The Filipino Desaparecidos

TODAY, August 31, is the National Heroes Day for the Philippines. Yesterday was no less significant with the global observance of the International Day of Desaparecidos. Bulatlat produced a video (Philippines: Remembering the Disappeared) for the rather morbid celebration in honor of the "more than 200 Filipinos--mostly activists--[who] have disappeared" under the reign of the EDSA 2 Illegitimate.

The video presented some 40 or so "victims of the regime's brutal policy against critics, particularly the Left." The first human face of the contemporary Filipino desaparecidos under the Gloria Arroyo regime is Honorio Ayroso who disappeared February 2002 in Nueva Ecija. Not even the elderly seems spared, as evidenced by the case of Patricio Abalos, who was 61 years old when he went missing in March 2005 at Catbalogan, Samar.

Even women count among the desaparecidos. A matured face belongs to Gloria Soco who, by newspaper accounts, was not even a member of any left-wing group although she was a sister-in-law of a consultant of the National Democratic Front. Perhaps, most harrowing were the cases of Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan--promising young lasses from the University of the Philippines and who remain unaccounted for since being abducted in Hagonoy, Bulacan last June 26, 2006.

EDSA 2 Ironies for the Media & the Left

The penultimately featured desaparecido is Jonas Burgos, whose disappearance can be called an indirect case of press freedom irony, given that Burgos is no less the son of Joe Burgos, press freedom icon and founding publisher of the newspaper Malaya. It can be recalled that one of the ludicrous claims made back in January 2001 was the supposed absence or "death of democracy" under former President Joseph Estrada, who was actually too human-rights-conscious to disperse the irreverent mix of EDSA 2 conspirators and gullible mob.

The traditional media organizations went practically all out in support of the swift ouster of the democratically elected Estrada and the installation of Arroyo. As things unfolded, it proved to be an unwise, nay, stupid "People Power" exercise that gave birth to a government that turned out to be not only the most unpopular in Philippine history but one which, as the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines puts it, stands to leave "a legacy of bloodshed and repression, its acts of omission and commission nurturing the impunity with which the enemies of press freedom have operated."

Beautiful but dreadfully poignant Tagalog poetry graced the presentation. The Balagtasan-style ode to the missing stirs the patriotic and compassionate heart:

Hinahanap-hanap ka sa payapang dagat,
Sa bawa't kislot na aking maaninag;
Pinaghahanap ka sa tilamsik ng alat
Sa bula, sa kislap ng bawat lagaslas.


Maging ang buhangin ay pinagtanungan,
Saan aabot ang dalampasigan?
Hapag kainan ba ang paghahandaan,
O kurona't ilaw ang iyong tahanan?


Hahanapin kita sa angil ng punlo,
Sa tinik ng gubat, silahis ng sulo;
Ipagtatanong ka sa libong kamao,
Sa kaway ng bandera't dagundong ng maso.


Hahanapin kita sa luntian bukirin,
Sa ngiti ng sanggol, sa ihip ng hangin;
Kung sa paglaya na ang iyong pagdating
At wala ka roon ay hahanapin pa rin.


Hinahanap hanap ka, hanap ka.


-- Adora Faye de Vera

Apparently, the victims of extra-judicial killings or disappearances under the Arroyo government have mostly been the left-leaning activists. Such is no surprising news because their side of the political spectrum has traditionally been the target of repression by a government who holds "special friendship" with its former colonial master and global nemesis of the communists, socialists and nationalists, the United States of America.

However, in another EDSA 2 irony, it is a fact that the repressive Arroyo government was a product of the 2001 power grab conspiracy that well included the Left. In a way, the Left who came to EDSA 2, or at least the leaders who forged the anti-Estrada coalition with the forces of Arroyo and ex-President Fidel Ramos, are indirectly responsible for the obtaining spate of disappearances and other forms of human rights violations. Arroyo, in a sense, is a big, big stone the leftists hit their own heads with. Still, that's no excuse not to contribute one's voice in the campaign against possible state-enforced disappearances or murders of Filipinos.

Pragmatic in perspective as I am, this article and the independently disseminated video will most probably be heed only by a few. To activate the gentler, just side of human nature of even not many a soul is good enough for me, though. Who knows if it can eventually lead to a government that refuses to be stained by the blood of Filipino desaparecidos, those of the leftist ones, at least.

VIDEO at: SOBRIETY FOR THE PHILIPPINES

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Right of Reply Law Violates Press Freedom

Recently, legislator-turned-blogger Mon Palatino (courtesy of the Supreme Court in the Banat case) warned that the Right of Reply Bill (RORB) will affect bloggers and writers in other internet-based platforms, such as social networking sites, once it passes into law. Temporarily sidelined by the passage of House Resolution 1109, which calls for the convening of Congress into a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, the RORB is one of the measures in the Lower House's high priority agenda.

Originally introduced in the Senate by veteran street parliamentarian Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Senate Bill No. 2150 requires media organizations under pain of sanctions to provide print space or broadcast time, free of charge, to the accused or criticized person in the same space or program where the accusation or criticism was made.


The flurry of oppositions and criticisms that the bill is receiving is not surprising, considering the serious implications it will have on the right to free speech and press freedom. And no matter how insistent Senator Pimentel is in defending his pet measure by claiming that it engenders rather than inhibits speech by allowing the objects of press accusations and criticisms the opportunity to counter the charges against them, the bill – no matter how well-intentioned by one who had undoubtedly vigorously fought an authoritarian regime notable for its suppression of free speech – presents clear restraints on press freedom that are hard to ignore.

The U.S. case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) is instructive in determining the constitutionality of the bill. This case was about a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives who was the subject of adverse editorials in the Miami Herald newspaper. When the newspaper refused to publish the candidate’s replies to the editorials he sued claiming a “right of reply” under a Florida statute. The Florida statute substantially provides that if any newspaper assails the personal character of any candidate, such newspaper shall upon request of the candidate immediately publish free of cost any reply he may make.

In ruling that the Florida statute violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press, the U.S. Supreme Court held that government compulsion on a newspaper to publish that which reason tells it should not be published is unconstitutional. The statute was considered as a command by the State in the same sense as a statute or regulation forbidding the publication of specified matter. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court was essentially saying that a law dictating the publication of certain matters is similar to one that prohibits their publication, which as a rule is clearly prohibited as unlawful restraint on free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court also found the statute to exact penalties on newspapers by imposing additional printing, composing, and materials cost and by taking up space that would otherwise be devoted by newspapers to matters they prefer to print. And even if no such penalty attends the allowance of print space to persons claiming their right of reply, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that the statute intrudes into the function of editors in choosing what material goes into a newspaper, in deciding on the content and size of the newspaper and the treatment of public officials and issues.

