.
“Even if Mr. Tanodra and Mr. Alejo had failed to secure accreditation from the festival organizers to cover events at the Iloilo Freedom Grandstand, this does not justify the harsh treatment they suffered from the hands of Duco and his men, an act that befits only criminals and those who are threats to national security.”
“The physical removal of Mr. Tanodra from Iloilo Freedom Grandstand is a blatant display of contempt and disrespect to the Fourth Estate which has been an indispensable partner of the Iloilo Dinagyang Foundation and the Iloilo City Government in promoting Dinagyang and other tourism events in this part of the Philippines,” said Chris Fernandez, president of the PPP in Iloilo City.
Fernandez said the incident sends a wrong signal that the press can be bullied by anyone in power.
“This sends a wrong signal that the press can be bullied by anyone with power and authority from top guns to the lowly chief security officer like the brute Mr. Duco, that they can be hogtied and thrown out like pigs, or worse, can be slaughtered like the scores of journalists killed in the Philippines since the restoration of democracy in 1986,” he said.
The Dinagyang is a religious and cultural festival held on the fourth Sunday of January, or right after the Sinulog Festival In Cebu province and the Ati-Atihan in Aklan. It is held both to honor the Santo Nino and to celebrate the arrival Malay settlers in Panay and the subsequent selling of the island to them by the natives.
“Dinagyang may be the best tourism event in the Philippines, but if the likes of Mr. Duco are allowed to spoil the spirit of the festivities, then festival organizers – the Iloilo Dinagyang Foundation and the Iloilo City Government – there is really nothing to be proud about it.”
“We therefore call on Mayor Jerry Treñas and Chief Supt. Isagani Cuevas (the regional police chief) to mete necessary disciplinary actions on Mr. Duco and the policemen involved in this unfortunate incident, without prejudice to our right to file appropriate legal actions not only on the harm that Mr. Tanodra has suffered but also on the damages incurred on his camera,” Fernandez said.
Remy Pampolina, of the PPP in Manila, said different media groups also denounced the incident. “This is not good, we are condemning this incident,” he told the Mindanao Examiner. (Mindanao Examiner)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Press club sounds alarm over media attacks, killings in 2008
MANILA, Philippines - The National Press Club said that 2008 has been a tragic year for press freedom in the Philippines with seven Filipino journalists killed and many others receiving death threats, according to the Manila Times.
“The Philippine media continued to be under siege this year. We note with sadness that despite the government’s repeated declaration to address the cases of media killings, its [government’s] best is not enough,” press club President Benny Antiporda said in a statement.
He said the press club is demanding for a resolution of all cases of media killings and the prosecution and incarceration of the perpetrators and masterminds of the attacks on media.
“We call on the government, especially the Philippine National Police and the Department of Justice, to do more than make public statements and reports. We appreciate their efforts to do their job, but we believe they can do more,” Antiporda said.
Compared to the previous year, with five journalists reported killed, the number of attacks against media practitioners this year has increased, making the Philippines the fifth most dangerous country for journalists, according to the Press Emblem Campaign, an international movement for press freedom and protection for journalists.
The press club, nonetheless, lauded the initiatives of individuals and various media organizations—Alyansa ng Filipinong Mamamahayag, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas, Philippine Press Institute, Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists and Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility—for their relentless fight to defend press freedom in the country.
Antiporda also called on Congress to immediately decriminalize libel and stop all proposed measures that would undermine the constitutionally mandated freedom of expression and the people’s right to know.
“The Philippine media continued to be under siege this year. We note with sadness that despite the government’s repeated declaration to address the cases of media killings, its [government’s] best is not enough,” press club President Benny Antiporda said in a statement.
He said the press club is demanding for a resolution of all cases of media killings and the prosecution and incarceration of the perpetrators and masterminds of the attacks on media.
“We call on the government, especially the Philippine National Police and the Department of Justice, to do more than make public statements and reports. We appreciate their efforts to do their job, but we believe they can do more,” Antiporda said.
Compared to the previous year, with five journalists reported killed, the number of attacks against media practitioners this year has increased, making the Philippines the fifth most dangerous country for journalists, according to the Press Emblem Campaign, an international movement for press freedom and protection for journalists.
