......................................................................... .................................................................... 1• MARCH-APRIL 2009

WHAT’SiNSIDEUnconstitutionalThe right to reply billsare unconstitutional;they abridge thefreedom of the press.

Media andeconomic crisisThe global economicmeltdown has startedto affect local mediaorganizations.

MARCH-APRIL 2009............................... .................................... .................................................................................

May I bethe lastI hope no otherjournalist or mediapractitioner will goto prison after me.

UZETTE NICOLAS’ expression of doubt that shehad been raped made headlines. But the contextseldom did.

Nicolas is the “Nicole” who had complainedthat she had been raped by a United States Ma-

n By Alaysa Tagumpay E. Escandor

Turn to page 12

UNEQUAL RELATIONSTHE MEDIA,

THE VFA—ANDTHE MEDIA,

THE VFA—AND

Photos by LITO OCAMPO

THAT ‘RAPE’THAT ‘RAPE’Srine on Nov. 1, 2005, whose March 12, 2009 affidavit—almost four years after the alleged assault—did not out-rightly retract her claim of rape, but was wily enough tosuggest the exact same thing. One of the results was a

debate of sorts in the media on whether or not hername should now be revealed, since, going by heraffidavit, she would now lose the protection mediashould accord victims of violent crimes by conceal-ing their real names.

................................................................... .........................................................................2 • MARCH-APRIL 2009

editor’sNOTEPUBLISHED BY THE CENTER FOR MEDIA

FREEDOM & RESPONSIBILITY

Melinda Quintos de JesusPublisher

Luis V. TeodoroEditor

Hector Bryant L. MacaleAssistant Editor

Melanie Y. PinlacKathryn Roja G. RaymundoEdsel Van DT. DuraAlaysa Tagumpay E. EscandorReporters

Arnel RivalArt Director

Lito OcampoPhotographer

Carol M. ParageleEditorial Secretary

Jose AbuevaJoaquin Bernas, SJMelinda Quintos de JesusFulgencio FactoranMaribel OngpinTina Monzon PalmaPaulynn Paredes SicamLuis V. TeodoroVergel O. SantosBoard of Advisers

PJR Reports(Philippine Journalism ReviewReports) is published by theCenter for Media Freedom andResponsibility. All mail should beaddressed to:

PJR ReportsCenter for Media Freedomand Responsibility2/F Ateneo Professional Schools,130 H.V. dela Costa St.Salcedo VillageMakati City 1227

Phones:(632) 840-0889/(632) 840-0903(632) 894-1314/(632) 894-1326E-mail: staff@cmfr-phil.orgWebsite: http://www.cmfr-phil.org

PJR Reports welcomes feedbackand contributions on press andmedia issues.

PRESSED FREEDOM Manix Abrera

State of war

................................................................................

APTLY TITLED “Getting Away With Murder 2009”, the Com-mittee to Protect Journalists’ (CPJ) Impunity Index ratesthe Philippines sixth among 14 countries with the worstrecords of unsolved cases of murdered journalists. The othercountries ahead of it are Iraq, Sierra Leone, Somalia, SriLanka and Colombia.

The release of the Index in Manila last March 23 wasitself significant. CPJ chose Manila because, as CPJ SoutheastAsia representative Shawn Crispin said during the launchceremonies, “the Philippines has long been the poster childof impunity.”

It’s a record that should shame the country’s so-calledleaders, but which apparently doesn’t, if we’re to judge fromthe foot-dragging of the courts and the studied indifference,disguised for foreign consumption as pro-active commitment,of the police and the Department of Justice, in the prosecutionof the killers of journalists and the masterminds. Not onlyhave 78 journalists been killed in the line of duty since 1986,of the 40 cases since 2001 when Gloria Macapagal Arroyocame to power, only two have been resolved, and only partially(the masterminds have yet to be apprehended and tried in theDamalerio and Esperat cases).

But what’s unique about the Philippines is not solely thenumber of journalists killed and its being sixth in the CPJIndex.

Iraq is still in a state of war. Sierra Leone’s civil war hasintensified in violence. Civil unrest, clan warfare andinsurgency afflict Somalia. A civil war is raging in Sri Lanka.Insurgency and drug trafficking are savaging Colombia.

Widely regarded as the home of a working democracyand as at peace, the Philippines seems an unlikely posterchild of impunity, but is nevertheless ahead of seventh placerAfghanistan—a country that’s been at war for decades—inthe Index.

But the country may have more in common with failedstates and countries in a state of war than may seem on thesurface.

Protected by one of the most liberal Constitutions in theworld, Filipino journalists are still being killed, among otherreasons because the charter’s provisions are too oftenobserved in the breach rather than the observance by apolitical class that pays lip service to press freedom butactually despises it.

Press freedom is the official norm—but press freedom hasbeen under constant threat in the last five years from thearrest of journalists, threats of sedition charges andwithdrawal of broadcast franchises, whimsical libel suits,and outright imprisonment.

The Constitution makes the protection of human rightsstate policy, but human rights continue to be violated, andtheir most egregious violators even celebrated by a regimeengaged in a secret war that has been raging for decades,but of which few foreign observers are aware. Wagedprimarily in the countryside, this war has claimed the livesof political activists as well as those of priests and judges, andthe non-combatant kin of guerilla fighters.

The result is an official culture that regards most of therights guaranteed by the Constitution as mere wordswithout meaning in the real world. For journalists, thishas meant continuing threats, harassments, and the actualassassination of practitioners despite Constitutionalprotection.

The Philippines may not be as democratic as it seems. Itmay not be at peace either, and its place in the CPJ Index notthe anomaly that on the surface it seems to be.

Luis V. Teodoro

The publication of this issue is supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute.

......................................................................... .................................................................... 3• MARCH-APRIL 2009

in thisISSUEMARCH-APRIL 2009

speaking of

1

MEDIA

REGULAR SECTIONS

The Media, the VFA—and that ‘Rape’ALAYSA TAGUMPAY E. ESCANDOR ........................................................................................

MELANIE Y. PINLACUnconstitutional 9..............................................................................................................

Media and the Economic CrisisAdvertisers in ‘Wait and See’ ModeHECTOR BRYANT L. MACALE 15.................................................................................................

ALAYSA TAGUMPAY E. ESCANDOR

A Tale of Survival14........................................................................................

The view from the groundJournalists on the CrisisHECTOR BRYANT L. MACALE 16.................................................................................................Reporting the Crisis, Ignoring the AlternativesKATHRYN ROJA G. RAYMUNDO

May I Be the LastALEX ADONIS

18.............................................................................................HR reporting

Catching UpHECTOR BRYANT L. MACALE 20.................................................................................................

24.......................................................................................................................

Editor’s Note 2Speaking of Media 3Monitor 4Crisis 21Chronicle 23Obit 23

...................................................................................................................

..............................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

6Context MissedEDSEL VAN DT. DURA ..........................................................................................................

A Rose by any other Name may not smell as SweetWhat’s In a Name?

KENNETH ROLAND A. GUDA 13.................................................................................................

Moving to the Web

Bills that curtail“What I want the right to reply to do

is to underscore the fact that that free-dom—the freedom of the press, ofspeech, of expression—is not the mo-nopoly of the members of the FourthEstate. It also belongs to all the people—literate or not.

“Even if the right to reply becomesa law, the press will continue to havethe right to offend. There is no priorcensorship that is being imposed by theright to reply bill.

“Who will assert the right of thepeople to reply to the brickbats throwntheir way by irresponsible media prac-titioners who take liberties with thereputation of whoever happens to haveincurred their ire?

“If they are not members of the KBP(Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ngPilipinas) or the PPI (Philippine PressInstitute), who will do the policing oftheir ranks?

“In an honest-to-goodness discourseon public issues, there should be roomfor dispute, discussion and disagree-ment. There should be space for civilargument that need not degenerate intoa brawl of cuss words or a melee of clash-ing motives.

“But until it is demonstrated thatthey are able to do so, the right to replybill must be enacted for the well-beingof society.”

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q.Pimentel, Jr., justifying the need for a

Right of Reply law,www.pinoypress.net, Feb. 24. Pimentel

is the main sponsor of the Senateversion of the right of reply bill.

“The press is free to expose officialsas crooks, but the crooks remain free tocontinue to steal anyway. Certainlythey remain free.

“It’s an incredible situation wherewords no longer seem to have any vis-ible effect on reality. That is the soundof a country losing its soul.

“I remember this in light of the‘right of reply’ bill sponsored by NenePimentel which has passed the Senatewith no one opposing it and which isdue to pass the House anytime now.Frankly, I can’t understand why myfriend persists in ramming through thisunmitigated folly. There’s nothingmore perverse and ill-timed.

“We’ve just seen one of the most hor-rendous spectacles of official wrongdo-ing ever to be sprung before us—quite afeat given the procession of epic wrong-doing that has passed before our eyes—in the form of the World Bank implicat-ing the First Gentleman in a rip-off

hatched by three WB-funded Filipinofirms. The public went up the hill to callfor heads to fall, the press went (down)to town calling the implicated compa-nies and officials crooks, or as much soas libel laws allowed. The result of allthis sound and fury was to signify—andto prove my point above—nothing.

“Pimentel’s bill is a variation of this.Our problem is that despite having afree press that does not fail to call crookscrooks, our crooks do not fail to get away.The obvious solution to everyone, in-cluding the truant kids in my neigh-borhood, is to not let the crooks get away.The solution to Pimentel is to not let thepress get away.

“That is what his bill does, whateverhis intentions, whatever his motives.There is nothing innocent about it. ThePhilippine Daily Inquirer has alreadypointed out the lunacy of his bill in itseditorials. I’ve done the same in severalcolumns in past months. Suffice it to sayhere that this bill will stamp out criti-cism entirely.