The chilling effect of such regulation cannot also be taken for granted. As observed by the U.S. Supreme Court, “(f)aced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude that the safest course is to avoid controversy . . . Government-enforced right of access inescapably “dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”

While this case is not binding on our courts, it is nevertheless persuasive. Historically and by practice, our own Supreme Court has on numerous occasions looked upon American jurisprudence in deciding constitutional issues, especially when it comes to free speech cases in view of the fact that Article 3, Section 4 of our Constitution – our constitutional guarantee on freedom of speech, of expression and of the press – is almost a verbatim copy of the free speech clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Senate Bill No. 2150 clearly violates press freedom by forcing under penalty of law the printing or broadcasting of matters that editors or publishers of print and broadcast media may not agree with or prefer to publish. Requiring media outlets to publish or broadcast materials from persons claiming to have been aggrieved by their adverse writing or reporting is in effect meddling with the editorial discretion of said media; it would virtually make the government inject itself in newsrooms and participate in the essential task of editors in determining what to print or publish.

If this bill were to become law, one could only imagine the volume of requests coming from the government and public officials to be given print space in newspapers, airtime or spots on radios and televisions, to rebut every adverse reports against them – which are not few, I should add.
In a very real sense, the print and broadcast media will be running short of print space and airtime just to accommodate, for free, these rebuttals, else they will be penalized with monetary fines ranging from P10,000 to P30,000 for every denied request.

To avoid such inconveniences and penalties, the print and broadcast media will limit themselves to printing and broadcasting non-controversial matters or issues that do not involve accusations of criminal activity or criticisms for “lapse in behavior,” as the bill words it. This will effectively chill the exercise of free speech and prevent what the U.S. Supreme Court said in the famous case of New York Times v. Sullivan that debate on public issues should be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

Another questionable feature of the proposed law is its vagueness. Section 1 of the bill grants the right of reply to persons who have been criticized for lapse in behavior. What would constitute “lapse in behavior”? If I were to criticize Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago for laughing out too loud when giving media interviews or Jesus Dureza for praying for the extension of GMA’s term, would that be criticism for lapse in behavior?A statute seeking to regulate speech that is vague offends not only the freedom of speech, but also the right to due process. People ought to know what is a prohibited activity in clear and precise language so that they will know what activity they will refrain from doing. A vague statute seeking to regulate speech acquires special significance because if people do not know what speech is prohibited they will refrain from speaking altogether for fear that they might violate the law.

While a responsible press is undoubtedly important and people should be given the opportunity to rebut unfair charges against them, these considerations cannot, however, trump the right to a free press and free speech in general. Needless to say, individuals aggrieved by false and defamatory reports are not without legal recourse. That our judicial institutions do not deliver in seeking redress cannot override our most fundamental liberty in a democratic and republican government. In such case, rather than making press freedom the casualty strengthening of the judicial system should be the target.

Press Freedom is the Commercial Right to Sell News, Views and Entertainment

Which is probably why only scant attention is being paid to those four new kidnapped hostages of the MILF/Abu Sayyaf Group compared to the round-the-clock coverage of Ces Drilon, her two camera men and a professor for peace! After all who in the media really cares about some no-name employees of a Basilan electric cooperative. So what if they get beheaded, right? Anyway the famous tv anchorwoman Ces Drilon is safe, eh?

Manuel L. Quezon III takes up the issue of the Manila Pen caper, in which the most recent development is a decision by the Makati Regional Trial Court junking a ten million peso class action law suit by journalists who got in the way of law enforcers trying to serve arrest warrants against military rebels Sonny Trillanes and Danilo Lim. He points to an editorial in Business World (most likely written by Vergel O. Santos, one of the losing plaintiffs in the case) in which the faint complaint against the decision is heard that, "No attempt whatever has been made to validate it against superior legal principles, such as laid down in the constitution, in particular freedom of the press." Such an accusation cannot however be made against this blog and it is most unfair of MLQ3 to characterize my position as trivializing the importance of the decision as a mere comeuppance for the plaintiffs as I have always proudly and loudly argued these issues from "superior legal principles". Here is a small selection of relevant posts that I urge my good friend MLQ3 to peruse and debate on their own merits:

Press Freedom is not a License to Obstruct Justice and Endanger Police
The Difference Between Free Blogging and Commercial Journalism
Who Owns the Right to Know -- the Public, the Press, Congress?
Media Asks the Supreme Court to Make Them Immune from the Law
Supreme Court Praised for Prejudging Hundreds of Active Libel Cases
The Myth That Media Can Be Unobtrusive
The Limits of Press Freedom in Broadcast Journalism
Two Writs Don't Make a Right
The Right to Life Has Priority Over the Right to Know
Long Live Sancho Panza!
Oblivious Human Shields and the Right to Be in Harm's Way
Rapporteur is French for Reporter and Amparo is Gobbledygook for Unconstitutional
Artistic Freedom and the Right to Be Unhappy With It
Dustup Over Angono and the Terrorist Bill of Rights
Press Freedom and Organized Religion are Freedoms of Assembly
Bitter Herbs and Purple Flowers
PDI and the Separation of the Church and the Press
The Responsible Journalism of Conrado de Quiros
Pangalangan v. Puno on Judicial Activism and the Rule of Law
The Right to Know and the Writ of Amparo
Spying on Senate Executive Session Was a Violation of National Security

The reader will hopefully find more than just "superior legal principles" argued in these posts, but common sense and reason as well, to guard against the creeping liberal fascism of those in the Mass Media who haven't a care for the principle that Justice is Fairness and that NO RIGHT is unlimited by the duty to uphold the Constitution. Press Freedom as organized journalism is a MERE commercial right that like a spring cannot rise higher than its source in EVERYONE'S rights and freedoms. It is the height of hubris to claim that the right to sell news, views and entertainment somehow trumps the right to life and law and order.

The full text of the Makati Regional Trial Court decision dismissing the class action suit of the Manila Pen journalists is provided by ABSCBN News Research Dept. (pdf)

Press Freedom Is Not A License To Obstruct Justice and Endanger Police

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Difference Between Free Blogging and Commercial Journalism

This is a reaction to Journalists As Bloggers by Dave Dizon of ABSCBN News and a recent dustup between "old media" and "new media".

TAKE A GOOD LOOK around Philippine Commentary. Do you see even a single advertisement? Do you think I make a any money practicing my Freedom of Speech and Expression? NO! I most certainly do not. But also, what are my expenses for foisting my ideas on whatever hapless reader drops by, for releasing my memes into the blogstream, so to speak? NONE! On this single website and its obvious circumstances you can glimpse the economics of what I call FREE BLOGGING.

Now pick up a newspaper like the Philippine Daily Innuendo (PDI) or visit its website. Or better yet, take a trip to the ABSCBN complex on Mother Ignacia Street in Quezon City. Consider the economics required to produce either a single issue of the paper or evening news broadcast. Think of the huge organizations involved, the offices, printing presses, studios, electronic equipment, broadcast facilities and BILLIONS of PESOS involved in these fortresses of what I call COMMERCIAL JOURNALISM.

