Law on Mass Media & Comm 5th Exercise Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint (regular & bonus)

Law on Mass Media and Communication 5th Exercise Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint (regular and bonus)

    Progress of course work: The following chapters have been successfully discussed: Intro (the Constitution, constitutional law terms, legal terms, legal remedies; books of statutes; Supreme Court citations; structure of the judiciary; quasi-judicial agencies);  Philosophic Bases of the right to a free press; and the chapter on Rights and Privileges has been started :  the topics “right access to information of matters of public concern” (right to freedom of information); and rights under the Shield Law (right not to disclose the source) have been successfully discussed.

      In preparation for our discussion on the topic “right to freedom from prior restraint”, the following are the exercises (one regular and one optional bonus) with deadline on September 19, Wednesday, at 5pm.

     (class members who will  help organize the live, multimedia illustration of prior restraint on Sept. 20 will get additional bonus points … plus a second bonus here if they submit the bonus exercise for this week)

                                                                 REGULAR EXERCISE

      BACKGROUND (New York Times vs. US; US vs. Washington Post, Eastern Broadcasting vs. Minister of Transportation and Communications Dans; Gonzales, Malaya, Brocka, Lacaba vs. BRMPT Kalaw-Katigbak; MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN (2005) )

     Please read the following cases as background on the right to freedom from prior restraint (right to freedom from censorship) in the newspaper print media, the broadcast media (radio and television) media, in films and movies, and in the internet/online media:

     In New York Times vs. United States (1971) : When the White House (through a district judge) was able to get an injunction to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy”, the U.S. Supreme Court in a vote of 6-3 struck down the injunction stating that: “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”

     In Eastern Broadcasting vs. Minister of Transport and Comm Dans (1985) : Radio station DYRE was summarily closed down by the NTC.  The Philippine Supreme Court in an advisory (the case had become moot) held that a radio station cannot be summarily shut down without observing administrative due process.  Broadcast stations are required to acquire a legislative franchise and an NTC permit before they could operate. Particular broadcasts are not required to get a permit,  i.e., after the grant of license, specific broadcast shows are not required to get a permit before airing an episode. Further, a licensed broadcast station cannot be closed or shut down by the government without observing the following requisites of administrative due process: Right to hearing, right to present evidence; tribunal must consider evidence; decision based on evidence; evidence must be substantial; independent tribunal; decision in writing where issues and reasons are stated.

      In Gonzales, Malaya, Brocka, Lacaba vs. BRMPT Kalaw-Katigbak (1985) : The film “Bayan Ko (Kapit sa Patalim)” was classified R18 and with cuts by the BRMPT (board of censors). The Court held (as an advisory as there were not enough votes to declare grave abuse) : Films for commercial exhibition are required to get a permit from the BRMPT (now MTRCB) before public showing, however, the BRMPT (now MTRCB) is not authorized to delete scenes (not allowed to cut) and is authorized only to classify or to rate films. (note however that ratings in this jurisdiction include X’ing; SC has not passed upon this -blog admin)

     In MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN (2005) : The ABS-CBN show The Inside Story aired a report on prostitution, with the school PWU named. PWU filed a complaint with MTRCB against the show and TV station. ABS was then fined by MTRCB P20,000 for not submitting said show / segment for prior review to MTRCB (before airing).  The Supreme Court held that the MTRCB can review TV shows and impose fines.  Since MTRCB here did not ban the show nor revoke any permit (but just imposed a fine for non-compliance),  it was not necessary to rule upon whether or not provisions on prior-review such as Sections 3 (b), (c), and (d), 4, 7, and 11 of P.D. No. 1986 (creating the board) were unconstitutional (for not being necessary in the disposition of the case).