“Why on earth should media bescared per se about officials answeringback? Media have always shown ahigher IQ, if not higher moral standards(barring the crooks in media, who ar-guably thrive as well), than public offi-cials. But you now criticize a public offi-cial, and whether he or she is guilty ornot, he or she will have the right to oc-cupy space in your news. The guiltier,the louder. Or worse, the lengthier.With elections in particular round thecorner, every official who gets criticized,will get to strut his hour upon the stage,or its equivalent in media. That is stillanother variation on government’s fa-vorite pastime of rewarding the guiltyand punishing the innocent.

“If you’re a newspaper or a radio orTV station, you will balk at criticizing apublic official, or indeed even praisinghim or her—they can always construeit as faint praise—out of the absolute,terrifying, spine-tingling fear not ofhim refuting you but of him robbingyou of precious space. Still another fa-vorite government pastime, robbing.Space that could, and should, be usedfor legitimate news, which you nowhave to allocate to illegitimate, or un-paid, PR. Yet still other favorite govern-ment pastimes, fomenting illegitimacyand not paying. That is the sound ofnews dying. Or being strangled.”

Conrado de Quiros on how the approvalof the Right of Reply Bill will mean the

obstruction of public debate andcriticism of solons and officials in publicoffice, Right to reply, Philippine Daily

Inquirer, March 02, 2009.

Unequal Relations

frontPAGE

An affidavit by the“victim” herselftriggers a mediadebate.

7The Media on the World Bank ScandalKATHRYN ROJA G. RAYMUNDO .............................................................................................An ‘A’ for Effort

................................................................... .........................................................................4 • MARCH-APRIL 2009

MONITOR JEERSCHEERS

Unsafe

CHEERS TO various newsorganizations for provid-

ing background reports on themothballed Bataan NuclearPower Plant (BNPP) instead ofthe usual day-to-day coverageof the revived issue.

Pending a bill at the Houseof Representatives, the govern-ment is studying if commission-ing the BNPP can boost thecountry’s energy-generatingcapacity. Kelvin Rodolfo, a pro-fessor emeritus at the Depart-ment of Earth and Environmen-tal Sciences in the Universityof Illinois, and an adjunct pro-fessor at the National Instituteof Geological Sciences of theUniversity of the Philippines,provided in his column at ThePhilippine Star a history as wellas analysis of the plant’s con-struction, a project of formerPresident Ferdinand Marcos.

Rodolfo showed in his column

Nonsense

JEERS TO the ManilaBulletin’s special report

last March 13 titled “PresidentGloria Macapagal Arroyo isdestined to finish her term ofoffice”, written by Genalyn D.Kabiling.

The story begins by sayingthat Arroyo is “lucky” for hav-ing survived in office. As itstitle declares, the article pre-dicts that Arroyo will finish herterm, despite the many alle-gations of corruption, fraud,and human rights violationsagainst her, and the protestsagainst them.

The article was no specialreport, but a prime exampleof puffery and superstitious

OF THEMONTH

nonsense, going so far as toclaim that “the President’sluck may have something todo with the ghosts and ghoulsthat regularly hang out in hercentury-old official residencein Manila.” Complex issues ofpublic accountability andgovernment responsibilitywere thus explained away,completely ignoring theconfluence of events and thebalance of forces in Philippinepolitics that have enabled Ar-royo to survive the many chal-lenges against her rule. n

JEER

“Star Science” that commission-ing the BNPP would be a highrisk project as it severely vio-lated international safety stan-dards. The four-part report dis-cussed the scientists’ findingswhich said the plant was builthastily and is unsafe because ofthe possibility of earthquakesand volcanic eruptions. The re-port also mentioned the prob-lems of storing or discardingnuclear waste as well as its finan-cial pitfalls (“The geological haz-ards of the Bataan Nuclear PowerPlant”, Feb. 19; Feb. 26; March5, and March 12)

Bulatlat published a relatedarticle, “Revival (sic) of BataanNuclear Power Plant a Source ofCorruption” (Jan. 31). Inter-viewing several experts, Bulatlatsaid the BNPP is defective andwould be costly to operate. Thereport added that commissioningthe plant would not solve the en-ergy crisis and suggested that thegovernment should instead focuson harnessing indigenous andsustainable energy resources.

Dear friends at the PJR Reports,

Let me clarify some points raised in the story that appearedon your January-February issue.

1. In paragraph 20, you wrote: “…the money (Rep. Mujiv)Hataman gave him was for that purpose (to buy somethingfrom Korea) as well as to buy gifts for his (Jose Torres) kid.”

During the interview with your reporter I said that Mujivsent enough money so that I can also buy gifts for the kids(plural), meaning our children (Mujiv’s and my daughter),not kid.

2. In paragraph 32, you wrote: “National Union of Jour-nalists of the Philippines (NUJP) treasurer Rowena Paraansaid that they were able to get hold of documents that provedthat Torres got the money…. Paraan refused to mention hersource, but she said that they were able to get hold of the bankinformation confirming the transfer of money from Hatamanto Torres.”

I believe that the Bank Secrecy Law is still in effect andParaan and her source can be liable of an illegal act by gettinghold of such information. Any evidence obtained illegally isnot acceptable in any court of law. What was there to prove bygetting such information when I admitted that I received themoney from Mujiv? Does it prove that I solicited the money?

3. In paragraph 33, you wrote: “‘During the meeting, weshowed him the proof,’ said NUJP deputy secretary-generalAlwyn Alburo.”

What proof? There was no proof presented except JulieAlipala’s statement and my admission that Mujiv indeed sentme money.

The facts have been twisted that I now tend to question themotive of NUJP in issuing such statement.

Mujiv and I have been friends for 20 years and we sharedwhatever we have—cars, clothes, money, food, etc. The sup-posed reason I was removed as NUJP chair was my allegedsolicitation, which I deny.

Anyway, let me express my gratitude to PJR Reports, forgetting my side of the story, and NUJP for taking seriously theissue of ethics in the profession.

Now that I am out of media, I would like to challenge NUJP,and the other media groups, to go all the way after those whoare making the profession’s image bad, starting with NUJPmembers (and even council members) who work for politi-cians and interest groups of all shades in a regular or contrac-tual basis.

Maybe the PJR Reports can do an investigative report on itespecially as the election season starts. The media owe thetruth to us, ordinary citizens.

Jose Torres Jr.Former chairNational Union of Journalistsof the Philippines

Our reporter misquoted Ms. Rowena Paraan re “bankdocuments”. What Ms. Paraan told PJR Reports was thatNUJP had confirmed that Mr. Torres indeed received moneyfrom Rep. Hataman.

Our apologies.—Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITORRejoinder on “NUJP ousts chair” story

Disgraceful

JEERS TO The Ma-nila Times columnist

Alito L. Malinao for not check-ing the facts in a column on adecade-old e-mail hoax. Butcheers to his paper for quicklypublishing an apology.

Last Feb. 17, Malinao pub-lished excerpts from an openletter allegedly written byAmerican radio talk show hostArt Bell. The supposed Bell ar-ticle, “Filipinos make me puke”,vilified Filipinos and Filipinoculture in general. Malinaoadded that Bell “first aired thearticle in his radio program andrebroadcast throughout theUS.”

“I suspect that Bell is a neo-Nazi or belongs to the white su-premacist group in the USwhose consuming desire is towipe out from the face of theearth all black Americans, Jewsand other non-white minori-ties,” he wrote in a column piecetitled “The ugly American”.

Malinao’s column “Men &Events” also carried the replyby a certain Filipina on Bell’salleged letter. Malinao wrotethat he got the two letters froma former legal counsel of theNational Press Club.

The supposed Bell letterturned out to be a hoax, thesame one that hit the PhilippineDaily Inquirer in July 2001.

In July 2001, former In-quirer entertainment columnistLeah Salterio Gatdula wroteabout the same letter, whichshe got also from e-mail. ThePhilippine Journalism Reviewwrote about it in its September2001 issue.

Two days after the Malinaocolumn, the Times apologizedand said that the columnisthad failed to check the verac-ity of the hoax e-mail, whichBell has denied writing overthe years. It added that theeditor in chief did not askMalinao about the piece, “fol-lowing the paper’s policy of notsubjecting columnists to cen-sorship and mistakenly pre-suming that the columnisthad exercised the elementarysteps necessary to verify theaccuracy of the e-mail thatturned out to be a hoax.”

The Times added that Bellhad complained to the paperand threatened to sue.

“We sincerely apologize forthe pain and inconveniencethat Malinao’s column mighthave caused Art Bell and hisfamily,” the Times wrote, re-

BNPP

LITO OCAMPO

HTTP://WWW.ARKIBONGBAYAN.ORG

Gaza

Dear Ms. Debbie Uy:

Thank you very much for your article (“When the mediastereotype”) in PJR Reports on the Gaza issue.

More power to you all at PJR Reports.

All the best,

Herbert DocenaStop the War Coalitionof the Philippines

......................................................................... .................................................................... 5• MARCH-APRIL 2009

MONITOR JEERSCHEERStracting the column piece andadding that the paper did notact with malice toward Bell.

Malinao also wrote an apol-ogy and retraction on the sameday. “(W)e retract the allega-tions that we have unwittinglyattributed to him in our columnand sincerely apologize for thepain and inconvenience that ourcolumn might have brought toMr. Bell and his family,” hewrote. The column also includedBell’s complaint, as well as e-mails supporting Bell.