The differences between Philippine Commentary and PDI or ABSCBN News are huge and obvious. For one thing, Philippine Commentary can not and does not generate news as such, (that's why it's called by that name). I get all my primary information from the "old media". But I can publish my opinions at cost that is virtually nil compared to either of these two leading sources of the news, which of course have their own stable of reporters, pundits and "bloggers" whom they must support with salaries, benefits, facilities, etc. using their income from advertising.

This very simple fact--that I can express myself virtually for free about both their news and opinion content, yet potentially have the same audience as PDI or ABSCBN has several important consequences.

First, I am not beholden to the owners of these Main Stream Media (MSM). I have no editor, secretary or camera men to watch out for and work with. I don't really have to be sensitive to the commercial and proprietary interest that makes their work possible.

Second, and as a necessary corollary, my counterparts within these organizations are in fact constrained by those organizational, commercial and proprietary interests. Much as those writing for the main stream talk and brag about "Freedom of Expression", I can tell you with absolutely certainty that Free Bloggers are freer than them to honestly and forthrightly express their opinions and commentaries about news events and the opinions of others. Even bloggers (who are not attached to those media outlets) that carry advertising are freer than them, because usually there is a very different relationship between bloggers and the "advertisers" that magically appear on their sites.) In a way, commercial journalists can NEVER be the same as FREE BLOGGERS, even if they start to write and publish blogs, because the audience KNOWS they are part of a huge commercial, self-interested, self-protecting enterprise. The Philippine Daily Innuendo runs hundreds of blogs, but everybody knows they dare not attack the Sacred Cows of the Prieto-Rufino families that own the paper, no matter how its editors proclaim "Press Freedom."

Third, while the MSM conceitedly talks about having things like Codes of Professional Ethics, "editorial oversight", "vetting" and so on, these mechanisms are ALL nonetheless subject to the conditions of the commercial relationships that allow them to operate and do business in the first place. There is a carefully orchestrated balance between "Freedom of Expression" and the commercial and proprietary interests. Indeed, once you get past the front pages or top quality broadcast programs, and begin to consider the grand bulk of what is published in newspapers like PDI or broadcast by ABSCBN, you immediately encounter the main body of mediocre, venal, puerile and just plain mindless ENTERTAINMENT content of these media organizations, which cater to the lowest common denominator of society.

As a blogger, I do not have to address my work to the market in which Commercial Journalism operates. I do not have to pay reporters or producers to survive, or watch what I say because some pencil neck in an ad agency or the telecomms (which supply nearly 80% of the income of some commercial media) might not like my saying they belong to a cartel or sell some lousy or dangerous product or service. I don't have to worry that the owners of Google or Blogger (my hosting service) might not like what I say.

In the ultimate analysis, what is happening here is what I have previously called a Gutenberg Moment. Technology from the great bastion of liberty in the world is revolutionizing the way humanity shares ideas and opinions. It is as if I have been given my own printing presses and broadcasting stations with (potentially!) global reach which cost virtually nothing for me to operate.

That is a huge advantage over the MSM -- but only if my ideas and opinions are in fact somehow more appealing to the potential audience, if they have viral and memetic power.

What Free Blogging has done is to give Commercial Journalism real competition in the MARKETPLACE FOR IDEAS, unencumbered by special interests, unconstrained by the need to appeal to the lowest common denominator, to respect Sacred Cows, or suppress what we really think about things.

The World Wide Web of blogging levels the playing field, but only to the extent that Free Bloggers actually have better stronger, more viral ideas and fitter memes.

Welcome to the purest arena where Darwin's laws of evolution can operate to ensure the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

Supreme Court Decision on Garci Tapes and Press Freedom

The Supreme Court decision on the Garci Tapes has been posted on Padre Faura's Website. G.R.No. 168338 Chavez v. Gonzalez.

CAVEAT 1: The Supreme Court proclaims the swiftness of its decision with a straight face, so don't be giggling in the gallery or you may be cited for contempt. So what if "swift" means TWO YEARS LATER!--

The constitutional imperative for us to strike down unconstitutional acts should always be exercised with care and in light of the distinct facts of each case. For there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to slippery constitutional questions, and the limits and construct of relative freedoms are never set in stone. Issues revolving on their construct must be decided on a case to case basis, always based on the peculiar shapes and shadows of each case. But in cases where the challenged acts are patent invasions of a constitutionally protected right, we should be swift in striking them down as nullities per se. A blow too soon struck for freedom is preferred than a blow too late.

Well if the Court had struck any sooner perhaps freedom would've come with the Second Coming. It is not of course the indignity of King Solomon thus seen to be wearing no clothes, but seeing him so hurriedly, yet way, way belatedly, donning the disguises of Swift Alacrity and Deep Concern for almighty and sacrosanct Press Freedom. Ah but wait, here is the gist of the Decision..."The clear and present danger rule applies to content-based regulation of print and broadcast media" ... WHOA! But I thought the Antiwiretapping Law was content-neutral...

CAVEAT 2: Petitioner Frank Chavez prays for certiorari and prohibition against Respondent Justice Sec. Raul Gonzalez and the NTC so as to allow the free airing of the recordings. The following passage in the disposative portion of Chief Justice Puno's ponencia is undoubtedly the gist and the heart of the Decision.

We rule that not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press. Our laws are of different kinds and doubtless, some of them provide norms of conduct which even if violated have only an adverse effect on a person’s private comfort but does not endanger national security. There are laws of great significance but their violation, by itself and without more, cannot support suppression of free speech and free press. In fine, violation of law is just a factor, a vital one to be sure, which should be weighed in adjudging whether to restrain freedom of speech and of the press. The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to private and public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred status accorded by the Constitution and by related international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the press. In calling for a careful and calibrated measurement of the circumference of all these factors to determine compliance with the clear and present danger test, the Court should not be misinterpreted as devaluing violations of law. By all means, violations of law should be vigorously prosecuted by the State for they breed their own evil consequence. But to repeat, the need to prevent their violation cannot per se trump the exercise of free speech and free press, a preferred right whose breach can lead to greater evils. For this failure of the respondents alone to offer proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the Court has no option but to uphold the exercise of free speech and free press. There is no showing that the feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the State.

I am frankly amazed at the above reasoning, which amounts to a risible, obsequious and idolatrous position towards Press Freedom that it simply does not deserve. Organized journalism is the commercial right to buy and sell information. We must revere it as we do Free Enterprise Capitalism itself. But should we be willing to IGNORE clear violations of the Antiwiretapping law because the High Court thinks we would end up suppressing Press Freedom by taking full cognizance of those violations? There is however no detailed discussion in the main decision of which violations the Court has chosen to ignore.

