ANALYSIS
Macapagal-Arroyo Administration Resorts to `Soft’ Media Censorship
The intent is clear
if one were to read the full text of Art. III, Sec. 4 of the 1987
Constitution: “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.”
This provision alone
reinforces the argument that Martial Law under the late Ferdinand Marcos
has already ended with the ascension to power of Corazon Aquino in 1986.
While censorship was very apparent during the time of Marcos, observers
note that we are now reaping the fruits of EDSA 1 given the supposed
restoration of democracy.
Unlike the period
from 1972 to 1986, no newspapers and broadcast stations have been forcibly
closed down by the succeeding administrations through decrees and orders.
Journalists are said to be more able to freely exercise their profession,
making the media a suitable venue for debate among protagonists.
The emergence of the
new media, particularly the Internet, has given opportunities for both
mainstream and alternative media to broaden their reach and provide
Filipinos and other nationalities here and abroad more choices to satisfy
their information needs. Regulation of content from the Internet – or to
be more precise, the World Wide Web – is said to be a monumental task for
a “technologically challenged” administration so dissidents have turned to
the new media to make known their stand to concerned and like-minded
online users.
Where, at this point,
does censorship come in? Isn’t Martial Law already over? Isn’t censorship
at this time an impossible task for the powers-that-be, given the power of
the Internet to immediately upload text, graphics, pictures and
audio-visual materials, free from the any government intervention? If
opposing views can now be accommodated by the media, doesn’t this mean
that there is no attempt from the administration to suppress information?
There is, however,
more to the current media situation than meets the eye. There are direct
and indirect forms of censorship being used by the Macapagal-Arroyo
administration from 2001 to the present. A discussion, however, of what
transpired during Martial Law and beyond is in order to properly
contextualize the manner in which censorship has been done through the
years.
Defining
censorship
Censorship refers to
“the institution or practice of censoring” which is, in turn, defined as
suppression of publications or excision of any matter in them “thought to
be immoral, seditious, or otherwise undesirable.”
Censorship can be
done at various levels. While government regulations directly affect media
freedom in a country, it must be noted that the media gatekeepers also
exert influence on the nature of media content and, consequently, the
information that the public gets. A media practitioner and his or her
editors may, consciously or unconsciously, resort to self-censorship in
the performance of his or her functions. Suffice it to say that this can
be brought about by the prevailing environment of suppression in the
media.
For purposes of
discussion, we will only focus on government regulations and the emerging
measures undertaken by the Marcos and Macapagal-Arroyo administrations to
fulfill their agenda.
Censorship under
Martial Law
In the context of
Martial Law, censorship was clearly seen in Letter of Instruction No. 1,
issued on September 22, 1972 ordering the press secretary and the defense
secretary to take over and control or cause the taking over and control of
the mass media during the national emergency. Please note that the first
letter of instruction under Martial Law, issued a day after it was
declared, involved the mass media.
The Marcos
administration was, at that time, apparently aware of the power of media
in shaping public opinion, especially in making his dictatorial regime
acceptable to the people. Not surprisingly, Marcos resorted to various
direct forms of censorship, as may be gleaned from two orders coming from
the Department of Public Information (DPI) on September 25, or three days
after the issuance of Letter of Instruction No. 1.
DPI’s Order No. 1
made it clear that all media publications had to be cleared first,
reminding media practitioners that the mass media shall publish objective
news reports and that no editorial comment shall be permitted. According
to a study by Rosalinda Ofreneo, it also stated: “Expressly prohibited are
materials that are seditious or that tend toward disorder, lawlessness,
and violence.” Order No. 2, on the other hand, prohibited printers “from
producing any form of publication for mass dissemination without
permission from the DPI.”
On October 28, 1972,
Marcos issued Presidential Decree (PD) No. 33 penalizing “the printing,
possession, distribution, and circulation of printed materials which are
immoral or indecent, or which defy the government or its officers, or
which tend to undermine the integrity of the Government or the stability
of the State.”
In a study, Crispin
Maslog identified other laws which prevented the spread of what the
administration considered sensitive information, among them “PD 90
(penalizing rumor mongering), PD 1737 (empowering the President to detain
persons to prevent them from acting against national security or public
order), PDs 1834 and 1845 (escalating the penalties for rebellion,
sedition and other crimes related to national security, including
“subversive journalism”), and PD 1877 authorizing the incarceration for a
period not exceeding one year of persons accused of national security
crimes even without charges being filed against them).”