The press club, nonetheless, lauded the initiatives of individuals and various media organizations—Alyansa ng Filipinong Mamamahayag, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas, Philippine Press Institute, Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists and Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility—for their relentless fight to defend press freedom in the country.
Antiporda also called on Congress to immediately decriminalize libel and stop all proposed measures that would undermine the constitutionally mandated freedom of expression and the people’s right to know.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Photo: Mindanao Examiner Office Is Shot At In Southern Philippines
A private security guard from the Continental Security Agency shows a caliber .40 slug recovered Monday, December 29, 2008 from the office of the independent newspaper the Mindanao Examiner in Zamboanga City in the southern Philippines. The bullet was believed fired from across the office late Sunday and pierced through the signboard before hitting the steel roll shutter. The agency is still investigating whether the Mindanao Examiner, which is located at the 3rd floor of the MP Towers Building is the target of the attack. (Mindanao Examiner Photo)
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Report Abuses And Threats Against Journalists
National Union Of Journalists Of The Philippines - Zamboanga, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi Chapter. Report Abuses And Threats Against Journalists +63918 9248086.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Philippine Media Watchdog Condemns Verbal Abuse On Reporter
Santos Cortez 29 year old field reporter of RMN Zamboanga was verbally harassed at the office of Traffic Management Group.
Cortez told the NUJP he was covering the TMG office located at Camp Batalla, RT Lim Boulevard around 4pm on November 24, 2008.
"I was not bringing any particular issue for interview, since I was informed there's a new chief of the TMG Western Mindanao, I feel its proper to determine from the said office their latest concerns and campaigns," Cortez said.
When he was in the said office, the secretary advised him to wait for approval from the new chief.
Cortez waited for more than 30 minutes and when he noted the secretary is leaving the office, "I asked her if it's okay to interview now the chief."
Cortez was informed by the secretary that their chief is not ready to face the media "because he was not feeling well."
Since the deputy chief Supt. Daniel Mayoni is around, "so I decided to interview him and at first he hesitated but later gave me some details like number of car-napped vehicles and he was conscious that I was using my MP3 for recording."
As Mayoni is giving more details, "I lightly pushed the MP3 nearer to him so I could catch his voice clearly and that's where he got mad."
Mayoni suddenly raised his voice in the presence of three other persons inside the room saying, "patayin mo yan, patayin mo yan, gago ka pala dinadaya mo ako."
Cortez shocked with Mayoni's reaction took back the MP3 but Mayoni was snatched the gadget and slammed it on the table.
"I was really embarrassed and afraid of his actuations, it was my first time to encounter such behavior from a police colonel," Cortez said where he tried to cool down the atmosphere by talking it out with Mayoni what's wrong in recording the interview.
The NUJP Zambasulta Chapter tried to reach Mayoni to get his side but he didn't return the message.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines Zambasulta Chapter is condemning Mayoni's act as verbal abuse to local journalist who was then performing his job covering a government entity like TMG.
Mayoni is aware he was being interviewed and he has no right to snatch and slam the recording device of a Cortez.
He could have requested the reporter for the not for record interview but to slam and hurled words like "gago" is way beyond of his oath as an officer and a law enforcer.
The NUJP is demanding for a public apology from the said officer.
Filipino reporter verbally abused by police officer
ZAMBOANGA CITY, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / Nov. 25, 2008) – A radio reporter in Zamboanga City in the southern Philippines have complained Tuesday that he was verbally abused by an officer of the Traffic Management Group (TMG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP).
The TMG, formerly known as Highway Patrol Group, enforces traffic laws and regulations and has been tapped in anti-carnapping and anti-hijacking operations. It supervises also the printing of PNP vehicle clearances in coordination with Land and Transportation Office.
Santos Cortez, 29, of the Radio Mindanao Network-dxRZ Radyo Agong, said the incident occurred at the TMG office in Zamboanga City. Cortez was to interview the new TMG regional chief, but since the official was not available he asked to interview the deputy chief, Supt. Daniel Mayoni instead.
Mayoni at first hesitated to give an interview about the TMG’s accomplishments in Zamboanga, but later changed his mind.