Helpful

CHEERS TO Manila Stan-dard Today columnist

Antonio Abaya for remindingreaders of the cases of Maj. Gen.Carlos F. Garcia, former comp-troller of the Armed Forces of thePhilippines, and his wife andthree sons.

While other reports merelywrote about the arrest ofGarcia’s wife and a son byUnited States authorities lastMarch 5 in Michigan and theearlier arrest of two other sonsalso in the US, Abaya recalledthe issues involving the family,including the charges filedagainst them and the militarycourt-martial proceedingsagainst Garcia. (“Justice inSloMo”, March 10)

The press needs to remindthe public about the issues inwhat it reports, especially whenthey involve allegations ofwrongdoing and have beendragging on for years, such asthe Garcia case.

No sense

JEERS TO The Daily Tri-bune for an article that

mainly relied on one source.Much of the Feb. 15 article

“PDEA (Philippine Drug En-forcement Agency) backs Pal-ace review of Department ofJustice (DoJ) decisions, reso-lutions” touched on the mer-its of Administrative Order253, which Malacañang is-sued and which requires a re-view of the drug cases dis-missed by the DoJ. The articlefailed to look into whethersuch a response was adequateto stem the drug problem.Virtually all of the quotes inthe article came from a singlesource, PDEA Dir. Gen.Dionisio Santiago.

Representatives from otheragencies, officials, and stake-holders should have been inter-viewed to balance Santiago’sstatements. But no such luck.

CHEERS ANDjeers to GMA-7 for

a documentary on the globaleconomic downturn and itseffect on the Philippineeconomy. Aired last March22, Walang Pera (No Money)explained the crisis and itsroots, with focus on its impacton the local economy. The spe-cial featured case studies ofFilipino workers and indus-tries affected by the crisis.Walang Pera was broadcast inFilipino, much to the benefitof the masa watching and try-ing to understand the complexissue.

ground, the show devoted agood part of its opening spielto how Drilon, along withcameraman Jimmy Alcan-tara and assistant camera-man Angelo Valderrama,survived her own life-threat-ening experience during herAbu Sayyaf kidnapping.

The show attempts to puta positive spin on crisis situa-tions by emphasizing thefighting spirit of Filipinos. Theshow earns points in its at-tempt to humanize reportsthat have become so ordinarythey no longer engage audi-ence emotions.

In its first episode, the showpresented the story of JeysonHimmayod, one of the 16miners who were trapped inthe underground mine Anta-mok Goldfield in Benguet dur-ing typhoon “Nina” whichcaused the collapse of two di-version tunnels. The show at-tempted to portray the condi-tions of the miners and theirrelationship to one another.

Many details were helpfulin making the travails of theminers real to TV audiences.But some of the more obviousdetails were missing, such aswhether the miners werewearing proper gear and hadproper equipment, whetherthe mining site was safe andwhy it caved in and flooded.

Useful

Drug problem

CHEERS TO VERA Files forits report on the weak-

nesses of the government’s anti-drug campaign.

The report demonstratedthrough case studies and inter-views how flaws in investiga-tion, appreciating evidence,and prosecution failures havehobbled the campaign (“Pros-ecution flaws bog down fight vsdrugs”, Feb. 16, http://www.verafiles.org/index.php/focus/178-prosecution-flaws-bog-down-fight-vs-drugs-). Thereport also provided a list of thestatus of drug cases.

VERA Files explained thepowers of the Department ofJustice secretary who coulduphold and/or reverse cases andthe recommendations of pros-ecutors. The report also re-viewed the cases of Chinese na-tional Cai Qing Hai, one of Asia’smost wanted drug manufactur-ers and traffickers, and of the“Alabang Boys”.

Trend of drug trade

CHEERS TO GMA NewsResearch for an informa-

tive report on current trends inthe Philippine drug trade.

The Feb. 12 report found thatillegal drug laboratories in thepast three years have prolifer-ated and that drug traffickershave moved them to isolatedrural villages outside Manila toavoid detection. The report wasbased on data from the Philip-pine Drug Enforcement Agency

TWINCHEERS

ANDJEERS

OF THEMONTH

The special, however, shouldhave analyzed further the pre-vailing global capitalist systemand its role in the current down-turn. Government efforts in ad-dressing the situation, includingthe closet policy of exporting Fili-pino labor, should have beenscrutinized as well.

With an issue as compellingas the effect of the global reces-sion on the local economy,Walang Pera should have alsodone away with the distractingbackground music, dazzling vi-suals, unnecessary re-enact-ment of certain scenes by apopular actress, and the bom-bastic script delivery by MikeEnriquez.

Survivors

JEERS AND cheersto ABS-CBN’s new

series I Survived. The March 19show featured, as the title sug-gests, stories on survival. Theseries is hosted by Ces Drilon,and although hosts, like report-ers, must stay in the back-

Bleeding it dry

JEERS TO Saksi for prac-tically devoting its March

6 episode to the death of artistand singer Francis Magalona.The 30-minute newscast fea-tured various aspects of the lifeand death of Magalona, a tal-ent of GMA-7 (which airs Saksi),except for a measly two minutesthat addressed vital issues likethe revival of the Dacer-Corbitodouble murder case and oilprices.

Unconstructive

JEERS TO ABC-5’s TheEvening News (TEN) an-

chors Martin Andanar andCheri Mercado for their hyped-up comments on the passing of

rapper Francis Magalonawhich made it seem like the big-gest news event of the year(March 6). TEN’s two-minutenews report should have beenenough. But the anchors choseto spend almost four minutes ofprecious air time sharing beforethe cameras their personal en-counters with and opinionsabout the rapper.

Some of their comments:“…(H)indi lang sa music meronsiyang patriotism na ipinakitakundi through his artistry,through his work (…he showedpatriotism not only throughmusic but through his artistry,through his work)…He justgave us a movement, our gen-eration. He touched a lot of livesincluding mine (Andanar).”“…(W)e cannot express the sad-ness and we’re very glad hewalked this earth for 44 yearsand we have a very simple trib-ute for the master rapper, theicon, and the modern Filipinohero (Mercado).”

No useful information wasshared during the entire con-

versation. The public couldhave done without this spacefiller.

Since its relaunch in Augustof last year, TEN has undergoneseveral changes, includingadopting a “lighter” approachin delivering news and allow-ing anchors to comment on theevents they’re reporting.

Senseless report

JEERS TO GMA-7 formaking a big fuss over one

of its reporters’ engagement.Last Feb. 19, 24 Oras and Saksireported the engagement of oneof its reporters to her longtimeboyfriend. For example, in whatthey called “usapang pam-pakilig”, Saksi devoted 40 sec-onds discussing how thereporter’s lover put the footageof his proposal on the onlinevideo hosting site YouTube, andinserted a sound bite where thereporter said she had been wait-ing a long time for the proposal.All this for a story of no publicsignificance. n

LITO OCAMPO

LITO OCAMPO

................................................................... .........................................................................6 • MARCH-APRIL 2009

MONITOR JEERSCHEERS(PDEA) on the “shabu” (crystalmetamphetamine hydrochlo-ride) laboratories dismantledfrom 2006 to 2008.

This shows that the Philip-pines is no longer a mere im-porter of illegal drugs but also“a vital link in the production,distribution and consumption ofillegal drugs in the region.”

The article “From the city tothe barrio: Shabu labs movingout of Metro Manila” also pro-vided graphs and other visualsto explain the meaning of PDEAdata. (http://www.gmanews.tv./story/148515/From-the-city-to-the-barrio-Shabu-labs-moving-out-of-Metro-Manila)

CONTEXT MISSED

THE DECEMBER 2008 shutdown of the LegacyGroup, an umbrella organization of financialservices and affiliate firms, once again drewpublic attention to the local pre-need industrymess. The volume of media coverage on the is-

sue noticeably increased as a result.

Cold line

CHEERS TO abs-cbnNEWS.com for a Feb. 3 re-

port that demonstrated in prac-tice journalism’s being a disci-pline of verification.

The story reported that the“24/7” hotline of the Depart-ment of Labor and Employment(DOLE) for workers displaced bythe global financial crisis keptringing without anyone an-swering (“DOLE’s global reces-sion ‘hotline,’ not working”). Thereporter twice called the hotline:at about 4 a.m. and again at6:19 a.m.

A labor official explainedwhy no one was answering itsmuch-publicized “hotline”,which DOLE said has been op-erational since Jan. 30. He saidthe telephone line had failed onthe same day it was supposed tohave been operational. The offi-cial added that their office hasyet to repair the “vital hotline”that Labor secretary MarianitoRoque himself announced, butwhich now seems to have joinedthe ranks of such other publi-cized but non-working “hot-lines” as those of the PhilippineNational Police and the Depart-ment of Transportation andCommunication.

( h t t p : / / w w w . a b s -cbnnews.com/nation/02/03/09/doles/-global-recession-hotline-not-working) n

Reports provided little attention to the contextof the Legacy Group shutdown

Much of the recent coveragefocused on the bankruptcy of therural banks and pre-need com-panies of the Legacy Group, andthe alleged excesses of its ownerCelso de los Angeles Jr. The pressalso gave ample coverage to theplight of plan holders and inves-tors affected by the collapse ofthe Group.

While there were laudablein-depth reports on the issue, thepress—as usual—paid little at-tention to context, specifically interms of providing informationon the history of the pre-need in-dustry from its unprecedentedgrowth in the early years of itsintroduction to the market to itspresent decline.

Providing that contextwould have allowed the publicto make an informed assessmentof what the government hasdone to protect consumers. Thegovernment was after all the

biggest beneficiary of the trustfund investments by pre-needcompanies. About P57 billion(60.8%) of the P94 billion trustfund total was invested in gov-ernment securities in 2006.