I concur entirely with the result that the airing of the Garci Tapes cannot be restrained or prevented by government. They became ineradicably and irreversibly a part of PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE once they had fallen into the vast digital public domain of the Internet. Once that happened, all attempts at suppressing them amounted to crying over spilt milk and trying to get the toothpaste back into the tube by legal fiat.

Since the ability to suppress them had been made MOOT and ACADEMIC within hours after Ignacio Bunye allowed the Palace Press Corps to make copies of the CDs containing the Garci recordings, the Supreme Court decision itself is futile, or should I say, SUPERFLUOUS.

Press Freedom was already guaranteed by the World Wide Web and hundreds of backroom CDRom replicators who made thousands of copies of the Garci recordings. All this decision serves to do is to juridically DENY that there WAS a violation of National Security by whoever did the wiretapping, such denial being done under the sanctimonious guise of defending Press Freedom!

National Security is the Highest National Interest
The Wire Tapping. The Wire Tapping!
Was the Adam and Eve of All Tapes Digital?
Overhearing the Palace Thinking
Rope-a-Dope Trap: Garci as Poisoned Pawn?
Fingerprinting the Human Voice
Judas Goat On Top Of Mount Pinatubo
Supreme Court Will Now Rule in Garci's Favor
Stunning Break in Gloriagate Controversy
Fourteen Soldiers Are Hostages of ISAFP
Long Live the Anti Wire Tapping Law!
The Right to Privacy and the Public's Right to Know
Only the Opposition Can Save GMA
Dilemma of the Poisoned Fruits
Freedom and Garci's Second Petition

CAVEAT 3: The Court noted the fact that the Broadcasters of the Philippines (KBP) had actually agreed to comply with the respondent NTC's call for "responsible broadcasting" and decided NOT to side with Petitioner Frank Chavez in his suit. But the Court would force Press Freedom even upon those more concerned with jealously guarding their lucrative and job-sustaining Franchises on the electromagnetic spectrum!

CAVEAT 4: The following statement reveals a disturbing lack of appreciation for the plain and simple meaning of NATIONAL SECURITY:

"There is no showing that the feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security of the State."

If the illegal wiretapping of the cellphone conversations of the President and Commander in chief (and apparently of anybody else with accounts at Globe or Smart!) does not constitute clear and present dangers to national security, I don't know what does! That such an obvious violation of the national security laws occurred in the wiretapping activities that produced the Garci tapes is what the Supreme Court is tiptoeing around and trying to ignore by bombastic obeisances to Press Freedom.

CAVEAT 5 The Court argues, correctly of course, that respondents have not passed the "clear and present danger rule" which would justify even the takeover of broadcast networks as stated explicitly in their Franchises. Why the Court undertook no discussion of these laws can only be explained by the cavalier attitude that they can pick and choose when to recognize violations of the law. Har har. In fine, by waiting those two long years in which their passionate devotion to liberty of speech must have had to remain stifled, they had indeed made amply sure there is no longer any "clear and present danger" from the recordings. JUSTICE DELAYED was PRESS FREEDOM DENIED, if not for the Internet! But I am sure they've got the adulatory HEADLINES tomorrow from a grateful if pusillanimous Press.

CAVEAT 6: Is there anything in the Decision that restrains radio, tv or print from now freely airing the Garci Tapes? Obviously not. What about any other wiretapped material? Press Freedom right? And supreme casuistry.

CAVEAT 7: Now we really get to the meat of the matter. The Court asserts that for all "content based regulation" the test of Constitutionality is the clear and present danger rule, which means, the challenged acts must be justified by the existence of a clear and present danger. I would agree there was nonesuch, and the Court said respondents failed to give evidence of it. But isn't the Antiwiretapping Law a "content-neutral law"?? In other words, what makes a wiretapped conversation illegal is not the subject matter of the conversation, but the mere act of unauthorized wiretapping itself. It does not matter WHAT the conversants are discussing, the FACT of surreptitious recording is what makes it illegal. Therefore, the attempt by the NTC to suppress the airing of these wiretaps did not rely on what they contained but on how they were obtained. This attempt at suppression was spectacularly futile anyway, for reasons I've already pointed out, so there could not have been any diminution in the public's right to know about them even if the broadcasters were prevented from doing so. Thus, the Court is unconvincing on its main point of "content-based regulation" applying to this material.

CAVEAT 8: Ironically, this decision will be hailed as another brave defense of human rights by the Puno Court, this time as a defense of Press Freedom. Yet has the Supreme Court not been a part of the wiretapping coverup all along? After all the greatest power of Court is in what it decides NOT to decide. But okay the Supreme Court upholds press freedom in this case, even if the main beneficiaries of the decision -- the enfranchised media outfits of radio and tv -- neither wanted nor needed their protection in this case. They left poor Frank Chavez all alone to fight for their rights. But the Court was not to be denied its brownie point, no matter how superfluous the decision now is. The message, ominously, is that Press Freedom allows Mass Media, including broadcasters, to freely air even allegedly wiretapped material, all for the sake of the Public's Right of Information of course. Habeamus data!

CAVEAT 9: The Supreme Court's two year delay is inexplicable except as part of the wider coverup. Else, why did they put to sleep for two years what they call a PATENT VIOLATION of the Constitution involving PRIOR RESTRAINT in the challenged acts of respondents Justice Secretary and National Telecommunications Commission? By delaying, the Court has denied the Garci Tapes any substantive role in the investigations of Congress, in particular into matters of National Security at the Senate, and no less than three impeachment attempts in the House. During the time the Supreme Court was cogitating on the matter, the physical evidence in despicable crimes against the Antiwiretapping Law, the election codes, and illegal use of the Military for partisan political purposes, has been in an official LEGAL LIMBO.

That is the service the Supreme Court performed for the Palace throughout this whole sorry affair. An Act of OMISSION that deprived the Constitution and the people of Accountability from its public officers. Do they now expect laurels for ruling so belatedly on this issue. Their upholding of Press Freedom in this decision is SUPERFLUOUS and TARDY to the point of being DEVIOUS. Hours after Bunye allowed media to make digital copies the material had fallen into the public domain, the well of PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE from which neither law nor decision can rescue it. If the Constitutional violation of the challenged acts were PATENT, then why did they wait until after three impeachment attempts had been frustrated for lack of juridical guidance on the probative value of the recordings. The Court takes ZERO judicial notice of the processes that occurred in the House and Senate. Nothing speaks more of their disdain for the coordinate Branch of the Congress, a lethal habit learned from Hilario Davide.

ZTE in Pakistan BOT Overpricing-Kickback Scam...a Global Modus Operandi?

