NEWS ANALYSIS
Terrorizing Media, Legislatively
Media groups, as well as
a number of major publications, did right in opposing the proposal by the
AFP chief of staff to include in the anti-terrorism bill sanctions for
journalists and media outfits interviewing “known terrorists or terrorist
groups.” As recent developments show, this is not the time for letting
their guard down.
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN
REMOLLINO
Bulatlat
Media groups like the
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), did right last
March in raising their fists in protest against a proposal by Lt. Gen.
Edilberto Adan, deputy chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), for provisions in an anti-terrorism bill (ATB)
sanctioning journalists and media outfits that interview “known terrorists
or terrorist groups.” Aside from the fact that the government’s definition
of “terrorism” leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity, it is in the
public interest that media not be banned from interviewing even real
terrorists – as this will ultimately provide the people with valuable
insights into what makes terrorism and how best to deal with it.
Media groups and
outfits protested the proposal, joined by the familiar cause-oriented
groups. The AFP top brass was forced to disown Adan’s proposal, with the
chief of staff saying it was not the official AFP stand on the matter.
But recent
legislative developments show that the media will have to keep their fists
up for a while.
President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo had asked Congress to pass an ATB following the February
14 bombings in Makati, Davao,
and General Santos Cities. This, she said, would “add teeth” to the
government’s fight against “terrorism.”
In the House of
Representatives, there are 10 pending ATBs: House Bill (HB) No. 309 by
Rep. Imee Marcos (Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, 2nd District, Ilocos Norte); HB
948 by Rep. Judy Syjuco (Liberal Party, 2nd District, Iloilo); HB 1925 by
Rep.
Robert Ace Barbers (Lakas-Christian
Muslim Democrats, 2nd District, Surigao del Norte); HB 2222 by Rep.
Teodoro Locsin Jr. (Partido ng Demokratikong Pilipino or PDP, 1st
District, Makati); HBs 2380 and 2621 by Rep. Amado Espino Jr. (Nationalist
People’s Coalition, 2nd District, Pangasinan); HB 2615 by Rep. Roilo Golez
(Kabalikat ng Mamamayang Pilipino or Kampi, 2nd District, Parañaque City);
HB 2639 by Rep. Marcelino Libanan (Nationalist People’s Coalition, Eastern
Samar); HB 3032 by Rep. Robert Vincent Jude Jaworski (Lakas-CMD, Pasig
City); and HB 3103 by Rep. Douglas Cagas (NPC, 1st District, Davao del Sur).
In the Senate,
meanwhile, there are five pending ATBs: Senate Bill (SB) No. 735 by Sen.
Manuel Villar (Lakas-CMD), SB 831 by Sen. Panfilo Lacson (Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino or LDP), SB 871 by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada (Koalisyon
ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino or KNP), SB 38 Sen. Ramon Magsaysay (Lakas-CMD),
and SB 1768 by Sen. Alfredo Lim KNP). These are all still up for first
reading.
Meanwhile, the House
Committees on Justice and Foreign Affairs created a Technical Working
Group (TWG) to consolidate the different ATBs into a substitute bill.
Represented in the TWG are the Department of Justice (DoJ), Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG), Commission on Human Rights (CHR),
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), Parole and Probation Administration (PPA), Philippine
National Police (PNP), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
Association of Judges, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Council for the
Welfare of Children (CWC) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
So the action right
now is at the House, where weekly hearings on a consolidated draft ATB
have begun to be held.
“Terrorist” links
The draft of the
ATB’s House version as of May 4 does not directly mention sanctions
against media interviewing “known terrorists or terrorist groups” in any
of its provisions.
However, it does have
a provision that, although general enough, can definitely be construed to
encompass the media. Sec. 7 of the draft classifies it as “unlawful” for
any person or group of persons, “whether natural or juridical,” to
establish, maintain or serve as contact or link “with any person or group
of persons or organization/s who have pursued or are pursuing terrorism.”
This prohibits the
media from even arranging interviews with personalities or representatives
of organizations that have been labeled, whether by the Philippine or U.S.
government, as “terrorists.” Any person who is found to have violated any
of the provisions under the draft’s Sec. 7, which lists “Acts that
Facilitate, Contribute to or Promote Terrorism” will suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and a fine of P10 million ($183,654.73 based on an
exchange rate of $1:P54.45 as of May 16).
The following are
presently included in the U.S. Department of State’s list of “foreign
terrorist organizations”: the Communist Party of the Philippines and its
armed component, the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) and the Abu Sayyaf Group
(ASG). Listed as a “foreign terrorist” is Prof. Jose Maria Sison, CPP
founding chairman, chief political consultant of the National Democratic
Front of the Philippines (NDFP), and recently elected as chairman of the
International League of People’s Struggle (ILPS). Interviews with any of
the groups or personalities mentioned will be illegal if the May 4 draft
should pass.
But media should find
additional cause for alarm in that it is not only these groups that have
been blacklisted. Legal cause-oriented groups like the Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (Bayan), Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU or May First Movement), Kilusang
Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP or Philippine Peasant Movement); and even the
socio-economic think tank IBON Foundation have repeatedly been called
“communist fronts.”
Because the CPP –
which according to the government controls these groups as its “legal
fronts” – is included in the official “terrorist” list, there is always
the danger that if the May 4 draft ATB is to be passed, it will be applied
loosely and even interviews with personalities associated with these
organizations may also be classified as “unlawful.”
The “Red” tag on
these groups has recently acquired a more official character with their
inclusion in the AFP’s list of “enemies of the state” in the PowerPoint
presentation Knowing the Enemy. Meanwhile, the recently-launched
third volume of the AFP book Trinity of War, which deals with the
military’s campaign against the CPP-NPA-NDF, lists Bayan, the KMU and the
KMP as “front organizations” of the CPP.
Proscription of
organizations
But even without
these developments, the cause-oriented groups – which are always among
media’s sources of news and views on political and economic issues – run
the risk of being proscribed as “terrorist” organizations under Sec. 8 of
the May 4 draft.
Section 4 of the
draft bill, which defines how terrorism is committed, includes
“Threatening or causing serious risk to health or safety of the public or
any segment of the public.” The country has recently seen several protest
actions being followed by clashes between ralliers and police as rallies
were dispersed with excessive force. Such skirmishes, no doubt, risk
injuring even bystanders – and the risk of injury may be blamed by the
government on the ralliers regardless of whose side started the violence.
Consequently, rallies
may be declared “terrorist” acts, on the ground that they “threaten or
cause serious risk to health or safety of the public or any segment of the
public,” and cause-oriented groups may end up being proscribed as
terrorist organizations.
The possible
proscription of the legal cause-oriented groups as “terrorist”
organizations will further constrict the media’s capacity for sourcing of
news and views.
Chills
Though there is no
direct mention of sanctions against media interviewing “terrorists” or
“terrorist groups” in the May 4 draft ATB, the provisions cited may well
send chills through the spines of journalists who value the practice of
multiple sourcing, which is the best guarantee for balanced news and
views. These already amount to acts of terror against the media, whose
freedom stands to be mutilated.
And that is just the
House version. What is to prevent the Senate ATBs from being consolidated
into an equally draconian measure when deliberations begin on these? With
that, there will be little left for legislators to argue on at the
bicameral conference committee, and the country may just see an ATB
clamping down on hard-earned press freedom – the last thing that
journalists need these days, with their colleagues being killed left and
right while doing exposes against corrupt government officials.
This is not the time
for media to let down its guard against the ATB. Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.