The failure in 2005 of com-panies such as the College Assur-ance Plans Philippines Inc. andPacific Plans Inc. highlighted theindustry’s problems.

The viability of pre-needplans has been questioned be-cause these pre-need companiesfailed to fulfill their obligationsto their plan holders. Factorsthat contributed to the collapseincluded: “(i) deregulation oftuition fees in 1992 that led tothe skyrocketing of such fees; (ii)lower interest yields on trustfund investments due to the1997 Asian financial crisis; (iii)weak regulation; (iv) inappro-priate accounting practice; (v)collusion among pre-need com-

panies and their affiliates; andcorporate indiscretion,” accord-ing to the Policy Advisory No.2008-07 of the CongressionalPlanning and Budget Depart-

ment of the House of Represen-tatives (http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/cpbd/07-Pre-Need.pdf).

There are bills pending inCongress assigning the Insur-ance Commission (IC) as regu-lator of the pre-need industry,but the press has mostly reliedon the same government offi-cials and industry players tocomment on the capacity of theIC to monitor and its competenceto regulate another industry.Pre-need companies are cur-rently under regulation by theSecurities and Exchange Com-mission since pre-need plans arenot insurance products but in-vestment instruments, or secu-rities. The press should have alsodevoted space to the prognosis ofindependent analysts and think-tanks to deepen its reports.

The Legacy Group mess thusbecame one more missed oppor-tunity for the press to providethe information that could helpthe public make sense of what’shappening. n

LITO OCAMPO

n By Edsel Van DT. Dura

Angeles

Philip Piccio of the Parents Enabling Parents (PEP) coalition

Legacy Group’s alleged victims Photos by LITO OCAMPO

......................................................................... .................................................................... 7• MARCH-APRIL 2009

n By Kathryn Roja G. Raymundo

THE DAILY coverage of the World Bank (WB)report controversy highlighted the usual fail-ures of the press: a focus on personalities,sound bite-driven reporting, lack of backgroundinformation and context, limited perspective,

and insufficient analysis.

influence improperly the ac-tions of another party” andfraudulent practice as “any actor omission, including a misrep-resentation, that knowingly orrecklessly misleads, or attemptsto mislead, a party to obtain afinancial or other benefit or toavoid an obligation.” The WB

defines collusive practice as “anarrangement between two ormore parties designed to achievean improper purpose, includingto influence improperly the ac-tions of another party.”

The debarment periods canbe reduced to a lesser number ofyears or terminated if the firms

But the Manila press also de-serves an “A” if only for its ef-forts to produce investigativeand explanatory reports on anadmittedly complex issue.

PJR Reports monitored threenewspapers (Philippine Daily In-quirer, The Philippine Star, andManila Bulletin), three televisionnews programs (TV Patrol World,24 Oras, and Teledyaryo), andselected news web sites fromJan. 14—when the WB black-listed seven firms and one indi-vidual from bidding on WBGroup contracts for collusivepractices that constitute fraudand corruption—to Feb. 15, morethan a week after a senator ac-cused the husband of PresidentGloria Macapagal Arroyo of in-volvement with a disqualifiedfirm and one individual.

BackgroundThe WB’s Integrity Vice

Presidency (INT, formerlyknown as the Department of In-stitutional Integrity) found evi-dence of the existence of a majorcartel involving local and inter-national firms bidding on con-tracts under phase one of thePhilippine National Roads Im-provement and ManagementProgram (NRIMP 1). Thereseemed to be excessive pricingand possible wrongdoing withregard to the bidding processes.The investigation was the resultof the analysis of the procure-ment process in which the firmsparticipated, available docu-

ments, and numerous inter-views suggesting the possibilityof a conspiracy. The WB did notaward the sanctioned firms thecontracts, which were worth anestimated $33 million.

The WB Sanctions Board,made up of external legal expertsand senior WB staff, debarredE.C. de Luna Construction Corp.and Eduardo C. de Luna indefi-nitely from bidding on WBprojects. These were the firstpermanent debarments, thestrongest possible sanction, byWB since 2004. The WB alsosanctioned China Road andBridge Corp. (barred for eightyears); China State Construc-tion Corp. (barred for six years);China Wu Yi Co. Ltd. (barred forsix years); China Geo-Engineer-ing Corp. (barred for five years);Cavite Ideal International Con-struction and DevelopmentCorp. (barred for four years);and CM Pancho Construction,Inc. (barred for four years).

In Aug. 2008, the WB de-barred for four years Koreanfirm Dongsung Construction Co.Ltd. (Dongsung) for fraudulentand corrupt practices in relationto the NRIMP 1 case. Dongsungdid not contest the Bank’s accu-sations while the rest arguedthat the Bank did not follow dueprocess in sanctioning them.

The WB Sanctions Proce-dures define corrupt practice as“the offering, giving, receivingor soliciting, directly or indi-rectly, of anything of value to

THE MEDIA ONAn ‘A’ for Effort

THE WORLDBANK SCANDALThe usual press failures highlighted theWorld Bank controversy coverage

put in place a compliance pro-gram satisfactory to the Bank.

NRIMP is a partnership be-tween the WB and Philippinegovernment designed to up-grade the country’s road net-works, build new roads, and ad-dress weaknesses in road projectmanagement. The WB partiallyfinanced NRIMP with a $150-million loan. NRIMP 1 was closedin March 2007. It supposedlyhelped in building and resurfac-ing 1,400 kilometers of roadsand improved the financial

Sen. Santiago Photos by LITO OCAMPO

Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez

Senate investigation of the World Bank controversy

The press also leftseveral questionsraised during theSenate Inquiry onthe controversyunanswered

................................................................... .........................................................................8 • MARCH-APRIL 2009

management of road projectsunder the Department of PublicWorks and Highways (DPWH).Phase two will still be supportedby the Bank despite the prob-lems encountered with phaseone. Phase two is designed witheven tighter anti-corruptionmechanisms and its implemen-tation will be monitored by thecivil society group BantayLansangan (Road Watch).

What the press missedDespite the significance and

repercussions of the possibilityof unlawful activities involv-ing the country’s biggest hold-ers of infrastructure projectcontracts, the WB issue gainedsufficient media mileage whenSen. Panfilo Lacson involvedpresidential spouse Jose Miguel“Mike” Arroyo in the contro-versy. Few and far between,the initial reports were basedon developments in the Houseof Representatives and Senatehearings.

Media coverage was limitedto the sound bites or quotes of thepersonalities involved in the of-ficial investigations. The storieswere about the naming of thedebarred firms, Senate econom-ics committee chair Sen. MiriamDefensor Santiago’s musingsand angry outbursts, and thereactions of House representa-tives and other senators.

It would have helped clearthe wrong perception that theWB report was the same as courtevidence or perhaps an investi-gative piece if the content of theWB report, how it came about,and what its purpose is had beennoted early on. There were fewreports on what the conse-quences of the investigation andthe debarment of the firmswould be to the infrastructureand construction industry inthe country, as well as on gov-ernance and the public. Themedia should have asked andanswered how various sectorswould be affected.

The sources of the reportswere mostly government agen-cies and officials. The perspec-tive and stories of the immedi-ately concerned agencies andindividuals were presented latein the coverage: the WB, theDPWH, the Department of Fi-nance, government procure-ment agencies, the Office of theOmbudsman, the seven black-listed firms and individual.Their sides of the story werementioned in the news reports.

But the inconsistencies intheir statements, their trackrecords, their positions on theblacklisting, and what they planto do were sorely missing. The

blame game among officials orthe unnecessary bashing of theWB would have been avoided ifthe reporting had not been onceagain limited to the he-said-she-said variety.

The press should have alsoconsulted concerned civil soci-ety groups but it seldom did,and could have recalled otherstudies or experiences aboutsimilar events and investiga-tions. The comparison couldhave assisted the easier under-standing of the significance ofthe WB controversy. Itwouldn’t have hurt for thepress to provide backgroundinformation on the NRIMP.

Details on how the interna-tional community and otherlending agencies were reactingto the controversy would havepresented a bigger picture of theculture of wrongdoing and in-competence in public office. Themedia would not have had to gofar. The coverage could haveincluded how the lives of ordi-nary people would or could beaffected, or if they even still careat all about what is happeningaround them. Perhaps the lackof public outrage could be partlyblamed for the failure of thepress to inform them and en-courage collective social action.

The press also missed the op-portunity to review the effi-ciency and weaknesses of thecurrent procurement law. Fromlessons learned in the WB expe-rience, the reports could haveincluded recommendations forthe improvement of the law bymaking its implementors moreaccountable.

Television coverage consistedmostly of regular news reportsand updates. Still dependent onsound bites and the availability

of video footage, broadcasting didvery little to stimulate publicdiscussion. Other events such asthe “Alabang Boys” issue, thedeath of former President JosephEstrada’s mother, U.S. PresidentBarack Obama’s inaugurationtook precedence over the WBcontroversy.

ExceptionsSeveral news organizations

did do more than the usualday-to-day reporting. Onlinenews media outlets and com-mentaries provided muchneeded analyses.

Although it was not withinthe monitor period, the Philip-pine Center for InvestigativeJournalism (PCIJ) released areport in March last year ongraft in official development as-sistance (ODA) projects, an ex-ample of which is the NRIMP.The report said the WB has re-jected bids for road projects dueto what it called “strong signs ofcollusion and excessive pric-ing.” As early as then, the WBhad reported the possibility of acartel and the bribery of officialsto ensure the bagging of majorprojects.