     Chavez vs. DOJ Secretary (2008) (which includes the internet as media): The then DOJ Secretary in press statements threatened all those who played the Hello Garci tapes with prosecution, arrest, detention. The Supreme Court held: Threats and warnings of prosecution and arrest from the government against media organizations and internet users who play the Hello Garci tapes operate as a form of prior restraint. (please see discussion under the bonus exercise)

     FOR THE REGULAR EXERCISE: Please illustrate the right to freedom from prior restraint (or right to freedom from censorship) by searching for and describing any event/ story/ report/account/ article/ narrative on :

       1.Any media organization that was closed or shut down by the government from September 21, 1972 to Feb. 25, 1986 such as any newspaper, television station, radio station, television show, radio program, any film, student publication, that was closed down or shut down by the government or any media content that was censored for said period…

          or    …

         2. Any journalist, broadcaster, television personality, writer, campus journalist and student leader/ students, who was arrested/ detained, summarily executed during said period for their activities of speech and expression. You may refer to the following video documentary for more background:

                                                     BONUS EXERCISE

    FOR THE BONUS EXERCISE, period covered: January 1, 2018 to present date:

       Illustrate, through any news event from January 1, 2018 to the present date, the principle laid down in the leading case of Chavez vs. DOJ Sec Raul Gonzales G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008 that warnings and threats of prosecution from the government against media organizations and threats of jail from the government against internet users operate as a form of prior restraint.

     Background: In Chavez vs. DOJ Secretary, supra, where the then DOJ Secretary and the NTC threatened all those who played the Hello Garci tapes with prosecution and arrest, the Supreme Court speaking through then Chief Justice Puno held:
      CJ Puno: “ xxx It is sufficient that the press statements were made by respondents while in the exercise of their official functions. Undoubtedly, respondent Gonzales made his statements as Secretary of Justice, while the NTC issued its statement as the regulatory body of media. Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered by the rule on prior restraint. The concept of an “act” does not limit itself to acts already converted to a formal order or official circular. Otherwise, the non formalization of an act into an official order or circular will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on prior restraint. The press statements at bar are acts that should be struck down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free speech and press.
      “There is enough evidence of chilling effect of the complained acts on record. The warnings given to media came from no less the NTC, a regulatory agency that can cancel the Certificate of Authority of the radio and broadcast media. They also came from the Secretary of Justice, the alter ego of the Executive, who wields the awesome power to prosecute those perceived to be violating the laws of the land. After the warnings, the KBP inexplicably joined the NTC in issuing an ambivalent Joint Press Statement. After the warnings, petitioner Chavez was left alone to fight this battle for freedom of speech and of the press. This silence on the sidelines on the part of some media practitioners is too deafening to be the subject of misinterpretation.
         “The constitutional imperative for us to strike down unconstitutional acts should always be exercised with care and in light of the distinct facts of each case. For there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to slippery constitutional questions, and the limits and construct of relative freedoms are never set in stone. Issues revolving on their construct must be decided on a case to case basis, always based on the peculiar shapes and shadows of each case. But in cases where the challenged acts are patent invasions of a constitutionally protected right, we should be swift in striking them down as nullities per se. A blow too soon struck for freedom is preferred than a blow too late.
        “xxx (T)he petition is GRANTED. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are hereby issued, nullifying the official statements made by respondents on June 8, and 11, 2005 warning the media on airing the alleged wiretapped conversation between the President and other personalities, for constituting unconstitutional prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press. xxx SO ORDERED.” (Underscoring supplied).

🍀 ☀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀 ☀

(AS STATED IN THE BEGINNING, THERE WILL ONLY BE SIX TO SEVEN BONUSES. THIS IS THE FIFTH BONUS)

(widgets appear at the bottom

(photo by blog admin,  from the archives)

15 thoughts on “Law on Mass Media & Comm 5th Exercise Right to Freedom from Prior Restraint (regular & bonus)

  1. FIFTH WEEK REGULAR POST

    Links to references:
    https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/810571/writers-journalists-as-freedom-heroes
    https://usa.inquirer.net/7238/kung-di-tayo-kikibo-sinong-kikibo-hero-behind-slogan
    http://www.bantayog.org/sarmiento-abraham-jr-p/

    Abraham P. Sarmiento Jr., or Ditto Sarmiento, was the editor-in-chief of the Philippine Collegian, the student paper of the University of the Philippines, from 1975-1976. He was first brought in for interrogation in December 1975 by the military regarding “Purge II”, an editorial he wrote which then minister of national defense Juan Ponce Enrile took offence with. He was released shortly after. On January 1976, Ditto Sarmiento wrote another article for the collegian entitled “Where Do We Go From Here”. He read his article aloud during a university symposium. He was detained again less than two weeks after the symposium and was charged with “rumor mongering and the printing and circulation of leaflets and propaganda materials”. His detention lasted seven months, two of which were spent in isolation in Camp Crame. His health deteriorated during his detention as he was asthmatic and was not given proper medical attention. He died a little over a year after his release due to heart attack.

