NEWS ANALYSIS

Terrorizing Media, Legislatively

Media groups, as well as a number of major publications, did right in opposing the proposal by the AFP chief of staff to include in the anti-terrorism bill sanctions for journalists and media outfits interviewing “known terrorists or terrorist groups.” As recent developments show, this is not the time for letting their guard down.

BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
Bulatlat

Media groups like the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), did right last March in raising their fists in protest against a proposal by Lt. Gen. Edilberto Adan, deputy chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), for provisions in an anti-terrorism bill (ATB) sanctioning journalists and media outfits that interview “known terrorists or terrorist groups.” Aside from the fact that the government’s definition of “terrorism” leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity, it is in the public interest that media not be banned from interviewing even real terrorists – as this will ultimately provide the people with valuable insights into what makes terrorism and how best to deal with it.

Media groups and outfits protested the proposal, joined by the familiar cause-oriented groups. The AFP top brass was forced to disown Adan’s proposal, with the chief of staff saying it was not the official AFP stand on the matter.

But recent legislative developments show that the media will have to keep their fists up for a while.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had asked Congress to pass an ATB following the February 14 bombings in Makati, Davao, and General Santos Cities. This, she said, would “add teeth” to the government’s fight against “terrorism.”

In the House of Representatives, there are 10 pending ATBs: House Bill (HB) No. 309 by Rep. Imee Marcos (Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, 2nd District, Ilocos Norte); HB 948 by Rep. Judy Syjuco (Liberal Party, 2nd District, Iloilo); HB 1925 by Rep.

Robert Ace Barbers (Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats, 2nd District, Surigao del Norte); HB 2222 by Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr. (Partido ng Demokratikong Pilipino or PDP, 1st District, Makati); HBs 2380 and 2621 by Rep. Amado Espino Jr. (Nationalist People’s Coalition, 2nd District, Pangasinan); HB 2615 by Rep. Roilo Golez (Kabalikat ng Mamamayang Pilipino or Kampi, 2nd District, Parañaque City); HB 2639 by Rep. Marcelino Libanan (Nationalist People’s Coalition, Eastern Samar); HB 3032 by Rep. Robert Vincent Jude Jaworski (Lakas-CMD, Pasig City); and HB 3103 by Rep. Douglas Cagas (NPC, 1st District, Davao del Sur).

In the Senate, meanwhile, there are five pending ATBs: Senate Bill (SB) No. 735 by Sen. Manuel Villar (Lakas-CMD), SB 831 by Sen. Panfilo Lacson (Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino or LDP), SB 871 by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada (Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino or KNP), SB 38 Sen. Ramon Magsaysay (Lakas-CMD), and SB 1768 by Sen. Alfredo Lim KNP). These are all still up for first reading.

Meanwhile, the House Committees on Justice and Foreign Affairs created a Technical Working Group (TWG) to consolidate the different ATBs into a substitute bill. Represented in the TWG are the Department of Justice (DoJ), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Commission on Human Rights (CHR), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Parole and Probation Administration (PPA), Philippine National Police (PNP), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Association of Judges, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

So the action right now is at the House, where weekly hearings on a consolidated draft ATB have begun to be held.

“Terrorist” links

The draft of the ATB’s House version as of May 4 does not directly mention sanctions against media interviewing “known terrorists or terrorist groups” in any of its provisions.

However, it does have a provision that, although general enough, can definitely be construed to encompass the media. Sec. 7 of the draft classifies it as “unlawful” for any person or group of persons, “whether natural or juridical,” to establish, maintain or serve as contact or link “with any person or group of persons or organization/s who have pursued or are pursuing terrorism.”

This prohibits the media from even arranging interviews with personalities or representatives of organizations that have been labeled, whether by the Philippine or U.S. government, as “terrorists.” Any person who is found to have violated any of the provisions under the draft’s Sec. 7, which lists “Acts that Facilitate, Contribute to or Promote Terrorism” will suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P10 million ($183,654.73 based on an exchange rate of $1:P54.45 as of May 16).

The following are presently included in the U.S. Department of State’s list of “foreign terrorist organizations”: the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed component, the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). Listed as a “foreign terrorist” is Prof. Jose Maria Sison, CPP founding chairman, chief political consultant of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), and recently elected as chairman of the International League of People’s Struggle (ILPS). Interviews with any of the groups or personalities mentioned will be illegal if the May 4 draft should pass.

But media should find additional cause for alarm in that it is not only these groups that have been blacklisted. Legal cause-oriented groups like the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU or May First Movement), Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP or Philippine Peasant Movement); and even the socio-economic think tank IBON Foundation have repeatedly been called “communist fronts.”

Because the CPP – which according to the government controls these groups as its “legal fronts” – is included in the official “terrorist” list, there is always the danger that if the May 4 draft ATB is to be passed, it will be applied loosely and even interviews with personalities associated with these organizations may also be classified as “unlawful.”

The “Red” tag on these groups has recently acquired a more official character with their inclusion in the AFP’s list of “enemies of the state” in the PowerPoint presentation Knowing the Enemy. Meanwhile, the recently-launched third volume of the AFP book Trinity of War, which deals with the military’s campaign against the CPP-NPA-NDF, lists Bayan, the KMU and the KMP as “front organizations” of the CPP.

Proscription of organizations

But even without these developments, the cause-oriented groups – which are always among media’s sources of news and views on political and economic issues – run the risk of being proscribed as “terrorist” organizations under Sec. 8 of the May 4 draft.

Section 4 of the draft bill, which defines how terrorism is committed, includes “Threatening or causing serious risk to health or safety of the public or any segment of the public.” The country has recently seen several protest actions being followed by clashes between ralliers and police as rallies were dispersed with excessive force. Such skirmishes, no doubt, risk injuring even bystanders – and the risk of injury may be blamed by the government on the ralliers regardless of whose side started the violence.

Consequently, rallies may be declared “terrorist” acts, on the ground that they “threaten or cause serious risk to health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,” and cause-oriented groups may end up being proscribed as terrorist organizations.

The possible proscription of the legal cause-oriented groups as “terrorist” organizations will further constrict the media’s capacity for sourcing of news and views.

Chills

Though there is no direct mention of sanctions against media interviewing “terrorists” or “terrorist groups” in the May 4 draft ATB, the provisions cited may well send chills through the spines of journalists who value the practice of multiple sourcing, which is the best guarantee for balanced news and views. These already amount to acts of terror against the media, whose freedom stands to be mutilated.

And that is just the House version. What is to prevent the Senate ATBs from being consolidated into an equally draconian measure when deliberations begin on these? With that, there will be little left for legislators to argue on at the bicameral conference committee, and the country may just see an ATB clamping down on hard-earned press freedom – the last thing that journalists need these days, with their colleagues being killed left and right while doing exposes against corrupt government officials.

This is not the time for media to let down its guard against the ATB. Bulatlat 

BACK TO TOP ■  PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION  ■   COMMENT

© 2004 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.