Unlike in the past where human rights violations are done clandestinely, the killings and other forms of human rights violations often happen in broad daylight, in full view of acquaintances and bystanders. Journalists like Edgar Damalerio and Marlene Esperat, for example, were killed in full view of their relatives and other witnesses.
The killings apparently happen with impunity because those responsible wield considerable power and influence. The perpetrators apparently intend to make examples of those killed so that no one else will follow in their footsteps. While there are varying levels of professional competence and adherence to ethical standards of those killed – in the same way that there are varied reasons for their killings – one cannot deny the complicity of those in power. The evidence can be seen by analyzing the character of identified suspects, statements of witnesses and, more importantly, the manner in which the killings have been carried out.
While nobody in the government would state that the undermining of human rights is government policy, there are clearly provisions which inherently violate civil and political rights. The Machiavellian attitude towards solving the problem that is ‘terrorism’ – the definition of which is already flawed – cannot be an excuse to violate the rights of the innocent to achieve a goal, no matter how well-meaning one may think about it.
Given their line of work, journalists can be “fair game” in the government’s anti-terrorist drive. It is inherent in their daily job, after all, to talk to different kinds of people, even those branded as terrorists or belonging to the so-called outlawed organizations.
HSA and the chilling effect
Just like the killings, the HSA has a chilling effect on journalists since it could discourage them from pursuing the “hard news,” particularly issues and concerns that would require them to get the side of those opposed to the government.
Despite the provision that states that communication between journalists and their sources will not be wiretapped, it remains possible for journalists to be subjected to wiretapping, arrest and detention even on suspicion of ‘terrorist’ activities. Even if they become entitled to bail, their right to travel could be restricted and they could even face house arrest and be held incommunicado in the process. Even their assets could be seized, sequestered and frozen.
Such restrictions resulting from “mere suspicion” of a “terrorist act” that is so broadly defined can deprive journalists of going about their job of providing information that the people need in the shaping of public opinion. A crucial component of news reporting is data gathering, of which communication is absolutely necessary to acquire primary sources of information.
It would be impossible for journalists to do their jobs if their right to travel were restricted and if they were prevented from communicating with people outside their residence in the event of house arrest.
The broad definition of terrorism makes it hard for journalists to fulfill their responsibility to their audiences as they need to be periodically in touch with sources having varied political and economic backgrounds.
There could also be discouragement among journalists in writing about issues and concerns that could result in widespread fear and panic among the people. In order to adhere to the HSA, the journalists’ coverage of demands of cause-oriented groups would most likely be done in a way that gives it little attention. A worst-case scenario would be the journalists’ decision to do away with the side of those deemed to be terrorists altogether.
Reaffirming objectivity in journalism
With the HSA, the government has redefined, even if unintentionally, the tenet of objectivity in journalism. The powers-that-be have created a condition in the mass media that discourages an exhaustive research on issues and concerns by limiting the sources of information to those who are not in the terrorist list.
Journalists who are worth their salt should not be affected by the enactment of the HSA and should continue the advocacy to promote and uphold freedom of expression. Such an advocacy makes it imperative not to call for amendments to the HSA, but to demand its repeal.
Just like other social sectors’, journalists’ civil and political rights are violated in the government’s so-called anti-terrorism campaign. But unlike other professions, journalism is directly affected given the inherent and absolute need to maintain contacts with people from all walks of life, including those involved in the underground.
In the context of the practice of journalism, government apparently has a skewed sense of the workings of the press and sees the journalists’ interview with rebels as either a sign of sympathy or worse, conspiracy to commit terrorism.
In the past, the government considered some segments of the mass media as “enemies” that must be dealt with. The military’s slide presentation in PowerPoint format titled “Knowing the Enemy” listed, for example, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) as among the front organizations of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). In the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Northern Luzon Command’s manual titled Trinity of War, Bulatlat Online Magazine‘s series of articles on the agricultural workers’ strike at Hacienda Luisita was considered part of the propaganda campaign of the New People’s Army (NPA) against the government. These are just a few instances where the government, particularly the military, considers selected media organizations as the enemy, which can be therefore fair game.
Exposing the HSA’s wordplay
The HSA is clearly packaged by the powers-that-be to hide its inherent character of violating civil and political rights. “Human security” is now being used to make what used to be described as “anti-terrorism” law more acceptable to the people.
Yes, there are also safeguards put in place to supposedly check against abuses by the authorities in implementing the HSA. In the context of the culture of impunity, however, these safeguards become instruments of perpetuating human rights violations, particularly extrajudicial killings.
The practice of journalism also becomes severely affected as objectivity becomes redefined to include only the sources considered by government to be “harmless.” While journalists are not prevented from interviewing those deemed terrorists, they could run the risk of being suspected of links with them, making them fair game to the authorities and subjected to various forms of human rights violations. The provision in the HSA which explicitly states that communications between journalists and sources will not be wiretapped is therefore practically useless.
The violent playground that Filipinos are living in right now is indeed replete with bullies who impose their rules. But what makes these particular bullies different is that they have the audacity to package their rules in a way that appears acceptable, attracting those who are easily hoodwinked to obey and even promote.
Journalists, by the nature of their jobs, must not become mere spectators on the issue of the HSA as they are directly affected by its implementation. In their never-ending fight for press freedom, they should work hand-in-hand with other concerned groups and individuals in calling for the repeal of this repressive law euphemistically called the Human Security Act.
Editor’s Note: This paper is published by the Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project website at URL http://www.rightsreporting.net.