The Equalizer wants a boycott of the Beijing Olympics after ZTE issued a Press Statement calling the Senate hearings a "political circus." Touting its plan to make $10 billion in sales this year, the Chinese telecomm manufacturing dragon is trying hard to sound like a blue chip company by laying claim to a "clean and proven track record" that is "unsullied" by corruption. Oh, but what about the following National News item involving ZTE Corp. of China published by DAWN, Pakistan's largest circulated English language newspaper in 2004 implicating ZTE in an overpricing and kickback scam with Pakistani insiders? Must be ZTE's modus operandi!

Accountability court grants remand of 3 PTCL officials: Rs141m project scam
07 March 2004 Sunday 15 Muharram 1425
ISLAMABAD, March 6: An accountability court on Saturday granted a 15-day physical remand of three PTCL officials involved in the Rs141 million Built and Operate (BT) project scam. Among the officials is member telecommunication in the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication Nooruddin Baqai.

The accountability judge, Mohammad Aslam Khan, adjourned the proceedings for March 20 with a direction to the authorities to produce ex-chief engineer (Private Sector Project PTCL headquarters) Nooruddin Baqai, ex-divisional accounts officer BT project Islamabad Rehmat Ali Sajid and ex-divisional engineer Asmatullah Khan on the next date of hearing. The three accused were arrested by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) late Friday night.

The BT project contract was signed between China Wanbao/ZTE and PTCL on October 17, 1998 under which 305,000 digital telephone lines would be installed.

Sound familiar?
Read all about ZTE in Pakistan

UPDATES ALL DAY...
Say... did you hear the news about Raphael the Archangel? Blackshama has the word on the official Patron of the Desperately Dateless on Valentines Day. Meanwhile Dr. Emer unwittingly promotes Trouble with his advice of what to do when romance fades: try something new.

I knew it! Ivan About Town is not about backpacking and trekking and all that hard grunting stuff at all!

The Village Idiot Savant meditates on the Buddha, via a spider's tale, adjudging him aloof because he lacks the dimension of compassion and forgiveness that Jesus Christ represents. But I think the comparison is better reserved for Yahweh, the old jealous, fiery, demanding King Lear character of the Old Testament. Now there's a Divine Curmudgeon for you!

An OFW in Hong Kong suggests we attend the anti-GMA rally in Makati City today. The Black and White Movement agrees with the Makati Business Club: "It's the beginning of the end."

The Belmont Club warns of a future Islamic Republic of America and various ominous signs of the times. ("Ontario looks to replace the Lord's Prayer... Obama foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski heads for Damascus at a tense time. Saudi Arabia prepares to execute a woman for witchcraft.") I guess not if John McCain has anything to say about it, as he has never lacked for audacity. But he's gonna have to say it a lot better than the two time Grammy Award winner Barack Obama.

PNP Chief Avelino Razon has just told ABSCBN News that the ASSASSINATION PLOT against President Arroyo comes from the Abu Sayyaf Group and Jemaah Islamiyah. But asked if the Police are going on Red Alert, he said nonchalantly, "NO, just heightened alert." (I guess the Red Alert is reserved for the Makati rally).



More BELOW THE FOLD

---

If the charges of Jun Lozada of a massive overprice are true, it is highly improbable that the Philippines NBN and Pakistan's PTCL are the only cases in which ZTE has been involved in the same highly suspicious relationship with powerful persons in two countries whose official corruption stats are legendary and mythical. Know any others?

---

On the ongoing debate over the limits of Press Freedom
1987 Bill of Rights Section 4. 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.

CHECHE LAZARO talked about scoops, sensationalism and competitiveness on Media in Focus with Manuel L. Quezon III, Vergel O. Santos, Ricky Carandang and Dana Batnag of Jiji Press.

Ms. Batnag professes not to understand why many of her usual news and information sources have suddenly dried up. But when she and the rest of the journalists who refused to obey police instructions to get out of the way at the Manila Pen, they BECAME a PART of the STORY itself, especially after they got arrested. I frankly think they were lucky not to be charged with obstruction of justice, or worse, if someone had gotten hurt or killed.

MLQ3 and V.O. Santos both believe that Press Freedom and the duty of journalists to inform the Public should have the highest imaginable priority among public rights and duties, (even over that of the Police in dangerous, life-threatening situations.) The Public's Right to Know is often cited by Press Freedom supremacists as the thing whose satisfaction is indispensable to Freedom itself. Unfortunately, the Public wants to know not only things like the Truth, but also lies, fiction, gossip, movie schedules, obits, entertainment, sports, lotto results, ads and commercials.

So, isn't it obvious?

Press Freedom is really the right to buy and sell information. And not just the Truth, but anything that can be bought and sold for a price set by supply and demand in the marketplace of ideas and sense impressions. TV, print and radio are like toll roads that transport and deliver that information to the general public. It is only reasonable that a fee be charged for such a service as satisfying the Public's right to know whatever the heck the Public wants to know or to experience.

I think the important lesson arising out of the Manila Pen incident is that a HIERARCHY of rights, duties and powers must be recognized and respected. The Mass Media's right of press freedom and their duty to inform the public (as well as to entertain, inspire and educate, in exchange for a reasonable, market-driven fee) cannot possibly be higher in that hierarchy than the right to life and security of police whose duty is to enforce the laws and arrest the lawbreakers.

---

Supreme Court: OK To Air Garci Recordings (Ho-hum!)

The Supreme Court has finally handed down its decision on the Garci Recordings saying it's okay to air them (two years after they've been posted on the Internet and everyone already has!). Anonymous in the Comment Thread asks "Why Now?" this decision on Garci. I think the Court is buttering up the Public and the Press for a major decision on Executive Privilege.

NEWSBREAK: "The Supreme Court Tuesday voted 9-6 in favor of airing the controversial “Hello, Garci” tape from the 2004 presidential election period which the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) and the Secretary of Justice had warned radio stations and television networks against playing."

I wonder what took them so long? What is moot and academic is the desire to suppress them because of the ignominy they bring to the President. The Supreme Court itself partook of that ignominy by this unconscionable delay Two years would seem to have been long enough for this fruit to ripen. Now it is just rotten. I can't wait to read the decision which will be released Friday just to see if any of these Philippine Commentaries make any sense at all:

National Security is the Highest National Interest
The Wire Tapping. The Wire Tapping!
Was the Adam and Eve of All Tapes Digital?
Overhearing the Palace Thinking
Rope-a-Dope Trap: Garci as Poisoned Pawn?
Fingerprinting the Human Voice
Judas Goat On Top Of Mount Pinatubo
Supreme Court Will Now Rule in Garci's Favor
Stunning Break in Gloriagate Controversy
Fourteen Soldiers Are Hostages of ISAFP
Long Live the Anti Wire Tapping Law!
The Right to Privacy and the Public's Right to Know
Only the Opposition Can Save GMA
Dilemma of the Poisoned Fruits
Freedom and Garci's Second Petition

---

UPDATES:

By the way congratulations to Blue Anna's "Pao" on his successful Thesis defense. (Juris Doctor). Punzi, meanwhile, is caregiving.