PCIJ has done several reportson the issue. The series of reports“Corruption in road projects”looked into the relations amongthe public works contracts of theDPWH, the participating firms,and the billions of pesos goinginto the projects. The reportsprovided a short profile of thecompanies named in the WB re-port, including the value of theirawarded contracts. The reportsalso included an interview withJapanese contractor TomatoSuzuka who said he had metwith Mike Arroyo when he wastrying to get his construction

firm involved in WB projects inthe country.

In another story, PCIJ foundthat the entire road project wasridden with corruption, withthe involvement of a cartel ofkickback-takers tolerated andsupported by the highest offi-cials of the Philippine govern-ment (“$45M lost to bribes for‘cartel’ backed by DPWH execs,pols”). PCIJ also tried to lookinto the WB probe and the im-mediate dismissal it got fromthe House. A sidebar noted thatsome of the investigating Houserepresentatives had businessinterests and/or assets in con-struction (“World Bank, DWPHreview same bids but draw op-posite conclusions”). PCIJ ana-lyzed the WB report itself(“World Bank report: A mix offacts, rumor, innuendo”). It in-cluded how the WB came upwith the report explaining theprocess used and naming thepeople involved in creating thereport.

A b s - c b n N E W S . c o m /Newsbreak released a timeline ofthe WB controversy (“Timeline:The road to the World Bankcontrovesy”, http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/13/09/timeline-road-world--bank-controversy, Feb. 13). Abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak dis-cussed how the WB reports ledfour countries to investigate andprosecute erring contractors andgovernment officials (“WorldBank reports helped 4 nationscatch crooks”, http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/21/09/wb-reports-helped-4-nations-catch-crooks, Feb. 21).

GMANews.TV contextualizedthe alleged involvement of thefirst gentleman enumeratingthe controversies which in-

volved Mike Arroyo (“Contro-versies involving First Gentle-man Jose Miguel Arroyo”, http:// w w w . g m a n e w s . t v / s t o r y /147857/Controversies-involv-i n g - F i r s t - G e n t l e m a n - J o s e -Miguel-Arroyo, Feb. 8)

Star’s columnist Jose Sisondiscussed the legality of usingthe report in investigating andaddressing the collusion issue.Sison said the authorities mayuse the report to lead them tomore substantial evidence toprove fraud and corruption[“Hearsay?”, Law Each Day(Keeps Trouble Away), Feb. 16].

The Star also published twoissues of Inbox World (Readers’views and opinions on top issuesof the day) on the WB contro-versy. Last Feb. 4, the views an-swered the question “What doyou think will be the impact ofthe World Bank’s blacklist offirms allegedly involved in cor-ruption?” Some of the viewswere: the timing couldn’t beany worse, it was a wake-up call,the government is party to thissham, WB might rethink fund-ing, another black eye for thePhilippines, high time to mendour ways, etc. Last Feb. 19, theStar asked if readers find the WBreport on corruption in the Phil-ippines credible. The answers in-cluded: product of thorough in-vestigation; yes, but not its en-tirety; the bitter truth; verycredible; WB has no reason tolie; it’s old hat; WB should bareall; and the report should be aneye opener.

The Inquirer’s Solita Collas-Monsod emphasized what thepoint of the WB controversy was:“...infrastructure projects in thiscountry are not only fraughtwith corruption, but this corrup-tion is (also) organized, institu-tionalized as it were, in a collu-sive (syndicate) effort involvingDepartment Public Works andHighways (DPWH) officials, con-tractors and politicians. The ac-tors may change over time, butthe system is firmly in place(“Syndicated corruption”, GetReal, Feb. 7).”

Perhaps the political culturecould only change organicallyand systematically to favor thepublic’s need instead of self-in-terest when the press, as hold-ers of information, rise above itsusual, already-tested-but-found-wanting reporting. Themedia can largely impactchange if they can continuouslydraw citizen attention to the illsof society. It bears repeating thatsubstantive, creative, and com-mitted reporting can help effortsat transparency and account-ability, and reform publicpolicy. n

Some of the contractors blacklisted by the World Bank testify at the Senate investigation.

......................................................................... .................................................................... 9• MARCH-APRIL 2009

WHEN THE constitutional commissionersdrafted the 1987 Philippine Constitution,they expanded the coverage of ArticleIII, Section 4 to include the explicit pro-tection of freedom of expression. A simi-

lar provision in the 1973 Constitution does not include theprotection of freedom of expression.

UNCONSTITUTIONALLegislation to ensure fairreporting undermines pressfreedom

n By Melanie Y. Pinlac

The right ofreply bills erodethe prerogativeto edit andpublish

Pavia signs a petition against the right of reply bills.

Pimentel Photos by LITO OCAMPO

Article III, Section 4 reads:“No law shall be passed abridg-ing the freedom of speech, of ex-pression, or of the press, or theright of the people peaceably toassemble and petition the govern-ment for redress of grievances.”

Despite this Constitutionalprovision, several Filipino law-makers are keen on passing a lawthat presents dangers to thepractice of independent journal-ism.

The “right of reply” bills,passed in Senate and now pend-ing at the House of Representa-tives, would compel news orga-nizations to publish replies fromnews subjects. The House version[House Bill (HB) no. 3306] spon-sored by Rep. Monico Puente-vella, while the Senate version[Senate Bill (SB) no. 2150] camefrom Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr.

Both right of reply bills pro-vide “all persons...who are ac-cused directly or indirectly ofcommitting or having commit-ted or of intending to commitany crime or offense defined bylaw or are criticized by innu-endo, suggestion or rumor forany lapse in behavior in publicor private life…(to) have theright to (of in HB 3306) reply tothe charges published or printedin newspapers, magazines,newsletters or publications cir-culated commercially or forfree, or to criticisms aired orbroadcast over radio, television,websites or through any elec-tronic device.”

UnconstitutionalJournalists and legal experts

have pointed out that the rightof reply bills are unconstitu-tional since they are an abridge-ment of the freedom of the press.Most journalists believe the

right of reply bills would com-promise the freedom of news or-ganizations to edit and publish.

Media organizations saythere is no need for legislation toensure fair and balanced report-ing. The major news organiza-tions promote compliance withthe Philippine Journalist’s Codeof Ethics. Newsrooms in Manilaand Cebu also have their ownethics and professional manualsthat reporters and other staffhave to follow.

The National Union of Jour-nalists of the Philippines (NUJP)has expressed dismay over the

involvement of both Pimenteland Puentevella in the forma-tion of the bills. “It is both un-fortunate and ironic that theprincipal authors of the bill inthe two chambers of Congressought to have known better,Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr.having earned his reputation asa champion of civil rights andBacolod Rep. Monico Puente-vella having been president ofthe Negros Press Club.”

Asked if the bills are legallysound, lawyer Rommel Bagares,executive director of the Centerfor International Law and aformer reporter for The PhilippineStar, said in a University of thePhilippines (UP) forum that the“(right of reply bill) is inconsis-tent with constitutional thresh-olds of tolerance of criticisms asapplied to public officials.”

National Union of Peoples’Lawyers secretary general NeriColmenares also said in a pressconference last Feb. 24 that theright of reply bills manifest priorrestraint and undermine thefreedom of editors to choose whatto air or print.

Colmenares added that theprovisions of the SB 2150 and HB3306 are vague and subject tomisinterpretation. “There arevague provisions in which theelements of the crime are notspecified.”

VagueJournalists and media

groups say government officialscould use the vague provisionsof the bills (like the non-differ-entiation between fact and com-ment and the lack of a specificagency to determine the of-

fense) for unlimited media mile-age. Neither version requiresthe complainant to prove alle-gations of bias or unfair report-ing.

GMA Network, Inc. in an of-ficial statement expressed con-cern that: “Resolving disputes ofwhat constitutes an innuendocould tie up a media organiza-tion in litigation and distract itfrom its primary role.”

Some organizations also saidthat Congress is keen on passingthese bills because of the na-tional elections next year.Nonoy Espina, vice chair of theNUJP, added that the bill islikely to be used by the politi-cians for their personal agendaespecially with the 2010 elec-tions coming near.

Espina said: “Once again,press freedom is under siegefrom political forces insidiouslytrying to further their personalagenda, this time through leg-islature. Elections are comingup and enacting this bill into lawwill benefit those who want todeflect criticism and gain mediamileage.”

Dire effectsMedia organizations fear dire

effects like closure and bank-ruptcy if right of reply law ispassed. The bills impose mon-etary penalties for news organi-zations caught not publishingthe replies. In the House version,the fines range from P10,000-P200,000 plus imprisonmentand suspension of franchise ofthe news organization both for30 days on the fifth and succeed-ing offenses. The Senate versionimposes fines of P10,000-P50,000.

“The shoe string operationsthat characterize much of the

Bagares

................................................................... .........................................................................10 • MARCH-APRIL 2009

media in the communities willeither fall in line to conform withthe demands of every group orindividual likely to demandspace or air time for replies, orelse cease operations altogetherin the face of the psychic andmaterial costs of steering clearof fines and/or prison terms byreorienting their reporting andcomment, and in the processsurrendering their autonomy,”the Center for Media Freedomand Responsibility (CMFR) saidin a statement.

News media organizationsnot only face problems of closurebut also the chilling effect thebills have on practitioners.Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ngPilipinas (KBP/Association ofBroadcasters of the Philippines)chair Herman Basbaños duringa February 28 dialogue spon-sored by the journalists’ groupSamahang Plaridel called theright of reply “an intrusion toeditorial discretion or judgmentof news organizations.” He ex-plained that the prioritization ofnews that should come out ofprograms would be compro-mised, as CMFR pointed out inits statement.

