(from a group text message from an anonymous number, based on a line of the character of Cherie Gil in “Bituing Walang Ningning” (“Stars with no Sheen” …why am I even translating that for you.)
Dripping wet (photo already deleted) ( photos stay up for only one day to make you laugh, they’re yanked out in 24 hours from embarrassment); water does that to me, but it’s warm and not on national TV.
I’m trying to remember all those times i’ve lost my temper so i could understand why that person, who was later identified as a columnist of Inquirer, Vic Agustin, threw water at RC Constantino’s face. In real life, I’ve never met anyone who has thrown water at someone’s face, save for all those times that the police used big water hoses on protesters and summers of children squirting water from their toy water guns; although dousing someone’s face with water is staple fare in melodramas together with slapping of faces, haughty turning of the cheek (“pang-iirap”, I don’t have a translation) and catfights, hairpulling (“sabunutan”) and clawing with nails (“kalmutan”) and rolling on mud or downhill. We’ve all lost tempers now and then here and there: I’ve slammed doors, slammed phones, threw papers on the floor or trash can (not on someone’s face), picked up an exhibit (a gun) and shoved it in front of the judge to show the serial number was wrong but was warned for contempt, I’ve hurled curses at obstructing, cutting, speeding drivers, thrown things on the wall when no one else was in the room, but I’ve never thrown water at anyone’s face, or met anyone who’s done that. In the Revised Penal Code, there’s such a thing as slander by deed, and there are cases in the books where the court had punished slapping someone’s face as slander by deed; throwing water at another person’s face is, I think, almost a form of violence akin to slapping.
Standing up and speaking out or heckling is ordinary fare in schools, parliaments, election campaigns, informal debates, public assemblies. If there’s no trespass or destruction of property or threats or coercion involved, it is just a daring form of protest and covered by free speech. They just involve words. When angry words however assume a material force (gosh, I don’t like using those big words), or rather, when expression becomes forms of violent acts, they are criminalized and do not fall within the ambit of protected speech. (maybe of something else, but not the speech-clause.) Can a columnist however be administratively or organizationally sanctioned by the newspaper he writes for, for acts like throwing water on someone’s face? Can’t you argue, for example, that it had nothing to do with what he wrote or what he writes about or how he writes his columns? Aren’t mediapersons sanctioned only for what and how they write, and not how they comport themselves? Wouldn’t it be too tall an order to require mediapersons to, well… behave? Who decides what is proper behavior? What if they’re caught in, for example, houses of ill-repute, gambling joints, or caught committing estafa, issuing bouncing checks, etc.? Should the media outfit administratively sanction them even if their behavior may have nothing to do with what and how they report or write or broadcast?
Here’s the old, and short or bullet-form, Philippine Press Institute Code of Ethics (there’s already an expanded one of this, I didn’t use it here because it’s too long); the ethics-book of most media organizations, though more detailed, are based on similar concepts found in this bullet-form code of ethics. (so I won’t have to type the whole thing, I copied-and-pasted from http://www.media-accountability.org/library/PHILIPPINES.doc. Here it is. Most of us would probably say, “we all know and it’s obvious he was rude and boorish so he should be sanctioned…” But I like using provisions; I’m not comfortable with common-law type of punishing people. So here are the provisions. (to make you work, I won’t say in the meantime which provision you should be looking at).
Journalist’s Code of Ethics
formulated by the Philippine Press Institute
and National Press Club
1. I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. I recognise the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.
2. I shall not violate confidential information or material given me in the exercise of my calling.
3. I shall resort only to fair and honest methods in my effort to obtain news, photographs and/or documents, and shall properly identify myself as a representative of the press when obtaining any personal interview intended for publication.
4. I shall refrain from writing reports which will adversely affect a private reputation unless the public interest justifies it. At the same time, I shall fight vigorously for public access to information.
5. I shall not let personal motives or interests influence me in the performance of my duties; nor shall I accept or offer any present, gift or other consideration of a nature which may cast doubt on my professional integrity. 6. I shall not commit any act of plagiarism. 7. I shall not in any manner ridicule, cast aspersions on, or degrade any person by reason of sex, creed, religious belief, political conviction, cultural and ethnic origin. 8. I shall presume persons accused of crime of being innocent until proven otherwise. I shall exercise caution in publishing names of minors and women involved in criminal cases so that they may not unjustly lose their standing in society. 9. I shall not take unfair advantage of fellow journalists.
10. I shall accept only such tasks as are compatible with the integrity and dignity of my profession, invoking the ‘conscience clause’ when duties imposed on me conflict with the voice of my conscience.
11. I shall comport myself in public or while performing my duties as journalist in such manner as to maintain the dignity of my profession. When in doubt, decency should be my watch word.
I’m guessing it would fall under paragraphs 10 and 11 (more, under paragraph 11). Inquirer publisher Isagani Yambot was also reported to have said that, in addition, Vic Agustin’s columns would not be published for one month because he was he was being investigated for allegations of being on the payroll of certain politicians. When interviewed about this on TV, the soundbytes did not have him denying any of it. He paused and simply said: “Ah….(pause) madaming tatamaan dyan..” (“Ah….many would be implicated..”). But neither did he deny anything. (of course, the allegation is difficult if not impossible to prove unless you could be authorized to open bank accounts. You might just want to look at the slant of articles but that wouldn’t be conclusive evidence of corruption but of bias, which is probably….oh, I won’t lead you on.)
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