But Mayoni was apparently irked after learning that the interview was being recorded and cursed Cortez in front of TMG personnel.
“I was not bringing any particular issue for interview, since I was informed there's a new chief of the TMG Western Mindanao, I feel its proper to determine from the said office their latest concerns and campaigns,” Cortez said.
“Since the deputy chief Supt. Daniel Mayoni is around, I decided to interview him and at first he hesitated but later gave me some details like the number of stolen vehicles and he was conscious that I was using my MP3 for recording.”
As Mayoni is giving more details, Cortez said he moved his recorder nearer to the officer to catch his voice more clearly. “And that's where he got mad. Mayoni suddenly raised his voice in the presence of three other persons inside the room saying, patayin mo yan, patayin mo yan, gago ka pala dinadaya mo ako (Turn it off, turn it off, you fool, you're making a fool out of me).”
Cortez, shocked with Mayoni's reaction took back the recorder, but the officer snatched and slammed it on the table, NUJP said.
“I was really embarrassed and afraid of his actuations, it was my first time to encounter such behavior from a police colonel,” Cortez said.
Cortez said the voice clip was important for his report. “Sound bytes are really important for us to make our report,” he said.
The independent media watchdog, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) in Zamboanga, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi Chapter tried to reach Mayoni to get his side but he did not return the message. The NUJP has condemned Mayoni's act and demanded for a public apology.
Local newspaper editors said they would embargo all news and press releases from the TMG until Mayoni apologize for his conduct, which is unbecoming of an officer of the law.
The TMG hit the headlines in November 2005 after it killed three alleged carjackers - Anton Cu-Unjieng, Francis Xavier Manzano and Bryan Anthony Dulay - in a shootout near a posh village in Pasig City. But television footage taken at the scene by an independent cameraman showed TMG officers approaching the car and firing at the victims simultaneously.
The Commission of Human Rights (CHR), which investigated the incident, also said there was no shootout, but rubout. A government forensic expert Raquel Fortun who was advising the (CHR), said her findings showed that the victims did not fire any weapons.
Other reports said the three victims, who belonged to prominent families, were allegedly killed by the TMG operatives on suspicion they were members of a crime syndicate called Valle Verde gang. (Mindanao Examiner)
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Threats hound slain radioman's colleagues - GMA News
GINGOOG CITY, Philippines - Three colleagues of slain radio broadcaster Arecio Padrigao Sr are now fearing for their lives after receiving threatening text messages and phone calls from anonymous individuals.
Emmanuel Ansihagan and two other radio reporters from dxRS had separately complained to police authorities regarding calls and text messages that said that they are going to be killed.
Ansihagan, anchorman for the radio program “Hustisya’t Katarungan,” complained to Gingoog City Police Director Leoney Roy Ga his fears were heightened by the death of Padrigao last Monday.
Padrigao, 52, was gunned down by motorcycle- riding men outside the Bukidnon State University where he dropped off one of his children.
Two other radio blocktimers, Allan Pelegrino and Willie Ramos, claimed to receive threatening text messages.
Pastor Victor Dela Serna, himself a former blocktimer of DXRS FM “Radio Natin,” advised former colleagues to pray and stay put. He said that they need to continue their tradition of fair and honest reporting for the sake of Gingoog City and neighboring towns.
The city of Gingoog in the southern Philippine province of Misamis Oriental has only two AM radio stations: the state- owned Radyo ng Bayan DXRG and DXRS.
DXRS owner and station manager Gualberto Pahunang Jr confirmed the death threats received by his blocktimers and expressed disappointment on how the Justice department’s Task Force “Usig” is handling the case.
“How can they resolve the killings if they are always inside air- conditioned rooms in Metro Manila?” Pahunang said in his native dialect.
The Task Force was created to investigate on death and disappearances of media men, military members and other high- risk personalities. (Alvin Guanzon, GMANews.TV - http://www.gmanews.tv/story/135184/Death-threats-hound-slain-radiomans-colleagues)
Emmanuel Ansihagan and two other radio reporters from dxRS had separately complained to police authorities regarding calls and text messages that said that they are going to be killed.