BLACKSHAMA on the conscience as a castle keep.

Jenny goes for the long shot.

The Hillblogger (who says she is a European conservative) wants to unleash a blogswarm on the war in Iraq but defends NATO's involvement in Afghanistan. One out of two, good enough for me.

Still the best photoblogger around, Senor Enrique ("Wish you were here!")

The Pinoy Penman (old friend Butch Dalisay) is having a MAC attack.

Radioactive Adobo is, but they gotta turn on their spam filter over there.

The Ricelander ponders Jun Lozada.

Something for the 3D animators in the audience. VAES9 carries the 2008 Google Sketchup Model Your Campus Competition. It's not 3dsmax or even Truspace, but Sketchup lets you put things in Google Earth. W00t!

Who Owns the Right to Know -- the Public, the Press, or Congress?

THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO KNOW the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth about their government is indispensable to making a representative democracy work. Unfortunately the Public's Right to Know is not self-executing, and amounts to a right to try and find out.

Devoted to that end, Journalism, Mass Media and Telecomms have evolved as the organized suppliers of the Public's Right to Know, through a vigorous and undeniably lucrative exercise of the Constitutionally protected Freedom of the Press. The commercial exploitation of the right to information is premised upon the more general rights to freedom of speech and expression, which thereby come under the marvelous protection of free enterprise Capitalism itself.

Thus Press Freedom is really the freedom of the marketplace for ideas. Which is a great big market place in which "The Truth" is only one of the myriad products for sale in a 24/7 catalogue of news, views, and entertainment. Press Freedom, as such, belongs to an even larger cosmos of free markets that span artistic and literary freedom, as well as academic freedom and the rights of education.

Recently it has been claimed in several controversial contexts that the exercise of Press Freedom has the highest possible priority over all others because that exercise serves the Right of the Public to Know, and ought not to be impeded, even by the Police. The Press does have more power to find out the Truth than ordinary citizens, because of the material, technological and human resource advantages of capitalist organization and funding organized free speech.

But we need a better appreciation and respect for the definite hierarchy of rights, duties and powers that are apportioned to individuals, corporations and institutions, all of whom claiming the rights of Freedom of Expression and the Public's Right to Know.

The Supreme Court states in Senate v. Ermita:

There are, it bears noting, clear distinctions between the right of Congress to information which underlies the power of inquiry and the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. For one, the demand of a citizen for the production of documents pursuant to his right to information does not have the same obligatory force as a subpoena duces tecum issued by Congress. Neither does the right to information grant a citizen the power to exact testimony from government officials. These powers belong only to Congress and not to an individual citizen.

CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW AND THE POWERS TO FIND OUT Clearly, CONGRESS has a greater Right to Know than private citizens or the Press with processes and powers to enforce that right, because it also happens to be the DUTY of the Congress to KNOW all pertinent information about matters of public interest otherwise they cannot wisely make and remake the laws.

[1987 ART. VI Section 21] The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

In the final analysis it is Congress that has not only the RIGHT TO KNOW but also the DUTY TO KNOW "the Truth" about the Government as a whole, to inform the people what it finds out, in order to fix the laws in response. WOODROW WILSON explains:

Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of administration. It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

The main legislative function of Congress is to pass the annual national government budget.
The primary DUTY of Congress is to make and remake that particular law appropriating the national government budget, now over a trillion pesos, a task which would endear them to the Masses, if only they did it with more regularity and less graft.

This DUTY to make and remake the budget requires "continuous watchfulness" by the Congress and its committees over the executive department, which spends that budget. Without knowing how the administration is implementing the laws, Congress cannot do its DUTY to remake the laws. The House and Senate Budget hearings are essentially exercises of the Congressional power of oversight.

In short, neither Private Citizens nor even the Press have a sworn duty or obligation to know the truth about any given facet of reality or society. Therefore, the Constitution does not give them the POWERS OF INQUIRY that it clearly accords to the Congress as the elected representatives of the people.

The general powers of oversight given to Congress are vast. If they were wielded by honest and forthright government officials, it is unimaginable how Evil can reign! The Constitution grants Congress extensive authority to oversee and investigate executive branch activities. The constitutional authority for Congress to conduct oversight stems from such explicit and implicit provisions as:

1. The power of the purse.
2. The power to organize the executive branch.
3. The power to confirm officers of the Republic.
5. The power of investigation and inquiry.
6. Impeachment and removal.

Thus private persons have less power given to them by the Constitution to find stuff out about the government. Even if we each share equally in the Public's Right to Know, our power to find out is strictly limited by the fact that as private citizens we have no actual duty or even ability to do so. And of course, most citizens do not have the interest to know. The Right to Know is also the Right Not to Know if one does not want to. Or even, to know what is false, fanciful, artistic, fantastic or plain inane.

INDIVIDUALS have the broadest elemental rights of Freedom of Expression. Artistic, literary, academic, and journalistic endeavours are explicitly protected by the Constitution. Of course, freedom of speech is so broad it also protects bad art, terrible books, horrible research, even gossip columns masquerading as fearless views. The reason for this is that Freedom of Speech is the law of equal liberty among citizens to express themselves, to speak and be spoken to, to hear and to be heard. But at the level of the individual citizen expressing himself, the only duty one is obliged to discharge is not to interfere with the equal rights of others to free expression. There is no legal obligation to "tell the truth" or anything like that when it comes to personal free expression. I can stand on a street corner on top of a soap box and say to passersby that the universe was created by the Great Spaghetti Monster. In other words, when individuals exercise this most basic right of free expression, there is no DUTY or OBLIGATION to speak the truth. I may speak my own opinion about things, and as long as I do not impose this on others, THEY are obliged to defend my right to say it, as I am obliged to defend theirs. My Liberty is your Libery! In artistic freedom, the same thing happens. I am allowed to draw a cubical patch of grass and entitle it "The True and Real Shape of Planet Earth" and be assured that my freedom to do so is protected by the Constitution itself!

