Tag: progressive

embargo, The News Media

World Press Freedom Day. The Dissent.

Norman Posecion, “Untitled II”, Oil on Canvas, 122 x 91 cms., 2003. Downloaded with express permission from the site of the Kulay-Diwa Gallery at www.kulay-diwa.com , maraming salamat po!

The Dissent. From then Justice (now Chief Justice) Reynato Puno Jr., Dissenting opinion, In Re Emil Jurado, A.M. No. 93-2-037 April 6, 1995:

XXXX

Quote “XXXX Indeed, nothing in the record show that any person lost faith in our system of justice because of his (Emil Jurado’s) said report. Even the losing party in G.R. No. 94374. Eastern Telephone Philippines, Inc., (ETPI) does not appear to have given any credence to the said false report. I submit that it is not every falsehood that should incur the Court’s ire, lest it runs out of righteous indignation. Indeed, gross falsehood, vicious lies, and prevarications of paid hacks cannot deceive the public any more that can they cause this Court to crumble. If we adopt the dangerous rule that we should curtail speech to stop every falsehood we might as well abolish freedom of speech for there is yet to come a man whose tongue tells only the truth. In any event, we should take comfort in the thought that falsehoods cannot destroy only truth does but only to set us free.

Quote “XXXXX Respondent is a columnist and he does not only write straight news reports but interprets events from his own distinct prism of perception. As a columnist and like any other columnist, he has his own predilections and prejudices and he bends his views in accord with his own slant of faith. I see no reason to penalize respondent for the slants in his views, however, unpleasant and irreverent they may be to the court. When we start punishing a columnist for slants in his views, we shall soon be seeking slits to look for witches among them.

XXXX

Quote “XXXX There is an appropriate remedy against abusive press newsmen. I submit, however, that the remedy is not to be too quick in wielding the power of contempt for that will certainly chain the hands of many newsmen. Abusive newsmen are bad but laundered news is worse.

Quote “Eight. Again, with due respect, I submit that the majority misappreciates the role of the press as a critic of government in a democratic society. The Constitution did not conceive the press to act as the cheerleader of government, including the judiciary. Rather, the press is the agent (footnote 29) of the people when it gathers news derogatory to those who hold the reins of government. The agency is necessary because the people must have all available information before they exercise their sovereign judgment. As well observed: “The newspapers, magazines, and other journals of the country, it is safe to say, have shed and continue to shed, more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrument of publicity; and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment the suppression of abridgment of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.” (footnote 30). As agent of the people, the most important function of the press in a free society is to inform and it cannot inform if it is uninformed. We should be wary when the independent sources of information of the press dry up, for then the press will end up printing “praise” releases and that is no way for the people to know the truth.

Quote “In sum, I submit, that the equation chosen by  the majority has the pernicious effects of hobbling the writing hand of newsmen and of chilling the sources of information of the press. The majority can snicker against the “bleeding heart” liberalism but this is a vain attempt to use a fig leaf to conceal its niggardly regard for freedom of speech and of the press. In a large measure, I fear that the majority opinion will weaken the press as an informed and informative source of information of the sovereign people. In so doing, it will unwittingly erode the people’s right to discover the truth. The protection we give to the sanctity of the sources of information of the press is for the benefit of the people. It is designed to benefit all of us, keep us above the cloud of ignorance. Democracy cannot bloom where sovereignty is rooted on the top soil of an ignorant mass.

Quote “I vote not to hold the respondent in contempt of court.” Closed-quote. – then Justice (now Chief Justice) Reynato Puno Jr., In Re Emil Jurado, A.M. No. 93-2-037 April 6, 1995.

Criminal law, media law, Rules of Court, The News Media

plunder and justice

sanzio.jpg

“Cherubini” by Raphael right-clicked from www.ac.cc.md.us

Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Teresita de Castro said during the congressional budget hearing today that the Sandiganbayan was considering passing rules to regulate the conduct of surveys of high-profile cases because such constitute “prejudicial publicity” (Nadia Trinidad’s report at ANC).Shesaid that they have not come up with specific rules, but they were just studying the matter. She also said that the promulgation would be this September 13.

The exchange in the congressional hearing came in the heels of the recent media blitz of the Erap PR people, which, judging from the dates of the “events” covered in the succeeding news stories, is probably part of a media plan (campaign strat, in advertising lingo). A media plan that they are able to implement because editors allow it.

You might run into free-speech issues if the rules that would be passed are not based on some established guidelines or policies.

Since Justice de Castro used the phrase “prejudicial publicity” i’ll try to use it here the way it’s used in jurisprudence (because she didn’t say “impeding the administration of justice”, which is the contempt provision in the Rules of Court.) Prof. Perfecto Fernandez in his book “Mass Media Law” compiled pertinent jurisprudence on the matter, and referredto them as“four principal types of prejudicial publicity which interfere with the right of the accused to a fair trial”;they’re in four categories: “1) sensationalized reporting; (2)vigilantism by the press; (3) excessive publicity; and (4) prejudicial material.” He said rights of the accused.

But what if the “prejudicial publicity” were favorable to the accused and fostered sympathy for the accused? Would those policies still be applicable? Such that, you can use them for your proposed rules? Since those concepts are based on the right of the accused to a fair trial, would you also apply them if the publicity were favorable to the accused, therefore, not prejudicial to him/ her, therefore, not in interference with the accused’s right to a fair trial?