Both SB 2150 and HB 3306state that editors should publishand air replies in the same spaceas the news report/commentquestioned. Editors would alsolose control over the content ofthe reply since they cannot editthe replies except for libelousstatements. The date of the pub-lication of the reply is also speci-fied in the bills—24 hours afterthe receipt of the reply in HB3306 and three days in SB 2150.

“It’s tantamount to legislat-ing editorial content and judg-ment,” journalist Ed Lingaosaid.

Luis V. Teodoro, CMFRdeputy director, also said in a UPforum that “Practitioners as aresult will be pressured by edi-tors for fear of penalties stipu-lated in the right of reply bills.The editors will be forced to bethe enforcers of the law in thenewsrooms as well as in the op-ed pages, where they don’t cur-rently supervise most colum-nists.” He added that the gov-ernment does not understandhow the press works. “The prob-lem with government regula-tion is that government has nei-ther the honesty nor compe-tence to do it.”

Available venues for redressPhilippine media groups ar-

gue that they have respectedthe public’s right of reply evenwithout legislation. Several in-stitutions have been establishedprimarily to address the con-

SOME MAJOR BILLS ON MEDIA PENDING IN THE 14th CONGRESSON ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Bill no. House Bill (HB) no. 5760 (substitute billfor HBs 2802, 4914, 2133, 2791, and3535)

Senate Bill (SB) no. 2571 HB 430

Title “An Act making any discussion of anymatter of public concern, or criticism ofofficial conduct or the conduct of publicfigures, qualifiedly privileged, increasingfines for the crime of libel, and providingfor the venue of libel cases filed againstcommunity journalists, their editors,business managers or publishers,amending for the purpose Articles 354,355, 356, 357, 360 and 361 of (Republic)Act no. 3815, otherwise known as theRevised Penal Code of the Philippines”

The Freedom Of Information Act of2008, also known as “An ActImplementing The Right of Access toInformation on Matters of PublicConcern Guaranteed under Section28, Article II and Section 7, Article IIIof the 1987 Constitution and for OtherPurposes”

“An Act Amending Republic Actno. 53, as amended, otherwiseknown as ‘An Act to Exempt thePublisher, Editor or Reporter ofany publication from revealingthe source of published news orinformation obtained inConfidence’ by including withinits coverage journalists frombroadcast, news agencies, andinternet publications.”

Authors/Sponsors Reps. Giorgidi Aggabao, RufusRodriguez, Salvador Escudero III,Prospero Nograles, Satur Ocampo,Satur Ocampo,Satur Ocampo,Satur Ocampo,Satur Ocampo,TTTTTeodoreodoreodoreodoreodoro Casiño Jro Casiño Jro Casiño Jro Casiño Jro Casiño Jr., Lisa Maza,., Lisa Maza,., Lisa Maza,., Lisa Maza,., Lisa Maza,Luzviminda Ilagan, RafaelLuzviminda Ilagan, RafaelLuzviminda Ilagan, RafaelLuzviminda Ilagan, RafaelLuzviminda Ilagan, RafaelMariano,Mariano,Mariano,Mariano,Mariano, Crispin Beltran, NeptaliGonzales II, Del De Guzman, VictorAgbayani, Rene Velarde, and RomanRomulo as per Committee Report No.1656 (As of March 2009, the party-listrepresentatives--names in bold—hadwithdrawn their support for HB 5760because the final draft did not removethe penalty of imprisonment for libel.)

Sen. Loren Legarda Main author: Rep. Raul Del Mar;co-authors: Reps. Edgardo Chatto,Bienvenido Abante Jr., Jeci Lapus,Juan Edgardo Angara, Irwin Tieng,Eduardo Zialcita, and PedroRomualdo

Legislative status Approved on Second Reading (HouseSpeaker Prospero Nograles toldGMANews.TV last March 4 that thebill’s approval on third reading had beendeferred because the provisions on thedeletion of imprisonment “did not seeprint” in the draft.)

Filed on Aug. 27, 2008 / Approved onFirst Reading /Referred to theCommittee on Public Information andMass Media

Approved on Third and FinalReading on Feb. 19, 2008 /Transmitted to Senate onFeb. 21, 2008

Pros • Orders that libel cases against acommunity newspaper/mediaorganization be filed before the RTCwhose jurisdiction covers its office

• Malice against public office is notimmediately assumed

• Treats discussion of public concern orcriticism of official conduct of publicfigures as privileged communicationunder in Art. 354 (Requirement forpublicity and malice)

• The court may admit as evidence“the truth of the imputation of theacts or omission constituting thecrime”

• Prioritize/ reinforce the right of thepublic to access information/documents concerninggovernment transactions

• Puts burden of proof ongovernment offices/officials fornot disclosing information

• Provides legal remedies if accessis denied / Imposes criminal andcivil liabilities against publicofficials

• Promotes transparency in allbranches of government

• Expands the coverage of theSotto Law to also cover thebroadcast medium, news/wireagencies, and onlinepublications. The Sotto Law,also known as the Shield Law,provides journalists protectionfrom being forced to disclosetheir sources.

Cons • The criminal aspect of libel isretained

• Increases fines in Articles 355 (Libelby means of writings or similarmeans) and Art. 357 (Prohibitedpublication of acts referred to in thecourse of official proceedings) toP100,000-P300,000 and in Art. 356(Threatening to publish and offer topresent such publication forcompensation) to P50,000-P100,000

• Some of the provisions could limitmedia’s access to public/officialdocuments

• There is no provision for thedeclassification of pertinentdocuments after a number ofyears

There are similar bills on libel pendingbefore the Senate:·• SB 2108 on the differentiation of

political and personal libel by Sen.Richard Gordon·

• SBs. 5, 110, 223, 918, and 1403 onthe abolition of the penalty ofimprisonment or decriminalizationof libel

SB 165, a bill which also seeks toinclude broadcast and onlinemedia in the Sotto Law, is still atthe committee level. This was filedby Sen. Ramon Revilla Jr.

The House version of the Freedom ofInformation Act (HB 3732) waspassed in May 2008. Its mainsponsor is Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III.

(Other bills on access to informationare pending before the Senate.)

ON LIBEL ON PROTECTING SOURCES

......................................................................... .................................................................... 11• MARCH-APRIL 2009

cerns of media audiences and tomonitor the press, CMFR beingamong them.

The Philippine Press Insti-tute (PPI) established the Phil-ippine Press Council (PPC) in1993. CMFR helped organizeseveral citizens press councils inCebu, Palawan, Baguio, and Re-gion III (Central Luzon).

Some newspapers nationwidealso keep a press ombudsman ora readers’ advocate. The pressombudsman is the voice of thepublic in a newsroom. He/shemonitors the editorial content ofnewspapers, receives com-plaints from readers, and some-times helps in the training of theeditorial staff. Aside from pressombudsmen, several newspa-pers also maintain the “Lettersto the Editor” section. Media alsopublish or air corrections whenthey make factual errors.

The Philippine Daily Inquirerhas a “bluebook” on editorialand ethical policies. Newsroomsat major television networksABS-CBN 2 and GMA-7 haveethics manuals. The KBP hasjust recently amended its Broad-cast Code. It also has a StandardsAuthority that implements andmonitors members’ complianceto the rules.

There are also organizationslike CMFR which monitor thenews coverage of issues as wellas the press’ ethical compliance.CMFR publishes its monitors inthe monthly PJR Reports.

Legally, the law still pro-vides the public the right to filecharges of defamation or libelbefore the courts.

Unheard cryDespite opposition from me-

dia organizations, the House ofRepresentatives has no plans torecall the bill. House SpeakerProspero Nograles said that itwould be difficult to withdrawthe bill since there is “pressure”to pass it.

The Senate passed its versionof the right of reply bill in 2008.

It was one of the fastest approvedbills during the 14th Congress. Ittook the Senate only threemonths to pass the substitutebill.

CMFR checked the legislativehistory of SB 2150 in the officialSenate website. According to therecord, on April 3, 2008 theCommittees on Public Informa-tion and Mass Media and on Jus-tice and Human Rights submit-ted their joint Committee Re-port (no. 43) recommending ap-proval of SB 2150, the substitutebill for SB 1178.

It was then approved on sec-ond reading on June 11, 2008.After a month, the senators ap-proved on third and final read-ing SB 2150 on July 28, 2008,and transmitted their record tothe House of Representatives onJuly 31.

SB 1178 was filed byPimentel on July 4, 2007 andwas referred to the committeeson Sept. 10, 2007.

The abrupt passing of SB2150 awed and shocked mediaorganizations calling for thescrapping of the bill. “The Bill…was passed without sufficientunderstanding of the workingsof the press, nor even consulta-tion with the press,” columnistNeal Cruz told lawmakers in aMarch 3 dialogue.

Asked if the Senate commit-tees consulted the press, thesenators claimed they askedpress organizations to appearand send position papers. But

media organizations like CMFR,NUJP, KBP, and PPI were neverinvited by the Senate for consul-tations on the right of reply bill.

Lawmakers said the passingof the right of reply bills wouldgo hand-in-hand with the de-criminalization of libel. But asof March this year, the Senatebills on the decriminalization oflibel are still pending at the com-mittee level. Meanwhile, theHouse bill amending the provi-sions on libel in the Revised Pe-nal Code increased the requiredfines and retained the penaltyof imprisonment for libel.

Current statusSeveral senators withdrew

their sponsorship of the right of

• Both bills do not differentiate comment from fact.• No clear definition as to who will determine if a person should be given

the “right of reply”. Pimentel in a Feb. 28 dialogue told the press that thecomplainant himself would be the one to determine if the offense wascommitted.