    Heavy censorship of the media was imposed at that time. Decrees such as Presidential Decree (PD) 33, which “penalized the printing, possession, and distribution of leaflets and other materials, and even graffiti which ‘undermine the integrity of the government,” were issued by Marcos to ensure his total control over the press. Seeing that Sarmiento continuously wrote editorials criticizing Marcos’ leadership and martial law, he became one of the many campus journalists and student leaders detained during that era.

    Under Ditto Sarmiento’s editorship, the Philippine Collegian published many articles criticizing the Marcos regime and martial law. “Kung di tayo kikibo, sino ang kikibo? Kung di tayo kikilos, sino ang kikilos? Kung hindi ngayon, kailan pa?” was the challenge Sarmiento posed to their readers and came to be one of, if not the most, famous banners of the Collegian. Despite being detained, Sarmiento executed an affidavit defending the publication of his editorials in the exercise of free speech, press freedom, and the enjoyment of academic freedom and refused to recant his editorials.

  2. FIFTH REGULAR POST:

    https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2000/01/25/103798/teodoro-m-locsin-sr-patriot-and-journalist-roses-and-thorns-byalejandro-r-roces
    http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jan/26/news/mn-57889
    http://malacanang.gov.ph/4574-teodoro-locsin-sr-on-ninoy-aquino/

    Teodoro M. Locsin Sr. was the editor of the Philippine Free Press back in the Marcos Regime. Their weekly magazine was most respected and was one of that expressed its opposition towards Marcos’ plan to implement military rule in the country. Thus, when Marcos declared Martial Law, the Philippine Free Press was forced to closed (1972). Locsin got arrested and he was detained with other journalists like Joaquin Roces, Eugenio Lopez Sr., and even Ninoy Aquino. He stayed in prison for 71 days before he was eventually released. Locsin also denied Marcos’ offer to continue publication, knowing he and their magazine will be used by Marcos. The Philippine Free Press was only reopened in February 1986 – after Marcos’ regime.

    To justify the arrests of journalists and closing of certain media outlets, Marcos in his Letter of Instruction stated these outlets were part of the Communist movement. He further stated that these media outlets “engaged in subversive activities against the Government… in the broadcast and dissemination of subversive materials and of deliberately slanted and overly exaggerated news stories and commentaries as well as false, vile, foul and scurrilous statements and utterances, clearly well-conceived, intended and calculated to malign and discredit the duly constituted authorities, and thereby promotes the agitational propaganda campaign, conspiratorial activities and illegal ends of the Communist Party of the Philippines”.

    Furthermore, censorship was fully imposed with Marcos’ President Decree No. 33, stating that: “That penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking up arms or being in open hostility against the government or without inciting others to the execution of any act of rebellion, shall print or publish any handbill, leaflet, poster or other similar materials, or shall possess, distribute or circulate any such printed or published materials, or shall draw, write or sketch any immoral or indecent or word on any wall, fence, sidewalk or any other visible public or private place, which incites or tends to incite people to violence or to disregard, ridicule, defy or ignore any lawful order or act of the government or any of its officers or which, in any case, tends to undermine the integrity of the government or the stability of the State.”

    However, the said presidential decree is already unconstitutional since in the 1973 Constitution, under Article IV Section 9, it states that: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress and grievances”. The journalists had a right to prior restraint or right to freedom of censorship as stated in that Constitution.