JOURNALISTS AND MASS MEDIA also have broad rights of Free Speech that come under the specific label of Press Freedom. Newspapers, radio and television also enjoy explicit Constitutional protection to exercise free speech rights. Moreover, they can buy and sell, manufacture and distribute news, views, gossip and commercial messages of virtually any quality, veracity, utility or profundity that they wish. Like individuals who exercise free speech rights, commercial mass media are not obliged by legal DUTY to deal exclusively in lofty matters such as "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Even the legendary objectivity or impartiality of the Press when it comes to straight news stories is a matter of their own free will and choice, often because that is the only way to survive in the commercial marketplace of competing media outfits. But TELLING THE TRUTH is not essentially the duty of the Press. Suppose for example that a newspaper consistently LIES by printing the wrong month, day and year on its pages. They can't be prosecuted for such dishonesty, misleading and harmful though it might be to the gullible. Neither can they be stopped from printing gossip columns, salacious and titillating news stories, or pernicious punditry, for that would be censorious abridgement of free speech! Instead, the mass media are part of the vast commercial marketplace for intellectual properties and commodities such as news, views, gossip, shipping schedules, classified ads, movie reviews and sports stories. The rights of Press Freedom, in the ultimate analysis, are really the rights of commerce and free enterprise. Free Speech is an essential and integral part of CAPITALISM itself, because advertising, marketing, promotions and the very price of goods themselves are the lifeblood of information that flows in the economy. Without a free flow of that information, we would not even have "free enterprise capitalism." Thus, the Main Stream Media serve the Public's Right to Know by maintaining a free-enterprise commercial marketplace for gathering, producing, buying and selling information and knowledge of all kinds. Together with Academe, the Press enjoys the freedom of a free market. PRESS FREEDOM is essentially the right to the commercial exploitation of information and data. It is as safe as Free Enterprise Capitalism itself.

Although Mass Media supremacists have lately been claiming the highest priority for Press Freedom and its practitioner-beneficiaries, Father Joaquin Bernas has already enunciated the principle that Mass Media does not possess more rights under Freedom of Expression than ordinary citizens do. In fact, I have opined that they possess less rights by the amount represented by limitations in the Franchise and Libel laws.

Media Asks Supreme Court to Make Them Immune From The Laws

The Philippine Media and Supreme Court may soon make history by proclaiming a Principle of PRIOR RESTRAINT against the POLICE. The Petition by journalists for a Writ of Prohibition against top govt officials takes especial umbrage at the following rage-bait from Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez...

“DOJ ADVISORY

PLEASE BE REMINDED THAT YOUR RESPECTIVE COMPANIES, NETWORKS OR ORGANIZATIONS MAY INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITIES UNDER THE LAW, IF ANYONE OF YOUR FIELD REPORTERS, NEWS GATHERERS, PHOTOGRAPHERS, CAMERAMEN AND OTHER JOURNALISTS WILL DISOBEY LAWFUL ORDERS FROM DULY AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND PERSONNEL DURING EMERGENCIES WHICH MAY LEAD TO COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTIES AND CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN CASE OF AUTHORIZED POLICE OR MILITARY OPERATIONS.

They pray the Court "prohibit the enforcement" of the above advisory, thus giving journalists a virtual carte blanche to disobey lawful orders during authorized police or military operations. They want to be declared ABOVE THE LAW because they supposedly have Press Freedom. Ano, sinusuerte sila? This is not a serious legal case, but both Media and Supreme Court are determined and destined to make beautiful headlines together. Isn't that obvious?

In my opinion Manila Pen was an issue akin to that of Crowd Control. When a given situation is declared to be a crime scene by the Police, it is the legal and moral obligation of all citizens to comply with any reasonable police requests, orders or ultimata [sic!], even if they happen to be journalists. It is hardly any suppression of Press Freedom for the press to cover events from say 100 meters away instead of having to be 1 meter away from the blazing guns and swirling tear gas! Of course all the Sturm und Drang whipped up by the Press has obscured this central issue, that by disobeying the police's instructions on that day, the press unnecessarily endangered life and limb, not only theirs, but the police.

Upon close inspection the advisory merely declares the intention of the authorities to enforce the laws of the land relevant to situations like the Manila Pen standoff, in which Mass Media and Civilians with no clear chain of command and control created a complex and dangerous situation that was miraculously resolved peaceably. But it ended with the assailed arrests of some 50 media personalities who refused to vacate the hotel even after three police ultimata. Now it's them that claim aggrievement. The Public has turned a cold shoulder.

It was not our Right to Know that was endangered at the Manila Pen. It was the Right to Life, primarily of the police who did not know what they were facing in Trillanes' Little Trap at the Manila Pen. The Journalists who stayed endangered not only their lives but also that of the police. I do believe more journalists obeyed the police than disobeyed them.

THE PRIORITY OF LIBERTIES The rights of Journalism, as organized Free Speech, are actually the rights of commerce. Journalism is the right to freely buy and sell information of all kinds (”Speech”). A newspaper, tv or radio station is first and foremost a commercial enterprise for profit. Although the marketing hype usually invokes such things as serving the public’s right to know, it cannot be denied that 80% of media income comes from selling telecomm load and peddling movie tsismis. A nilpotent amount of journalism goes to such lofty activities as fueling corrupt uprisings to overthrow popular Presidents, though such sensational crusading is essential to the success of the enterprise.

Consider: a Waiter, a Journalist and a Cop.

Whose job is it to serve the famous Manila Pen halo-halo and satisfy our right to pursue happiness?

Whose job is it to report on the news event and thus satisfy our right to know by exercising the Liberty called Press Freedom?

Whose job is it to protect everyone’s Right to Life by upholding the Law and preserving public peace and order?

The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, in that lexical order, are truths self-evident (since 1776).

But it is their PRIORITY as revealed to us by common sense that some journalists ignore.

The Right to Life of cops is most in danger of being violated by rebels and putschists. But the reason Waiters and Journalists morally ought to accept the priority of the cops doing their job rests in that ranking of rights and duties.

Freedom is a compound whose elements are rights and duties.

The duty with higher priority is the one whose corresponding right is has a higher lexical order.

Thus, although the waiter has the right to serve halo-halo, he cannot insist upon exercising it if the cops say they have a job to do involving public order and security!

The right to life trumps the right to serve happiness in a glass of Manila Pen halo halo.

Likewise the right to life (of everyone, not just the cops) trumps the right to find stuff out and sell sensational news.

WHY ARE SCOOPS IMPORTANT? Being so lucrative, journalism is a competitive industry. The need for scoops in Journalism is like the need of our shabu-addicted bus drivers on EDSA to "scoop up" passengers before the Other Guy does. Since most of the inside pages off prime time material is mundane and boring, all media needs the Front Pages and Prime Time News to have sensational eye popping news and views. Without such colorful packaging and gaudy wrappers and spicy calumnies, where would our brand of Fast Food Journalism be?

COGNOS UBER ALLES: Still there is a school of thought which believes that the Right to Know has the highest possible priority because of the honored place it holds in our Constitution and democratic traditions.

Section 4. 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.

However, the absolutist interpretation of this provision favored by today's petitioners, does not sustain any vitality when one contemplates the dire abridgements of broadcast media's freedoms glaringly self-evident in their Franchise Agreements with Congress, abridgements they have willingly accepted in exchange for the lucrative privilege of commercially exploitating the electromagnetic spectrum.

Naturally, Hammers are determined to protect their right to drive Nails into hard surfaces. And there can be no possible ceiling to the altitudes of eloquence reached by the press freedom fighters of our day and age in its defense and their right to take the offensive on any and all Public Figures.