A COMPARISON OF THE HOUSE AND SENATEVERSIONS OF THE RIGHT OF REPLY BILL

Bill no. Senate Bill (SB) no. 2150(Substitute bill for SB 1178) alsoknown as “An Act Granting The Actof Reply and Providing Penalties forViolation Thereof”

House Bill (HB) no. 3306 (Substitutebill for HBs 162 and 1001 ) alsoknown as “An Act Granting The Act ofReply and Providing Penalties forViolation Thereof”

Sponsors / Authors Prepared by the Committees onPublic Information and Mass Mediaand Justice and Human Rights withSens. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., RamonRevilla Jr. and Francis Escudero asauthors (As of March 2009, severalsenators withdrew support on thebill after media organizationsquestioned it.)

Submitted by the Committee onPublic Information; sponsored byReps. Monico Puentevella,Bienvenido Abante, and JuanEdgardo Angara (Angara withdrewhis sponsorship in February 2008.)

Legislative status Passed on third and final reading inJuly 2008 / Pending at the House ofRepresentatives

Period of sponsorship / Pendingreview / Second reading (In adialogue with media organizations,representatives said they willintroduce amendments to the bills.But as of press time, there is noamended bill or new committeereport on right of reply.)

Provisions:

a. Location of reply Same space or aired on the sameprogram

Same space or aired on the sameprogram

b. Date of publicationof reply

Not later than three days after thereply has been received

Not later than one day uponreceiving the reply

c. Length of Reply Must not be longer than theaccusation or criticism

Must not be longer than theaccusation or criticism

d. Penalties a fine of P10,000–P 50,000 • P10,000–P200,000 in fines• Imprisonment• Closure and suspension of

franchise for 30 days for the fifthand succeeding offenses

e. Others: • A “sunset clause” has beenincluded

• Publication of reply does notpreclude recourse to other rightsor remedies

• Obligation to clear the name ofthe accused if he/she has beenacquitted

• Publication of reply does notpreclude recourse to other rightsor remedies

reply bill after the clamor fromthe media. But Pimentel is firmin his sponsorship. In the Febru-ary 28 meeting sponsored bySamahang Plaridel, Pimentel said“If the press has the right tomortify, we have the right toreply,” adding that press free-dom is not absolute—an argu-ment that’s way beside thepoint.

Meanwhile, the representa-tives plan to water down theirversion of the bill. Abante toldmedia during the March 3 dia-logue that they will amend HB3306. They plan to remove im-prisonment and lower the finesand days of franchise suspensionand closure for non-compliance,among others.

But CMFR trustee and Busi-ness World Board of Editors ChairVergel Santos told the lawmak-ers that what the press wants isthe absolute scrapping of thebill.

“This is not open to bargain-ing, because it ’s a Constitu-tional issue. And the verypoint that we would like toraise is simply this. Whateveryou say, this bill is an abridge-ment. And to abridge in anynuance…means limiting, cut-ting away our freedom.”

As of press time, about 700journalists and media organiza-tions have signed the petitioncalling for the scrapping of theright of reply bills. The NUJPdrafted the petition. n

Journalists discuss the right of reply bill with congressmen.

Reps. Abante, Locsin, and Nograles

................................................................... .........................................................................12 • MARCH-APRIL 2009

THE MEDIA, THE VFA—

Nicolas’ 2005 filing of her com-plaint against Lance Cpl. DanielSmith had revived the debateover the wisdom of the country’scontinuing with the VisitingForces Agreement (VFA). Thepublic had closely followed devel-opments in the case and the VFAdebate for many reasons. One,because the legal battle had all theelements of the drama the mediatend to emphasize—the rape, nowonce again alleged, itself; Smith’sdead-of-night transfer from theMakati City jail to the US Em-bassy in Manila; a Supreme Court(SC) decision ordering his deten-tion in a Philippine facility thatwas never implemented; and fi-nally, Nicolas’ flight to the UnitedStates and her affidavit. The“rape” as well as the debate werewell-reported, if only because it isthe theatrical, more than the in-depth, details that regularly oc-cupy media attention.

Firsts

But more than the drama wasthe historical and political contextin which the alleged rape had oc-curred essential. In the manyyears in which US military baseswere in the Philippines, when UStroops had free run of the cities ofAngeles and Olongapo, there wereover 3,000 cases filed against USsoldiers without a single one mak-ing it to the courts. Nicolas’ casemade history in its being the first.Moreover, the conviction of Smithmade him the first-ever Americansoldier convicted of committing acrime on Philippine soil, bothwhen the US bases were at Subicand Clark, as well as after the pas-sage of the VFA in 1999.

The case was from the verybeginning suggestive of issues be-yond the rape itself, resonatingwith the thorny questions of sov-ereignty and the VFA’s constitu-tionality. It was on explainingthese issues that the media wereat best only partly successful.

Key questions

Central to understanding theVFA issue is the long, tangled his-tory of US and Philippine relations.Without this understanding, thestories on the VFA, including theSubic incident, appear randomand disjointed while actually con-nected and coherent. In reportingboth the (alleged) rape as well asthe VFA debate, the media missedopportunities to address the issues

From page 1

• .................................................................................................................................................................................12

of reciprocity and sovereigntyhead-on.

US President Barack Obama’scall to President Gloria MacapagalArroyo was a prime example. Thestories on that event focused onhow “giddy” and “thrilled” thePalace was after a series of failedattempts by Mrs. Arroyo to meetthe US President. The PhilippineDaily Inquirer story thus went:“Obama calls Arroyo on VFA”;The Philippine Star, “Obama callsGMA on VFA”; the Manila Bulle-tin, “Obama calls GMA”; and TheDaily Tribune, “Obama calls”. Inalmost all these stories, the offi-cial statements from the WhiteHouse and Press Sec. CergeRemonde took up most of theprime space.

While the call was indeed sig-nificant, and the behavior of Ar-royo equally so, the stories fellshort of explaining why that calloccurred in the first place. In fact,the call should even be more sus-pect after Obama’s seeming elu-siveness to Arroyo. As crucial asit was to understanding events,this “why” was relegated to thedustbin—or at most to the col-umns and inside pages.

Why, for example, did Obamasuddenly make that call, and whythen, when he had simply ignoredArroyo even as she took expensivetrips halfway around the worldto meet him? And having run ona platform of change, why was hefalling back on the same strategyas former US President GeorgeBush’s—the same strategy thatled to the Iraq war, and which isbased on fighting terrorists,whether real, feigned, or imag-ined? And, judging from the be-havior of US authorities, includ-ing US Ambassador Kristie

Kenney, there is much at stake forthe US in the current VFA. Whatthese could be not even the usualforeign policy mavens in the me-dia did not dare address.

The VFA is the legal frame-work for the return of the US mili-tary troops in the Philippines af-ter the Philippine Senate rejecteda new military bases treaty in1991. The VFA was ratified by thePhilippine Senate but not by theUS Senate. The 1987 Constitution,however, states that no foreigntroops can be stationed in the Phil-ippines if the treaty is not recog-nized as such by both parties.

The US Supreme Court rulingon the Medellin vs. Texas caseshould have received more cover-age than token mention by me-dia. That decision virtually freesthe US from complying with in-ternational treaties unless thesehave a self-implementing ruleapproved by the US Congress—which the VFA precisely lacks.And, unlike the 1947 MilitaryBases Agreement, the VFA does

not have an expiry date, and is ofindefinite duration, until oneparty terminates it.

The renewal of the US militarybases treaty was rejected by thePhilippine Senate following de-cades of protests. There was a longlist of complaints that stemmedfrom the presence of US bases, in-cluding various human rights vio-lations, the infringement on Phil-ippine sovereignty, and the pres-ence of nuclear weapons and toxicsubstances.

These issues hogged the head-lines in the early 1990s—crucialinformation that allowed the edu-cation of lawmakers and the gen-eral public on the impact of USmilitary activities in “its” Philip-pine bases. Today the media haveyet to begin to reveal the impactof the VFA on the local communi-ties across the country which hostor have hosted US troops.

Uniform coverageThe most common angle ex-

ploited by the media was the tug-of-war over Smith, and the politi-cal maneuvering involved. Onone side was Nicolas, civil societyand women’s groups, and someanti-VFA solons; on the other wereKenney, Foreign Affairs Sec.Alberto Romulo, and other US au-t h o r i t i e s .

The media adequately coveredthis “custody” battle, exposing, inparticular, the executive branch’sfailure to demand that the con-victed marine be transferred to aPhilippine jail, despite the SC or-der. The media were alsoinstrumental in recalling to pub-lic attention the existence of an al-leged “secret deal”, the VFA 2. TheVFA 2, said Sen. Joker Arroyo,bares the lack of reciprocity in thebilateral agreement. The VFA 2,however, is not a “secret deal”, andin fact had long been mentionedby civil society groups before Sen.Arroyo did.

There were other leads themedia largely ignored. Nicolas’former counsel, Evalyn Ursua,had noted the near-permanentpresence of US troops in some partsof the country, such as Zam-boanga City. The 1987 Constitu-tion, however, prohibits the bas-ing and permanent presence of for-eign troops in Philippine territoryand their participation in the op-erations of the Armed Forces ofthe Philippines (AFP). There is cer-tainly a need to investigatewhether such claims are true be-cause if they are, there will likelybe a decisive shift in public opin-ion regarding the constitutional-ity of the VFA, and on the natureof the activities of US troops andtheir effect on local communities.

Some groups have reported ci-vilian casualties in Bicol, Albay—one dead baby, six injured chil-dren, and three wounded women—due to preparations for joint ac-tivities between the AFP and UStroops. These are telling develop-ments which failed to appear inthe mainstream broadcast, vir-tual, or print media.