Ansihagan, anchorman for the radio program “Hustisya’t Katarungan,” complained to Gingoog City Police Director Leoney Roy Ga his fears were heightened by the death of Padrigao last Monday.
Padrigao, 52, was gunned down by motorcycle- riding men outside the Bukidnon State University where he dropped off one of his children.
Two other radio blocktimers, Allan Pelegrino and Willie Ramos, claimed to receive threatening text messages.
Pastor Victor Dela Serna, himself a former blocktimer of DXRS FM “Radio Natin,” advised former colleagues to pray and stay put. He said that they need to continue their tradition of fair and honest reporting for the sake of Gingoog City and neighboring towns.
The city of Gingoog in the southern Philippine province of Misamis Oriental has only two AM radio stations: the state- owned Radyo ng Bayan DXRG and DXRS.
DXRS owner and station manager Gualberto Pahunang Jr confirmed the death threats received by his blocktimers and expressed disappointment on how the Justice department’s Task Force “Usig” is handling the case.
“How can they resolve the killings if they are always inside air- conditioned rooms in Metro Manila?” Pahunang said in his native dialect.
The Task Force was created to investigate on death and disappearances of media men, military members and other high- risk personalities. (Alvin Guanzon, GMANews.TV - http://www.gmanews.tv/story/135184/Death-threats-hound-slain-radiomans-colleagues)
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Military Media Profiling In Southern Philippines Assailed
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES
Statement
Westmincom's bio-data requirement an intrusion on privacy and press freedom that should be rejected. The NUJP is incensed at the sudden requirement imposed by Major Eugene Batara, spokesman of the Western Mindanao Command, for journalists to fill up a bio-data form before they can be accredited for coverage.
The bio-data is not only an invasion of privacy, it is a subtle repression of press freedom as it would give the Westmincom information office blanket authority to decide who it will or will not consider a journalist, an authority it does not have the competence or legal right to possess.
The information journalists are supposed to write down in the form includes facts that have absolutely nothing to do with their profession. This alone gives rise to suspicions of more sinister motives.
Whether working for a news outfit or freelance, a journalist's identity is public knowledge. There is, thus, no reason for Batara or any other military spokesman or officer to keep a dossier of who the reporters are in the areas where they are assigned. Unless Batara and his ilk doubt their own competence to perform their tasks or, again, the imposition is for more sinister motives.
We demand that Batara withdraw this requirement and for any other military spokesman or command thinking of a similar imposition to do likewise.
We likewise urge our colleagues in the Westmincom area and anywhere else similar attempts to impose the bio-data requirement to reject it outright and assert our right to the free practice of our profession.
Reference:
Sonny Fernandez, Secretary-General
November 13, 2008
Military Media Profiling Slammed By Mindanao Journalists
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES.
Zamboanga City-Sulu-Basilan-TawiTawi Chapters
Zamboanga City-Sulu-Basilan-TawiTawi Chapters
Statement
NUJP ZamBaSulTa chapter questions the re imposition of submitting bio data for Western Mindanao Command's (WestMinCom) media profiles.
WestMinCom spokesman Maj. Eugene S. Batara said the policy is to update their files; to know more media personalities covering the defense and for other use like if there are new officials, they would know immediately just by merely browsing the files.
Bio data form requires media to supply personal details.
NUJP ZamBaSulTa sees it as further intrusion on privacy even if reporters' background is already public knowledge.
NUJP local chapter sees the policy as a subtle from of harassment as bio-data is a basis to issue defense press card, wherein press identification card is already enough.
More Media Groups Denounce Military Profiling Of Journalists In Mindanao
For quite a time the Peace and Conflict Journalism Network (PECOJON) Western Mindanao Chapter became silent about some issues regarding media harassment here in our region, but this time, the considered harassment and invasion to privacy of the profiling being imposed by Western Mindanao Command strongly gains dismay to this organization and its members covering the military beat and conflict areas.
We support the issued statement of WESMINCOM (Western Mindanao Command) Spokesman Army Major Eugene Batara that the purpose of such move was to serve as basis/ reference in identifying the journalists covering the military beat and issue them an identification card from the command, but the manner it was done was foul and considered personal harassment to us, the media, who has been covering the military beat before these officials were assigned in WESMINCOM and since the command was established from its birth-towards its various names till it became WESMINCOM at present which is just few years old.