The job of journalists is deemed to be so noble and essential to the well-being of the masses that ANY interference by the Police -- such as daring to stop a bunch of rebel putschists from acting out "Edsa Next" at a luxury Makati hotel is tantamount to abridging the Freedom of the Press and detrimental to the Public's Right to Know.

Here is Maria Ressa's Statement upon filing the Petition today...

"We Have Press Freedom or We Don’t. There is No Middle Ground."

Statement delivered by Maria Ressa before the press conference on the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Prohibition before the Supreme Court 28 January 2008, Manila

Last week, 11 of our colleagues went to the Supreme Court to question the legality of their arrests after the Manila Peninsula siege and to ask for reprieve from the repeated threats and attempts to harass and intimidate journalists. Today, almost a hundred journalists from more than 15 media organizations join them. Some of us were among those arrested, without the benefit of a warrant – the largest number of journalists arrested by a democratic government while reporting on a political conflict. For those of us who were not arrested, we are just as affected by recent moves which we unanimously believe are designed to limit press freedom.

The line has been moved. For each of us, it would be easier to pretend we didn’t notice, but we know that if we do nothing, we help destroy press freedom. That is why we came to the Supreme Court today.

We take this action because we cannot allow press freedom to be confined to narrow physical bounds and narrowly interpreted principles, conveniently defined by those in authority to serve the political interests of the moment.

This is a good time to review the government policy on press freedom – after Proclamation 1017 in 2006, the arrests of more than 50 journalists after the Manila Peninsula siege last year and the continuing intimidation, threats, and warnings issued by government authorities in recent weeks and days. This is the reason why we, as journalists, have come forward to present our cases.

We reject any suggestion that we are resorting to “trial by publicity.” We are taking the legal high road because we believe we either have press freedom or we don’t. There is no middle ground.

The individual stories of the petitioners and plaintiffs in the cases filed today provide compelling facts that need to be presented before the scrutiny of the courts of the land in the interest of truth and justice. Our objective is not just relief, but for the Supreme Court to help us correct the current situation where, we believe, press freedom is being constantly redefined and constrained.

Our petition before the Supreme Court explains our reasons, and I quote:
“The arrests of the journalists who covered the hotel siege; the threats, warnings and “reminders” of re-arrest and/or criminal liability; the public denunciation of the press as coddlers of military rebels; and the treatment of the press as combatants are unconstitutional because they unduly restrict petitioners’ rights to free speech and expression, vitiate the freedom of the press, and prevent the exercise of the people’s constitutional right to information on matters of public concern.”

If our country is to remain the democracy we reclaimed in 1986, then, we, as journalists, should be allowed to exercise our professions, reporting events as they happen, when they happen. By submitting ourselves to the courts, we show our faith in the institutions of the State, regardless of how we have been treated by some of its officials.

Ultimately, the decision that will be handed down by our courts will influence the future of democracy in our country.

In the end, our democracy is only as good as we make it. The existence of democratic institutions - a separate legislature, an independent Judiciary - a Constitutional guarantee of free expression, and a free press, do not themselves guarantee a democracy. They only make democracy possible. Making it a reality depends on the men and women who make it work.

Our action today is media’s contribution to democracy in our country. This is our commitment to upholding it and making it work for our people.

Wow! What a perfectly hyperbolic piece of emotional blackmail!

Supreme Court Praised for Prejudging Hundreds of Active Libel Cases

PRAISED BY THE ACCUSED!

The newspaper which has been slapped with literally THOUSANDS of criminal libel law suits in its relatively short 20 year career as the Philippine Daily Innuendo, and has hundreds of active cases today calls the Libel Laws "a tool for repression!" The editorial gives fulsome praise to Mr. Chief Justice Reynato Puno's latest circular (PDF) virtually PREJUDGING those cases in favor of the Accused. By limiting any possible punishment to fines for the Media Mavens and Moguls that are on the dock in hundreds of still active and unresolved cases, the Supreme Court really has USURPED Congress as it did in 2001 by issuing an unethical mass advisory opinion. It's a culpable violation of the Constitution, and an impeachable offense, in my humble opinion, but the High Court has already peed all over the only Constitutional process by which they themselves can be held to Public Accountability, the impeachment process. Now with the help of Media, they will complete the legal cuckolding of the Congress by unelected Judges in Black Robes.

Although we are obliged to defend PDI's right to Press Freedom, we also have Freedom of Speech so, "Har dee har har!" While the swinging door of observation is momentarily ajar, let us see what mental illness has seized some in the Media and why they are really buttering up the Supreme Court with promises of undying glory and praise in its Front Pages yet to be...

Every Freedom is a compound composed of two basic elements: Rights and a Duties.

The Rights to Life, Liberty and the various pursuits of happiness, are well known. But what are the corresponding Duties? The answer lies in the Principle of Equal Liberty for each citizen. I think that in general the Duty that corresponds to any given democratic Right is the obligation to defend that same Right in others whenever we decide to exercise a given Freedom.

The Right to Life always comes with the Duty to defend an equal "freedom from unjust death" in others as much as for ourselves. The principle of self-defense is a natural derivative.

So too, with "Liberty" and "Pursuit of Happiness". We cannot enjoy these freedoms unless we recognize, as a matter of Social Contract and Common Sense, that an equal right to them exists in others. The preternatural assumption of a Constitutional Democracy, as a Social Contract, is that those who are agreeing to be bound by its provisions, do not know, a priori, what their social class, economic status, political position or personal circumstances are going to be in History. So that in choosing the basic principles that are to govern their association as a society, they are forced to choose principles based solely on the Principle of Equal Liberty for all.

Let us take Press Freedom. Journalism is really an organized, commercialized form of free speech, a freedom of assembly as it were, which includes and relies upon commercial rights to survive buying and selling information--all kinds of information. Thus Press Freedom covers not only the freedom to report the news, it is also the right to sell telecomm load.

The Right to Liberty is an omnibus right to an expandable list of freedoms that human societies specifically recognize as the Bill of Rights. The duty that attaches to each one is specific to that right, but all are governed by: "My Liberty Is Your Liberty!" whenever controversies arise among individuals and institutions.

What the media has now lost sight of is Father Joaquin Bernas' dictum that journalists do not have "more" freedom of speech than ordinary citizens, so that in matters of public security andorder, they should accept lawful authority and not prop themselves up above the law by standing on the shoulders of their Sacred Cow. My critique of the Mass Media in the Manila Pen controversy is based on this Principle of Equal Liberty when it comes to Freedom of Speech.

The latest escalation in the Radical Media's War on the Cops is getting a usual noisy send off over at Ellen Tordesillas blog, where I've been hanging around this week adding to the general atmosphere of Sturm und Drang.