This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 6, March 13-19, 2005
A human
rights lawyer said over the weekend that the proposals by the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) and Malacañang to impose a ban on media interviews with
“terrorists” or “terrorist groups” would amount to “prior restraint” of press
freedom, which, he said, is illegal.
A human rights lawyer said over the weekend that
the proposals by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Malacañang to
impose a ban on media interviews with “terrorists” or “terrorist groups” would
amount to “prior restraint” of press freedom, which, he said, is illegal.
Interviewed by Bulatlat, Edre Olalia of
the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) said,
“Under the law, the greater weight should be on
the protection of press freedom, rather than its abridgement.”
AFP deputy chief of staff Lt. Gen. Edilberto
Adan had gone on record March 4 proposing sanctions against journalists and
media outfits that would interview “terrorists.”
Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said in a radio
interview the next day that there was already a law that “prohibits
the airing of, let us say, interviews where the one being interviewed calls for
the overthrow of the government.” On March 6, Bunye issued a statement saying
the concern of the government was not really about banning journalists from
interviewing “terrorists,” but the content of the interviews.
“That’s
ridiculous, and to be candid about it, stupid,” said Olalia said when asked to
comment on the Bunye statements. “Can a reporter, interviewing a ‘terrorist,’
read his mind and predict the outcome of the interview?”
Prof. Luis Teodoro,
a former dean of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Mass
Communication, agreed with Olalia that the proposed bans on media interviews
with “terrorists” would be tantamount to prior restraint. “That would violate
Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution,” he said in a separate interview
with Bulatlat.
Article III,
Section 4 of the Constitution provides that: “No law
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.”
Olalia also said
that there is danger in such proposals, considering how the Macapagal-Arroyo
government has been using the “terrorist” label. “It is those who question the
government’s anti-people policies who are called terrorists,” he explained.
President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo is known to have gone on record several times calling legal
cause-oriented groups and even some mainstream opposition politicians as
“communist fronts” or “communist sympathizers.” The Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP) is included in the U.S. Department of State’s list of “foreign
terrorists,” together with its armed group the New People’s Army (NPA) and Jose
Maria Sison, senior political consultant to the National Democratic Front of the
Philippines (NDFP).
The Adan and
Malacañang proposals have triggered opposition from media groups in the
Philippines.
On March 5, the
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) condemned the Adan
proposal, saying: “Adan engages in
typical double-speak when he says the military distinguishes between legitimate
dissenters and terrorists. His proposal is pure and simple censorship and an
imposition of prior restraint on the press. Adan’s statements only serve to
intensify media opposition to an anti-terrorism bill that threatens drastic
curtailment of civil liberties in the country.”
The NUJP is preparing a signature campaign to
oppose the “media gag” proposals.
Meanwhile, alumni of the College Editors Guild
of the Philippines (CEGP), an organization of campus papers fighting for student
rights and press freedom, have initiated an online petition calling the Adan
proposal a “terror plot on press freedom.”
“The
military always considers as ‘enemies’ any and all forms of dissent and
opposition, and lumps them together with so-called terrorists and dissidents,”
the statement read. “Critics of military corruption and military connivance with
criminal syndicates, bandits and terrorists may be deemed ‘enemies of the
state.’
“More importantly, at a time when the
current administration is the target of growing legitimate protests due to its
brazen corruption, mismanagement, bankruptcy and the inability to unite the
people, could be aimed at restoring barefaced suppression of our most essential
rights that enable us to responsibly and democratically institute changes in the
people's favor, correct wrongdoings and punish wrongdoers.”
The CEGP alumni statement cited data
from the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) showing that the
Philippines is now second only to war-torn Iraq as “the worst place” for
journalists. “A fiat by the military against interviews with the latter's
enemies would only be a license to silence more journalists who would commit the
‘crime’ of ‘interviewing terrorists,’” the statement read.
But the issue has not remained
confined to the Philippines. On March 8, the Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF or
Reporters Without Borders), an international organization defending press
freedom, issued a statement condemning the proposed ban on media interviews with
“terrorists.”
“We
are aware of the need to combat terrorist organizations, but we condemn the fact
that the media could be exposed to sanctions for just doing their job of
disseminating the news,” the press freedom organization said.
“The term ‘terrorist group’ is very vague,” the
group continued. “Reporters Without Borders believes that it should be up to the
news media themselves, and not any other body, to decide who they interview.”
Olalia agreed. “While the State has a
right to protect itself, it should not be at the expense of press freedom or
other democratic rights,” he said.
Teodoro said that the public could
benefit from media interviews with even real terrorists. “When these individuals
and groups are interviewed,” he said, “the public may get insights into whatever
issues they have, and this paves the way for a deeper understanding of the
causes of terrorism and how it may be solved.” Bulatlat © 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
Ban on ‘Terrorist’ Interviews Illegal – Lawyer,
Ex-UP MassCom Dean
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
Bulatlat
Media opposition
International level