All those years, we uphold the respect and integrity of the command whom we consider as partners for peace and development in Mindanao by following the orders and coordinating with the command and field commanders everytime we conduct coverages of conflict areas. We didn't have a problem then with previous commanders of SOUTHCOM, except for a few who tried to imposed similar profiling before to the members of the Defense Press Corps.
I do not know if these present officials in WESMINCOM has conducted a background investigation of such previous instances of failed profiling which was tried to be imposed by those irrational commanders before, because of their failures in performing their given responsibilities, it even came to a point of banning the media from entering the military camp which is a clear manifestation of suppressing the freedom of the press,as we recall...
We fairly know that the FREEDOM of the PRESS is not absolute, but it is not right to be supressed by those people in government, particularly the military who are "VANGUARDS" of peace and democracy, ISN'T IT?
And we cannot understand why the command issued such orders without even having a dialogue,consulting or relaying the message to the officers of the Defense Press Corps headed by its president Roel Pareno of Philippine Star? He is just a phone call away and day to day covering WESMINCOM, gentlemen. WE are civilians and not AFP organic personnel who must obey orders before complaining, but needs a civil approach as we are human in nature.
We the members of the Peace and Conflict Journalism Network (PECOJON) Western Mindanao Chapter strongly sympathize and stand firm alongside with our fellow mediamen covering the WESMINCOM beat, that the move of the command is uncalled for and must be properly evaluated by its concerned officialsbefore it will be imposed, a dialogue with the media is hepful to resolve this matter once and for all, BOTH SIDES MUST BE HEARD to give JUSTICE for this cause, as we envoke our rights to privacy,information, and press freedom.
for the PECOJON-WM Chapter
SGD:MARLON "Bhong" SIMBAJON
Regional Coordinator
We support the issued statement of WESMINCOM (Western Mindanao Command) Spokesman Army Major Eugene Batara that the purpose of such move was to serve as basis/ reference in identifying the journalists covering the military beat and issue them an identification card from the command, but the manner it was done was foul and considered personal harassment to us, the media, who has been covering the military beat before these officials were assigned in WESMINCOM and since the command was established from its birth-towards its various names till it became WESMINCOM at present which is just few years old.
All those years, we uphold the respect and integrity of the command whom we consider as partners for peace and development in Mindanao by following the orders and coordinating with the command and field commanders everytime we conduct coverages of conflict areas. We didn't have a problem then with previous commanders of SOUTHCOM, except for a few who tried to imposed similar profiling before to the members of the Defense Press Corps.
I do not know if these present officials in WESMINCOM has conducted a background investigation of such previous instances of failed profiling which was tried to be imposed by those irrational commanders before, because of their failures in performing their given responsibilities, it even came to a point of banning the media from entering the military camp which is a clear manifestation of suppressing the freedom of the press,as we recall...
We fairly know that the FREEDOM of the PRESS is not absolute, but it is not right to be supressed by those people in government, particularly the military who are "VANGUARDS" of peace and democracy, ISN'T IT?
And we cannot understand why the command issued such orders without even having a dialogue,consulting or relaying the message to the officers of the Defense Press Corps headed by its president Roel Pareno of Philippine Star? He is just a phone call away and day to day covering WESMINCOM, gentlemen. WE are civilians and not AFP organic personnel who must obey orders before complaining, but needs a civil approach as we are human in nature.
We the members of the Peace and Conflict Journalism Network (PECOJON) Western Mindanao Chapter strongly sympathize and stand firm alongside with our fellow mediamen covering the WESMINCOM beat, that the move of the command is uncalled for and must be properly evaluated by its concerned officialsbefore it will be imposed, a dialogue with the media is hepful to resolve this matter once and for all, BOTH SIDES MUST BE HEARD to give JUSTICE for this cause, as we envoke our rights to privacy,information, and press freedom.
for the PECOJON-WM Chapter
SGD:MARLON "Bhong" SIMBAJON
Regional Coordinator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)