The media also tended to de-pend mostly on the press releasesand official statements of certain

AND THAT ‘RAPE’

The case involvedissues beyond therape itself,resonating withissues of sovereigntyand constitutionality

Photos by LITO OCAMPO

......................................................................... .................................................................... 13• MARCH-APRIL 2009March-April 2009 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

authorities. The bulk of news re-ports was on the word war amongNicolas’ former counsel, the USEmbassy, the Department of For-eign Affairs, the Press Secretary,and some senators, among others.But on an issue as encompassingand as complex as the VFA, itseems reasonable to expect themedia to take the initiative in fer-reting out the truth about the re-alities on the ground. That taskrequires more than mere beat re-porting and accessing the usualsources. The media cannot confinethemselves to “legitimate” sourc-ing, which involves only officialsfrom the bureaucracy, and con-sequently, to ignore such othersources as the sectoral and people’sorganizations in touch withevents and people in the commu-nities.

Last wordAs of this writing, Nicolas had

released an affidavit that, in es-sence, casts doubt on her earlierclaim of rape, and even hints atself-indictment. The documentalso contains an unusually de-tailed litany of drinks she took“bottoms up” on the night she andSmith were together, which sug-gests that she might have beentoo drunk to remember if she re-sisted Smith’s advances, andwhich therefore gives the lie toher earlier claim of rape.

The timing of all this is suspect,as it coincides with Obama’s callto Arroyo. The affidavit was no-tarized by Abraham Rey Acosta,a lawyer in the same law firm rep-resenting Smith. Both the affida-vit and the letter of terminationof Ursua’s pro bono services werealso dated March 12, 2009, sug-gesting possible collusion betweenNicolas and Smith’s lawyers.

Many questions remain unan-swered, among other reasons be-cause the media have not been asthorough as the public has a rightto expect them to be. There arelayers of irony in the Nicolas-VFAstory the media must grapplewith, if only because they are areflection of Philippine sover-eignty—or the lack of it.

In a letter in which she soughtto justify her actions, Nicolas ex-plains that she and her family are“tired of the case and do not wantanymore to be bothered by it be-cause there is no justice in the Phil-ippines.” Indeed, in a countrywhere legal and political institu-tions are weak, justice is slow andelusive, and sovereignty close tononexistent. As the vanguard ofdemocracy, media are expected,not merely to expose, but also toreveal why the bureaucracy hasso miserably failed not onlyNicolas, but the rest of us as well. n

WHAT’S IN A NAME?A rose by any other name may not smell as sweet

LAST MARCH 18, the banner story of one of thecountry’s leading newspapers, the Philippine Daily In-quirer, was on “Nicole’s” affidavit “recanting” her al-legation that she was raped on Nov. 1, 2005 by US MarineLance Cpl. Daniel Smith at the Subic free port, Zambales,where the former US naval base used to be. The lead of thatreport disclosed her true name. Her photo, together withthat of Smith, was published with the story.

n By Kenneth Roland A. Guda

It was not the first time that“Nicole’s” real name had been re-vealed in the media. Long beforeher “recantation” or even thepromulgation of the case in Dec.2006, the Internet had been aplatform for many Smith sup-porters and like-minded indi-viduals to disclose her true iden-tity. There were also several in-stances when Nicole’s identitywas publicly broadcast. Whenthe court clerk of Branch 139 ofthe Makati Regional Trial Courtread the promulgation of thecase, Nicole’s real name was dis-closed to the TV audience as tele-vision crews covered the eventlive.

On the whole, however, themainstream media had been re-spectful of Nicole and her lawyerEvalyn Ursua’s request not toprint or broadcast Nicole’s name,personal circumstances and im-age. They cited the Rape VictimAssistance and Protection Act of1998, among other laws, as thebasis for non-disclosure of Nicole’sidentity.

When the story of Nicole’s is-suance of a sworn statementdated March 12 broke, Inquirereditors claimed to have consultedtheir lawyers. According to aneditorial note to the March 18Inquirer story titled “Recantationdoes not mean acquittal yet—judge”: “We consulted a retiredSupreme Court justice on thematter and he said it was allright to use Nicole’s real name asshe already made her name pub-lic in her sworn statement. Wesought the opinion of anotherlawyer as to the use of her pic-ture and we were given the gosignal.—Ed.”

It cannot be denied that thesworn statement cast doubt onher earlier definitive statementthat she had been raped. But theInquirer and its lawyers evi-dently took this to mean a “re-

cantation,” a statement denyingthat she had been raped in thefirst place. This would mean forthe Inquirer that Nicole no longerenjoyed the protection of thelaws as far as her true identitywas concerned. She was now nolonger a “rape victim.”

There are several reasonswhy the Inquirer may have beenwrong in disclosing Nicole’sname and publishing her photo.First of all, as many lawyers in-cluding her former counselUrsua subsequently pointed out,the sworn statement is not reallya recantation. She never defini-tively denied that she was notraped by Smith that early morn-ing in November 2005. Nicoledid say that her “conscience con-tinues to bother (her).” She hadbeen “so friendly and intimatewith Daniel Smith at the Nep-tune Club that he was led to be-lieve that I was amenable to hav-ing sex or that we simply just gotcarried away.” None of these,Ursua believes, essentially con-tradicts her earlier statements incourt.

Secondly, granting that theInquirer lawyers were correctthat Nicole did recant in hersworn statement, did this over-turn Judge Benjamin Pozon’s de-cision that Nicole was indeedraped, and that she was raped bySmith? In media interviews,Pozon himself said he thinks not.In fact, the judge, in an inter-view with the Inquirer, said, “Ifshe had really withdrawn herstatement, there are more rea-sons not to publish her picture orname. What would people tellher when they see her?” Pozonadded that despite the statement,media use of her name and im-age was still “unlawful.”

It is easy to speculate onNicole’s intentions in coming outwith the statement. In severalinterviews before and even after

the statement came out, hermother pointed to her family’sdisappointment at the country’sjustice system and the govern-ment’s inability or unwilling-ness to fully implement Pozon’sdecision to incarcerate Smith ina Philippine prison facility. Thestatement’s notarization by alawyer from the firm represent-ing Smith suggests that there ismore to the story than meets theeye.

It is reasonable to think thatthe Inquirer thought that usingher name and photo ultimatelyserves public interest. If indeedthere was no rape, the public de-serves to know the exact iden-tity of the person who hood-winked them for more thanthree years. The problem, how-ever, is that a court has alreadyruled, based on testimonies andevidence, that Smith did rapeNicole. Pending a higher deci-sion overturning the earlierone, it is incumbent upon themedia not to assume otherwise.

Whatever the intentions ofthe Inquirer in disclosingNicole’s name and publishingher photo, the story played rightinto the hands of those whowanted the public opinion toturn against Nicole. To dispar-age Nicole and her case againstthe US soldiers, these unseenforces seem to think, is to dispar-age the campaign against USmilitary presence. n

Kenneth Roland A. Guda is theeditor of Pinoy Weekly, now an

online publication.

THE PROTOCOL in disclos-ing the names of rape vic-tims limits non-disclosureto the period prior to the filing ofcharges, when public documentsnecessarily use the victim’s name,among other necessary details,thus making her/his name pub-lic. Much of the Philippine media,however, went further by not re-vealing the real name of the com-plainant against US Marine Cpl.Daniel Smith until March 12. Thiswas not a matter of law but ofethics, and appreciation of thecontext (i.e., the country’s pastexperience with the US militarybases and the need to abrogatethe Visiting Forces Agreement or

VFA) in which the case occurred.Was the March 12 affidavit “not

a recantation”? The victim/non-vic-tim had been saying for three yearsthat she was raped on Nov. 1, 2005.In the March 12 affidavit she saidin so many words that the sexmight have been consensual. Thatamounts to a recantation of her ear-lier claim— no matter the convolutedeffort to avoid directly saying“Smith didn’t rape me”— which re-moves the protection both law aswell as ethics compel the media toprovide rape victims.

Let’s not forget that that protec-tion comes at the price of the public’sright to information, and for thatreason cannot be extended whenthe reason for it no longer exists, inwhich case the public’s right toknow regains rightful precedence.Note that it was the alleged victimspeaking, not the media. The me-dia in the Philippines and in othercountries have been accused of sug-gesting that most rape complaintsare false. Only in a few instanceswas this the case here.

Was it the use of the complain-ant/non-complainant’s real namethat damaged the anti-VFA cam-paign, or was it her affidavit—andher other acts, among them gettinga US visa so she can live in the US—that did that? The groups opposedto the VFA should focus their ire onher rather than the media, andmight have to rethink the idea that“victims” cannot take responsibil-ity for their actions. The complain-ant/non-complainant’s being le-gally a victim because of the re-gional trial court’s conviction ofSmith is not at issue. What is at is-sue is the right of the public to accu-rate, meaningful information asnecessary inputs to understandingthe VFA and why US troops are inthe Philippines. The March 12 affi-davit and its contents were part ofthat needed information.—Editor

Nicolas

....................................................................

................................................................... .........................................................................14 • MARCH-APRIL 2009

THE RESIGNATION of JV Rufino, editor-in-chief of Inquirer.net has sparked a debate onthe rea-sons for his leaving. The top management of Philippine Daily Inquirer (the parentcompany of Inquirer.net), however, remains

mum about Rufino’s resignation, maintaining that he leftthe company to “pursue higher studies.”

A TALE OFMoving to the web

The move towards the Web has severalimplications for journalists, includingnew demands at work

n By Alaysa Tagumpay E. Escandor

MELANIE