Does the State enjoy the same kind of rights that the accused enjoy?

The State, as represented by the entire prosecutorial machinery of government, cannot be said to have the same rights as the accused. (of course, you hear of complainants in criminal cases cry: “but what about the rights of victims?”)

“Victims”, or the complainants in criminal cases, well,not them but their interests, and the interests of the entire community, are, when a prima facie case is established, represented by the entire legal armada of the State, which includes investigative agencies, the police, the prosecutors — all those stand behind and in front of you when you are “victimized” and there is prima facie evidence for a criminal case. The accusedon the other hand is just represented by his/her legal team.But there’s this small phrase, this teeny-weeny thing that keeps any accused from being unjustly punished. The small phrase “presumption of innocence”.That saves your life.(that’s how it’s supposed to work anyway). When there is a prima facie case, the entire legal machinery is brought to bear upon an accused, but that small phrase saves the accused.

(When “victims” complain: “but what about the rights of victims”, they feel aggrieved; but maybe because in that instance, the system might have already been despoiled by either neglect from the executive branch or because its members are not professional or because it had been corrupted. It’s not because you need to insert an amendment in the Bill of Rights for rights of “victims”; it’s not because there’s something wrong with the rights of the accused as guaranteed in the Constitution or in the Rules of Court; it’s not because the Constitution is skewed in favor of criminals; but it’s because your investigators, prosecutors, judges, did not do their job… But that’s just my opinion.)

So, does the State enjoy the same kind of rights? Can the Courts come in with rules that say: the accused or his friends or sympathizers,pending trial and decision,cannot sponsor certain surveys, hire PR people, interact with reporters and editors, etc.? Can you do that using categories and policies meant to protect the rights of the accused?

Gee, I don’t know… I’m just checking out the cases on it. (i’m not sure you can legislate media ethics or pass judicial circulars on it; you just do your darndest to remind friends.)

(Atsaka, September 13, Thursday , Triskaidekaphobia. Didn’t the clerk of court notice it; maybe they wanted to set it in the most tailend midweek; tailend and midweek don’t go together; but you know what i mean; the last midweek day.).

The President

I just wondered about the workers that’s all.

worker.jpg

“Man at Work” by Van Gogh, in Cutts and Smith published by Parragon Publishing

If you were the end-user of a building being constructed, in a war-torn country, and one day 51 aliens were flown in by the contractor to your site to work, wouldn’t you wonder where they came from? How they got there? If you were the President of a country sending workers overseas, and you learned that 51 of your workers in Kuwait were suddenly elsewhere in the cross-fire of missiles, wouldn’t you wonder how they got there? Anyway, I just wondered about it (see news story, ABS-CBN news). Last July 26, at the U.S. House of Representatives committee on oversight and government reforms, the medical technician, a certain Rory Mayberry, of First Kuwaiti, a company/ contractor in charge of the project of building the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, testified that a amonth ago he was tasked “to escort” 51 Filipino workers from Kuwait to Iraq, and after they had taken off, and when the pilot announced that they were bound for Baghdad, the Filipinos, according to him, were taken aback because they were told that they would be brought to Dubai Hotel.

From ABS-CBN News: “The men started shouting. It wasn’t until a security guy working for First Kuwaiti waved an MP-5 (submachine gun) in the air that people settled down. I believe these men were kidnapped by First Kuwaiti to work on the US embassy,” said Mayberry.

Since then, they’ve been allegedly forced to work as construction laborers to build the U.S. Embassy façade.

I just wondered whether any government official bothered to check it. Or maybe just ask the labor attaché in Kuwait, maybe. (we don’t have one in Baghdad, right? Because of the ban).

Did any government official bother to get the names of the 51 workers, it would be fairly easy to do that, just get a copy of Rory Mayberry’s testimony, by going to the dockets and transcripts of the U.S. House of Representatives; or by getting in touch with Mr. Mayberry himself?

Did any government official bother to check with Kuwait? Or bother to check with the relatives and families of the 51 workers, whether their family member had gotten in touch with them? In other words, did anyone from our end, any government official, bother to pick up the phone one morning, in his/ her house or office, and find out?

A government official based in Kuwait could easily confirm the story, too, by checking with First Kuwaiti, the company. Did any government official bother to confirm the story?

One could easily verify the flight by checking all the commercial planes that left Kuwait in July, and looking at the flight passenger manifest, to check if indeed our workers had been taken to Baghdad?

I know that everybody was busy and caught up in the hustle and bustle of the Asean foreign minister conference in Manila.

I just thought even just one government official would have been asked to confirm the report:

Read the entire transcript. Get the names. Contact Rory Mayberry.

Check with the families. Ask the labor attaché in Kuwait.

Liaison with First Kuwaiti. Verify all outgoing flights July 24-26. Go over flight manifests.

What has the Philippine government done?

Nothing. Apparently. [UPDATE: As of an hour ago, after i posted, i found out from abs-cbnnews.com that Malacañang through Executive Secretary Ed Ermita announced that a team had been formed to go to the Middle East to investigate; still a press release; the team has not moved out or started any investigation; in fact the Ermita branch of government (apologies to Jon Stewart, “the Cheney branch of government”) itself, as of the end of office hours a couple of hours ago, still did not have the names of the workers. Get going, guys, start getting the vital information)