  3. PLEASE DISREGARD PREVIOUS POST !!!!

    FIFTH REGULAR POST:

    Links:
    https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2000/01/25/103798/teodoro-m-locsin-sr-patriot-and-journalist-roses-and-thorns-byalejandro-r-roces
    http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jan/26/news/mn-57889
    http://malacanang.gov.ph/4574-teodoro-locsin-sr-on-ninoy-aquino/

    Teodoro M. Locsin Sr. was the editor of the Philippine Free Press back in the Marcos Regime. Their weekly magazine was most respected and was one of those that expressed its opposition towards Marcos’ plan to implement military rule in the country. Thus, when Marcos declared Martial Law, the Philippine Free Press was forced to close (1972). Locsin got arrested and he was detained with other journalists like Joaquin Roces, Eugenio Lopez Sr., and even Ninoy Aquino. He stayed in prison for 71 days before he was eventually released. Locsin also denied Marcos’ offer to continue publication, knowing he and their magazine would be used by Marcos. The Philippine Free Press was only reopened in February 1986 – after Marcos’ regime.

    To justify the arrests of journalists and closing of certain media outlets, Marcos in his Letter of Instruction stated these outlets were part of the Communist movement. He further stated that these media outlets “engaged in subversive activities against the Government… in the broadcast and dissemination of subversive materials and of deliberately slanted and overly exaggerated news stories and commentaries as well as false, vile, foul and scurrilous statements and utterances, clearly well-conceived, intended and calculated to malign and discredit the duly constituted authorities, and thereby promotes the agitational propaganda campaign, conspiratorial activities and illegal ends of the Communist Party of the Philippines”.

    Furthermore, censorship was fully imposed with Marcos’ Presidential Decree No. 33, stating that: “That penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking up arms or being in open hostility against the government or without inciting others to the execution of any act of rebellion, shall print or publish any handbill, leaflet, poster or other similar materials, or shall possess, distribute or circulate any such printed or published materials, or shall draw, write or sketch any immoral or indecent or word on any wall, fence, sidewalk or any other visible public or private place, which incites or tends to incite people to violence or to disregard, ridicule, defy or ignore any lawful order or act of the government or any of its officers or which, in any case, tends to undermine the integrity of the government or the stability of the State.”

    However, the said presidential decree is already unconstitutional since in the 1973 Constitution, under Article IV Section 9, it states that: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress and grievances”. The journalists had a right to prior restraint or right to freedom of censorship as stated in that Constitution.

  4. FIFTH BONUS POST:

    Link: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/970484/dutertes-ban-on-rappler-reporter-slammed-as-censorship

    “Critics on Wednesday slammed President Rodrigo Duterte’s order banning the news website Rappler from Malacañang as “censorship” and a display of “extreme pettiness.”

    The article talks about how Duterte threatened to ban Rappler as he relayed he had seen enough fake news in the website about him and his administration. However, Rappler denies these accusations and maintains its stance against Duterte. Also in the article, it cited that although Duterte’s decision to ban the site wasn’t final, it served as a warning to other journalists to also be careful of what they ask and publish. It was Luis Teodoro who argued that it is really the journalist’s task to ask tough questions and that they have the right to do so.

    This exemplifies the principle laid down in the sample case, which states that “warnings and threats of prosecution from the government against media organizations and threats of jail from the government against internet users operate as a form of prior restraint.” By simply warning to ban them, Duterte is already inciting censorship to this media outlet as well as possibly banning other media outlets. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional to censor the press due to Article 3, Section 4 in our Constitution, which states that: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances”.

  5. 5th exerscise
    Ralph Villanueva
    https://www.manilatimes.net/duterte-heckler-arrested/407452/

    While Duterte was delivering his speech during the commemoration of the 120th Independence Day celebration, Couichie and nine other protesters made a scene by heckling the President.

    During one of Duterte’s speeches, 9 hecklers were chased for chanting false freedom during the event. There was one who was arrested while the others were able to escape safely. Duterte however allowed the this to continue acknowledging the freedom to right of speech.

    In my opinion, it may be the right for the students to say whatever they may want to say, however there is also a responsibility with this right, and this does not include disturbing the public, no matter how deserving Duterte is for negative attention.