Aside from these
laws, Marcos also established media-regulating bodies like the Mass Media
Council (MMC) through PD 36 on November 2, 1972. In a nutshell, all media
agencies were required to secure a certificate of authority to operate
from the MMC. The latter was abolished on May 11, 1973 through PD 191.
However, the Media
Advisory Council (MAC) took the place of the MMC which was also tasked to
issue certificates of authority to operate the mass media. Its only
difference with the MMC was the composition of the body which provided
more private sector representation.
The MAC was abolished
on November 9, 1974 through PD 576 because, according to a study by
Ofreneo, there was in the eyes of the Marcos administration an “improved
capability of the mass media to regulate and discipline their ranks.”
It was also through
PD 576 that the Philippine Council for Print Media (PCPM) and Broadcast
Media Council (BMC) were created. Maslog described this development as “a
step towards normalization” (1990: 37) since the two councils were
essentially self-regulatory in character. Critics, however, noted that the
PCPM was mainly composed of publishers so press freedom was not upheld
since only their interests were protected. The same case applied for the
BMC which, like the PCPM, had mostly Marcos cronies for their officers.
The PCPM,
interestingly, was empowered by the Marcos administration “to impose
sanctions, including cancellation of registration certificates, suspension
or written admonition in the case of media; and withdrawal of recognition,
suspension of recognition or warning, in the case of advertising
agencies.”
Censorship at Present
The succeeding
administrations after Marcos saw the dismantling of direct controls over
media, though some media-related organizations and agencies created under
Martial Law still exist.
For instance, the
Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), created in 1973 as a
mechanism for self-regulation, is still very much around. The same case is
true for the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB),
created on October 5, 1985 through PD 1986. (Teodoro, 2004)
While there are
initiatives to reorient the television and radio codes of the KBP to adapt
to the post-Martial Law situation, the same case cannot be said for the
MTRCB. According to Luis Teodoro, the MTRCB is actually a “censorship
board” (2004: 71). He argued: “It has the power to censor and delete
portions from films. Several cases illustrative of the dangers of this
power have arisen over the last decade. For example, the Board’s decision,
overridden by the President, to cut `objectionable portions’ from the film
`Schindler’s List’ as well as other decisions affecting Filipino films.
Most of these cases have inevitably clashed with Art. III, Section 4 of
the Constitution…”
If one were to read
the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) approved by the MTRCB on
February 24, 2004, the word “censorship” cannot be found. In fact, the
MTRCB IRR is even explicit in identifying the board as a “regulatory body”
(Chap. II, Sec. 6) that shall only “review and classify motion pictures,
television programs and related promotion materials and commercials for TV
and cinema, applying as a general standard contemporary Filipino cultural
values” (Chapter II, Sec. 1).
Teodoro’s contention
apparently stems from the manner in which review and classification have
been done through the years. The MTRCB, after all, is wont to recommend
deletions of what it deems objectionable portions of whatever it is
reviewing so that the producers can get their preferred ratings. Aside
from the propensity to make recommendations on how to make the materials
measure up to what the MTRCB thinks as the “general standard contemporary
Filipino cultural values,” an X rating from the MTRCB prevents the
affected materials from being shown in movie houses. In the case of airing
on television stations, a G (general patronage) or PG (parental guidance)
rating is necessary for public exhibition.
Such was the fate of
the documentary “Ang Mabuhay para sa Masa” about the life of ousted
President Joseph Estrada last month which was rated X. According to the
MTRCB’s August 28 memorandum, the second and final review showed that the
Estrada documentary tended to “threaten the political stability of the
state; undermine the faith and confidence of the people in the government;
[be] libelous or defamatory; [pertained] to matters that are sub judice in
nature.” The MTRCB effectively upheld the decision of its first review
committee which gave an X rating to the documentary on August 23.
In an earlier
article, I argued that this constitutes de facto censorship, given
that “(t)here is…a trend right now for the MTRCB to be used in preventing
the spread of what the powers-that-be deem as counter-propaganda. In fact,
the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) even issued an
alert on August 23 that the MTRCB demanded from the producers of a new
public affairs show of ABC 5 the deletion of some portions of its first
episode featuring the New People’s Army (NPA).”
Clearly, the
continued existence of the MTRCB gives the powers-that-be the opportunity
to censor opposing views. The possibility of disseminating information on
the Internet should not be seen as a consolation since the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) could flex its muscles to block
Internet content as practiced in other countries like China.
