Freedom of the press

I have no desire to dwell anew on the furor that ensured when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo upbraided GMA-7 reporter Tina Panganiban-Perez for having interviewed fugitive Sen. Gregorio (Gringo) Honasan. The curtains have gone down on that incident. To her credit, La Gloria readily realized her blunder, reportedly hugged Mrs. Perez and made up. Where that is concerned, all’s well that ends well. Not all the clouds however have dissipated on the larger issue of press freedom.

And here, as one of the few practicing members of post-World War II media in the Philippines still alive and kicking, I feel that not everything has been said. So shoot.

To begin, that freedom has been enshrined in all our constitutions. We had the Commonwealth constitution of 1935, the 1973 constitution that strangely came to life in 1973, a year after Ferdinand Marcos declared martial rule and the post-EDSA 1986 constitution. In Article IV (Bill of Rights) of the first two charters and Article III of the third, we have this section, identical in text:

"No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of the speech, of expression, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."

There is a reinforcing Section 7 under the Bill of Rights in our current constitution that stipulates: "The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded."

Now that we have nailed these two sections in this space, we fare forth to reinforce that line in the ground on press freedom. This freedom is absolute. It can only be set aside if the practicing journalist knowingly commits treason, maliciously engage in libel, or is guilty of the act of sedition or rebellion. Otherwise, freedom of the press cannot be impugned. He or she who says it can be is a marsupial of the first order. Such a one is presidential deputy spokesperson Ricardo Saludo. On television recently, he told Tina Monzon Palma that press freedom could end where sedition or inciting to sedition begins. Oh yeah?

The implication here was that Tina Panganiban-Perez already quaffed the forbidden potion of inciting to sedition. Why? Because the Gringo Honasan interview took place while the "state of rebellion" was still enforce. What state of rebellion, mynheer? The only state the Philippines was in, particularly Malacañang, was a state of stupor. There was no "state of rebellion", since such has never been propounded by the constitution or our courts of law. You might as well declare "state of confusion" or "state of malediction" or "state of distemper" of "state of anguish."

Now, let me raise the ante so the powers that be can fully understand.

Freedom of the press is the crowning freedom in a democracy. Remove or endanger this freedom, and all other freedoms are removed and endangered. Here let me quote "Communication is Power" authored by Herbert Brucker: "We cannot regulate the press by law, or by any other force from without and retain our other liberties." And further down, Brucker, an American authority on the subject, hits a high and overpowering note:

"If ever there is be an amelioration of the condition of mankind, philosophers, theologians, legislators, politicians, and moralists will find that the regulation of the press is the most difficult, and important problem they have to resolve. Mankind cannot now be governed without it, nor at present with it." Claro?

So there are you. Even Ferdinand Marcos learned this lesson, albeit late in the day. He muzzled the local press. That was easy. He just bought them off and smashed the fear of the carabinieri, led by General Fabian Ver, into their ears. But he couldn’t muzzle the international press. In the end, this press got him by the neck. When EDSA broke out in February 1986, and even before, it seemed the whole of international media had poured into Manila.

The dictator couldn’t stop them. He couldn’t hide himself. He couldn’t hide Imelda. He couldn’t hide Malacañang. He couldn’t hide the feral face of Fabian Ver. For all his power, he could not hide the massed throngs of EDSA. He couldn’t hide the poverty and wildfiring discontent of the masses. All these were seen all over the world, courtesy of print and broadcast media. They did the work of a million flashlights poring into the stink, the ugliness, the revolting face of the Marcos dictatorship. How could Mr. Marcos prevail? In the end, the once haughty and overbearing dictator fled to Honolulu, a small hat perched on his small head, peering ahead, his baritone voice reduced to the pathetic croak of a bullfrog lost in the marsh.

So that is where all this brings us.

The only force that can regulate or discipline media is media itself. As the Latin saying underscores: Quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Who will guard the guardian? That is why in many genuine democracies, there are press councils, committees on ethics, Commission on Freedom of the Press. The US version of this was finance by Henry Luce of Time. Yes the media, our media, commits a slew of abuses, can at times be very immature and irresponsible–disgusting. Swaggering when it should be down on its knees.

It is the nature of the angel as it is the nature of the beast. We must not forget one essential matter. The relationship between government and media is adversarial, as in a court of law. Each is prone to extreme emotion, commit mistakes. The government seeks to conceal its faults, wrap a shroud over its infirmities, use its power to coerce or intimidate, bribe handsomely as is often the case. The media seeks to ferret out information, the truth, every important or relevant detail. If the ferreting out of information requires interviews with Gringo Honasan or any other outlaw, so be it. The public is constitutionally entitled to be informed on major issues.

Marcos was not a piker in the arcane art of frightening media. He sent over the feared Col. Rolando Abadilla and the latter’s bully boy to harass the offices of the Agence France-Presse either with threatening telephone calls or Metrocom vehicles ringing our place. He sent over BIR agents to examine our books with salivating gusto. He sent squads of the Labor Ministry to ascertain we had not violated any labor law. He sent technicians of the City of Manila to check whether every electrical wire was in place. When things would get rough and they became nasty, I told many of them to go to hell, and stay there because that was where they belonged.

What they couldn’t understand was why I, a Filipino, was working for "foreign masters" and why I, again a Filipino, could not support or at the very least collaborate with the Filipino dictatorship. Each time was an occasion for me to uphold press freedom, explain that this freedom was a lodestar for all peoples striving for liberty. If I had violated the nation’s laws, then they could always arrest me. Ultimately, they backed off, except Colonel Abadilla whose shadow never left me.

And so, I extend a chapeau to my fellow STAR columnist Jarius Bondoc.

He has not been afraid to cross swords with Sen. Panfilo Lacson on the Kuratong Baleleng, narcotics, money laundering and other issues. As a result, he and his family have received death threats. Jarius landed in the "rogues gallery" of Lacson, that select group of men and women who reportedly frequent the First Gentleman Mike Arroyo’s offices at the LTA Building on Perea St., Makati. The implication, hardly hidden, is that Jarius is handsomely on the take. Jarius replies his lawyers hold office in the same building.

Take heart, Jarius. I myself was in your situation eight years ago. Even worse. I was ankle deep in this space, firing broadsides at wrongoes in power. Joseph Estrada was then in power, head of the Presidential Anti- Crime Commission (PACC). Then two or three-star police general Panfilo Lacson was head of Task Force Habagat, Erap’s jackbooted janissaries. I made light of Vice President Estrada’s exertions as crime czar, insinuated he was more of Rambobola than Rambo the Original. The Vice President challenged me to a fist fight. Which of course I refused. He challenged my courage and dared me to take over his job as PACC chief. I said I would if he would take over my job as STAR columnist. Our publisher Max Soliven said the exchange was implausible. And you know what that meant. Eventually, I poured shot and shell on the Kuratong Baleleng case, whose perceived principal then as now is Ping Lacson.

In the course of all these journalistic sorties, my residence was set upon by five armed criminals who held me and my family hostage for seven hours. They jammed two guns on my temple, poised a long kitchen knife at my chest, hurled me against a wall, hogtied everybody in the household including my son. That was my real baptism of fire. They threatened to kill me. Maybe foolishly and recklessly, I retorted, "Go ahead, right here, right now, kill me. I am ready to die." They backed off. I sensed from the beginning, it was a political hit ordered by somebody high up there. I leave you to guess who the mastermind or masterminds were. That crime was never solved.

In a sense, that also is what press freedom is all about.