  6. Bonus
    Al Jareeza
    https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2018/01/duterte-rappler-media-notice-philippines-180127063541717.html

    Rappler, a popular online news site in the Philippines has long been a thorn in the side of President Rodrigo Duterte because of its critical reporting. Duterte has repeatedly accused Rappler of being run by Americans, which is illegal under Filipino law. Now the site is facing a possible shut down over that allegation. Duterte has made many thinly veiled threats against journalists since 2016, but does this official move against Rappler amount to the Duterte government issuing a formal declaration of war against the Filipino media?

    There is no denying the fact that Duterte and the Media are not very close. One specific website has grown large in the eyes of our current President. Rappler has been known for reporting news about social issues for the past few years, however what makes them different from other news companies is that some of the articles have a somewhat biased point of view, specifically an anti Duterte one. Now with being accused of being run illegally, and accused of publishing fake news are facing threats of being shut down.

    This has been an ongoing controversy in our media today. Many times we have heard the complaints of our president against the rappler website and his wishes for them to stop their ways of producing news. Due to the values upheld by the newsgroup, they did not stop reporting on duterte and are now under heavy regulation.

  7. From the archive, 8 February 1985: Marcos regime arrests outspoken Filipino film director

    https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/feb/08/archive-1985-marcos-regime-arrests-outspoken-filipino

    “Protests from all over the world have followed the arrest in Manila last week of Lino Brocka, the Filipino film director, on charges of suspected sedition. Brocka has been a thorn in the flesh of the regime for many years as a film-maker often at odds with the censor, and as an open opponent of President Marcos.”

    Lino Brocka, along with another filmmaker Behn Cervantes was arrested January 28, 1985. Brocka at the time, is a well renowned filmmaker for his works that expose the realities of the living conditions in the Philippines of the seventies. The arrest came shortly after one of his most controversial films, Bayan Ko was shown. He is also known for works that allowed for critical reflection on the Marcos regime such as Maynila sa Kuko ng Liwanag and Insiang.

    The article reflects how oppressive the Marcos dictatorship was especially for Media Practitioners. Marcos was determined to use media outlets to disseminate public information that are in line with his agenda to keep his power. He censored not just news firms but also shut down creative minds of artists in the country.

  8. FIFTH REGULAR POST

    Article: http://www.bantayog.org/galang-reyes-rosalinda/

    “Through its crudely printed news sheets it dug up plenty of dirt about the Marcos regime, and using highly inflammatory language too. There were enough credible sources from among the same elite, though anti-Marcos, who provided inside information about the corruption of the dictator’s family and their cronies.

    More importantly for Roz and the others, the underground revolutionary press went deep among the workers, the urban poor, landless farmers, hinterland tribes. These new journalists reported on their struggle for just wages, agrarian reform. They wrote about guerrilla ambushes, people’s organizing committees, the heroic deeds of those who died young.”

    Although she was not arrested because of the help of her friends and the community that supported her fight against the oppression, the fact still remains that she was still oppressed through the way the government (or media companies who were afraid to be shut down) did not provide support even though she is telling the truth because she has dissenting opinion. Because of her writings and beliefs, she was not able to experience what she deserves to experience (the ‘luxury’ of being an entitled journalist at the time of Martial Law) – no salary, no pseudonym or air conditioned offices.

  9. FIFTH BONUS POST

    ARTICLE: https://www.rappler.com/nation/196497-lawmakers-duterte-ban-pia-ranada-malacanang-coverage

    “MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Lawmakers slammed President Rodrigo Duterte’s decision to ban Rappler reporter Pia Ranada from entering Malacañang after his closest aide, Bong Go, faced a Senate probe due to stories by the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Rappler.”

    In my knowledge, the only reason that a journalist should be restrained in entering government premises is when she or he becomes a threat to the safety of the officials. From restraining Pia Ranada in the premises the government later on released a statement that revokes the function of Rappler as a reputable news outlet by discrediting them for Malacanang news coverage.

    Although Rappler still actively writes news for the public the fact that the President threatened to stop Rappler from doing its duty to inform the public creates a chilling effect to other journalists or media practitioners.

  10. FIFTH REGULAR POST

    https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/810571/writers-journalists-as-freedom-heroes
    https://philippineculturaleducation.com.ph/roces-joaquin-chino/

    Jaoaquin “Chino” Roces

    Roces came from a family whose business is the newspaper. He started as an apprentice in their family business, the TVT Publishing Co. In 1935, he started the The Manila Times and acted as its general manager. Back then, The Manila Times was only a tabloid.