While the NTC is only
tasked to “allocate frequencies to TV and radio stations,” it has tried to
meddle with the radio and TV coverage of issues. At the height of the
wiretapped conversation allegedly between the President and an election
official, the NTC issued a press release reminding radio and television
stations, “especially all broadcasters, to be careful and circumspect in
the handling of news reportage, coverages (sic) of current affairs and
discussion of public issues.” It even warned that if the tapes of the
wiretapped conversation are found to be “false and/or fraudulent…the
concerned radio and television (companies’) broadcast/airing of such false
information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be just cause for the
suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or
authorizations issued to (them).”
This situation proves
the attempt of NTC to interfere with media content so one should be
mindful of how it will exert its influence not only on radio and
television but also on new media, particularly the Internet.
A more direct form of
media under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration is Presidential
Proclamation No. 1017 which put the country in a state of national
emergency from February 24 to March 3, 2006. The implications on media
practice of PP 1017 may be summed up in the statement signed by 124
students, faculty members and staff of the University of the Philippines
College of Mass Communication (UP CMC): “Proclamation No. 1017 and General
Order No. 5…(were) used by the government to quell legitimate dissent as
manifested by the arrests of demonstrators and so-called conspirators to
bring down the President. We can conclude from the raid on the broadsheet
The Daily Tribune and the tight watch by the military on other
media agencies that the Macapagal-Arroyo administration is savaging press
freedom.”
Aside from these
covert measures which the powers-that-be tried to justify as not being
moves to subvert the press and free expression, there are indirect
measures done by the State to silence the media.
The following
instances in the most recent past are worth noting:
- Kodao Productions
did not only suffer the axing of its award-winning radio program (of
which I used to be one of the co-hosts) on the day Macapagal-Arroyo
declared a state of national emergency. In March 2006, it was also
accused of being a propaganda unit of the communists by a Malacańang
state witness named Jaime Fuentes.
- Radyo Cagayano on
July 2, 2006 was burned allegedly by elements of the 5th
Infantry Division who previously spread black propaganda, accusing it as
the radio station of the New People’s Army (NPA).
- Editors and staff
of the Philippine Collegian (official student publication of UP)
stressed that its funds are being withheld by the UP administration. The
latter invoked a provision in Republic Act No. 9184 (Government
Procurement Reform Act) that “procurement by government units amounting
to P250,000 and above shall be done through a bidding process,
administered by the UP administration.” At first glance, there should be
nothing wrong with complying with this condition but should student
fees, just because they are collected by the UP administration, be
already classified as government funds? The IRR of the Campus Journalism
Act of 1991 clearly states, “The printing of the student publication by
a private printer shall be conducted by the editorial board and the
student publication staff through canvass or public bidding.”
Obviously, these are
not direct forms of censorship. Very much unlike Martial Law, there are no
media regulatory bodies that screen media content prior to printing or
airing. However, there are currently various mechanisms for prior
restraint and the powers-that-be use both legal and extra-legal measures
to quell dissent by silencing the messengers, at times through harassment
and intimidation, even to the point of murder.
Death as ultimate form of censorship
As early as 1990,
Maslog has described the killing of journalists, as “ultimate form of
censorship” (44). Indeed, 34 journalists were killed in the Philippines
from 1972 to 1986, according to the Philippine Movement for Press Freedom
(PMPF). Data from the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
show that 83 journalists were killed from 1986 to July 31, 2006. Of this
number, 46 journalists have been killed since Macapagal-Arroyo became
president in 2001.
It is the
administration’s responsibility to create an atmosphere conducive to the
practice of the media profession. There is cogent reason to take the
current dispensation to task for its failure to bring to justice those who
are responsible for the murders. Despite the conviction of a police
officer in November 2005 for the murder of a Pagadian-based award-winning
journalist, the unabated killings continue to the point where the
Philippines now holds the distinction of being next to Iraq in terms
number of journalists killed, based on data from the New York-based
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).
Conclusion
Observers note that
what is happening now is soft censorship. With the exception of PP 1017
that had a more direct form of censorship, the powers-that-be are using
veiled threats for the media not to highlight information that can put the
current administration in a bad light.
Indeed, Marcos and
Macapagal-Arroyo have something in common as far as media censorship is
concerned. Bulatlat
Editor’s Note: This is a condensed version of Prof. Danilo Arao’s paper
delivered at the Philippine Cultural Summit organized by the Amado V.
Hernandez Resource Center (AVHRC) on September 13, 2006 at the St. Michael
Retreat House in Antipolo City.
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Media Center
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.