    During the Marcos Administration, The Manila Times was one of the newspapers which was very critical of the administration. The Times was closed along with many other media organizations when Marcos declared Martial Law. Roces was detained and became one of the political prisoners at that time. After two months, he was released.

    When the clamor for societal change was brought to the streets, Roces joined the forces of the people hungry for change and justice. Before the snap elections, he led a signature campaign for former President Corazon Aquino to run.

    When Martial Law was lifted, he revived The Manila Times.

  11. FIFTH BONUS POST

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/20/philippine-government-bans-journalist-presidential-palace

    “Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration renewed its assault on the media by banning a reporter and the executive editor from the news site Rappler from entering the executive office at Malacañang Palace. The ban followed a Senate hearing on a controversial frigate deal, during which a top Duterte aide accused Rappler and the Philippine Daily Inquirer of publishing “fake news,” which both news outlets denied.”

  12. FIFTH REGULAR POST:

    Links: http://www.bantayog.org/orcullo-alexander-l/
    https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/810571/writers-journalists-as-freedom-heroes

    “Alex Orcullo founded the publication of Mindaweek, edited Mindanao Currents and wrote for the San Pedro Express. He was adamantly against the military abuses and human rights violations during Martial Law. Upon its declaration in September 1972, he led a group of young people in marching around the small town of Padada singing ‘Pilipinas Kong Mahal.’ Days afterward, they were arrested and detained at the constabulary barracks.”

    Orcullo also worked as a radio commentator during the Marcos regime and heavily criticized Marcos for his continued tyrannical attacks on the people. He was the barangay captain of his hometown Mandug in Davao City, a highly militarized town. Armed men in masks would roam the city and ask the locals about Orcullo. Eventually, on his 38th birthday, he was shot dead by paramiliatry group Philippine Liberation Organization.

    It is no surprise that there were numerous human rights violations during the Marcos era. From the start of the declaration, Orcullo already experienced a violation in his right to freedom and speech and his right to organize when he was arrested for singing “Pilipinas Kong Mahal.” He was an outspoken activist and media practitioner who took up numerous leadership positions to help fight the Marcos dictatorship, which eventually led to his death in 1984.

  13. FIFTH REGULAR POST

    Roger “Bomba” Arienda (Radio Commentator)

    The Martial Law era left a grave scar in the hearts of the Filipinos longing for democracy. Media establishments were completely shutdown and media practitioners were abducted and detanied left and right. Roger Arienda also known as “Bomba Arienda” was a radio commentator turned activist due to the tyranny of the Marcos administration. He led many of the rallies with Gary Olivar and Edgar Jopson. Soon enough, he was then arrested and detained during the first wave of the media arrests happening in the country.

    He spent many years in military camps and then transferred to the National Bilibid Prison which was for “hardened criminals”. His crime was stated to be “inciting to rebellion” and then 10 years after his imprisonment, he was then released granted an amnesty by Marcos. He then became a pastor. He was only one of the Filipinos abducted and detained by the Marcos Regime, there are still hundreds of missing person which until now could not be found or traced.

    Reference:
    https://opinion.inquirer.net/72775/partial-compensation-from-the-marcos-loot
    https://philippinesfreepress.wordpress.com/tag/roger-arienda/

  14. FIFTH BONUS POST: Rappler reporter now banned from entire Malacañang complex

    Link: https://www.rappler.com/nation/196601-reporter-banned-entire-malacanang-complex

    “Rappler reporter Pia Ranada has been banned from entering the entire Malacañang complex, not just Malacañang Palace. The development comes after Rappler condemned the remark from PSG Commander Brigadier General Lope Dagoy that Ranada should have been thankful that PSG personnel did not hurt her when she asked for more details about the order to prohibit her entry into Malacañang premises. Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque has said that the ban on Rappler was because of Duterte’s annoyance with Ranada.”

    This is a clear example of media repression. The Philippine president banning the entrance of the media simply because he is “annoyed” with the reporter is and will never be a valid reason to bar journalists for doing their jobs.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: