By Joseph B.A. Marzan
The topic of “press freedom” was the central theme of the 3rd National Conference on Democracy and Disinformation which culminated on February 26, 2021 via Zoom and Facebook.
The conference was hosted by the University of the Philippines Visayas (UPV).
The first two days of the conference last Feb. 22 and 24 focused on the role of campus journalism and the rise of disinformation.
This leg of the conference featured Senator Risa Hontiveros, Atty. Kate Aubrey Hojilla, Raoul Danniel Manuel, Dr. Beverly Lorraine Ho, and Atty. Chel Diokno, to discuss the power of the press and the people.
A CULTURE OF RESISTANCE
Senator Risa Hontiveros kicked off Friday’s events by narrating the role of the press during the Marcos regime.
These included the dissent of journalists and publications, most notably the “alternative press” and campus publications.
She also noted the role of the local press, including that of the Bacolod City-based Visayan Daily Star, and radio stations in Leyte and Cagayan De Oro City.
“The [local media] was crucial in sharing pertinent facts, information that was key in our fight for democracy. The Filipino media’s courage and ingenuity paved the way for more and more Filipinos to know the truth, for more Filipinos to wake up from a deep, deep slumber. With the help of these unrelenting media, of journalists, editors, broadcasters and reporters, Filipinos would not have been able to gather on the streets of EDSA and many other areas in the Philippines, and give democracy a fighting chance,” Hontiveros said
She added that without the media, the public “would be stuck in an ‘Orwellian’ nightmare”, in reference to George Orwell’s classic novel, “1984”.
She cited several recent instances where the law was “weaponized” by the Duterte administration.
These included the multiple charges arrests against Rappler chief Maria Ressa, the denial of ABS-CBN’s fresh legislative franchise, and the increased killings of journalists in the country.
“Without media, all we are fed is propaganda and dis- and misinformation, this can polarize society and skew public debates. There will be no baseline of facts that societies can be grounded on, making the truth subjective, and especially in terms of governance, accountability, impossible,” she added.
The senator quoted UP journalism professor Danilo Arao in advising participants to “strengthen the culture of resistance”, reiterating how it helped topple the Marcos dictatorship.
She also used as an example the 2019 UPV cheering competition, which featured the viral satire performance by the Skimmers, which caught the attention of both supporters and critics of the current administration.
“This culture of resistance was alive and well, especially during the Martial Law years. (sic) This culture enabled Filipinos, drawing strength and Pinoy humor from one another, to march on the streets of many areas of the Philippines, and uncover the light of democracy once more. We must not simply allow anyone to take away our belief in democracy. We must hold on to it tightly, and keep reintroducing it to Filipinos, in ways that can make a tangible difference in our lives. Every single one of us must intentionally, deliberately strengthen our resistance,” she said.
When asked about legal safeguards against disinformation, or more commonly known as “fake news,” Hontiveros said that there should be a review of current laws.
“Many advocates think our libel laws are enough, when looking at the question ‘Are they enough?’. I think we should do first, a survey of the current policy frameworks that we already have, so we can see if our current laws are already enough to fight the attacks against the media, not to over-clutter our legislative and legal landscape to enforce the laws that are already existing, especially those civil and human rights of our journalists, and for us audience members as well,” she said.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Atty. Kate Aubrey Hojilla of ACCRA Law, one of the country’s top law firms, discussed the legal basis and the legal history of press freedom in the country.
Hojilla began her discussion with the Constitutional provision providing for freedom of speech, expression, and of the press.
Section 4 in Article III of the 1987 Constitution 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.”
Aside from the current fundamental law, previous iterations, the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, also provided for freedom of the press.
“Freedom of the press” according to Hojilla, referred to the liberty of public and truthful discussion on any matters of public interest without prior censorship and subsequent punishment.
This freedom includes four aspects:
-Freedom from prior restraint;
-Freedom from punishment subsequent to publication;
-Freedom of access to information; and
-Freedom of circulation.
She explained the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “press freedom” as a “preferred right”, which “stands higher than substantive, economic, or other liberties”.
The laws prohibited against freedom of the press include national and local laws, and executive and judicial decisions.
“What the Constitutional guarantee of free press prohibits are laws which single out the press, or target a group belonging to the press, for special treatment, or in any way discriminate against the press, on the basis of the content of the publication,” Hojilla explained.
She added that the constitutional guarantee acts as a safeguard to “keep the free press free”, with the press regarded as the “chief source” of information on current affairs.
“The guarantee basically guards against repressive measures by the government. This means that the guarantee prevents the censorship of the press, that might prevent the free and general discussion that is essential to prepare us as citizens for an intelligent exercise of our rights, and of course, to ensure that those in power will be held accountable for any of their deeds or misdeeds. It’s easy to see that the contribution of press freedom to the public wealth makes it deserving of extra protection,” she added.
Hojilla also explained that while the freedom of speech, expression, and the press exist, they are also “not absolute”.
She discussed the concept of “unprotected speech and low-value expression”, which are not covered by the constitutional provision and may be subject to legal consequences.
These include libelous statements, obscenity and pornography, false or misguiding advertisements, insulting or “fighting” words, and those which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace and expression endangering national security”.
These forms of speech and expression are punishable by provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or special penal laws.
“Like almost all other powers, this freedom is not absolute and has limitations. Just because we have the right to express what we have in our minds, our beliefs, [and] our opinions, it doesn’t mean we can do it to harm others,” said Hojilla.
YOUTH AS DEFENDERS OF PRESS FREEDOM
Raoul Danniel Manuel, the National Convenor of Youth Act Now Against Tyranny and UPV’s first Summa Cum Laude, discussed the youth’s role on press freedom.
Manuel cited some examples of media killings in the country since the first full day of the Duterte administration.
These include Larry Que, Mario Contaoi, Joaquin Briones, Leo Diaz, Chris Lozada, and Carlos Matas.
“Press freedom is something that has been under attack, and we the youth, whis often called as the hope of the nation, must also recognize that we need to do something to defend this cherished freedom,” Manuel said.
He also recapped the Duterte administration’s policies which he said had been detrimental to the people, and added that these downsides had been aggravated by the president’s speeches and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
These included the transport modernization program, Oplan Tokhang, and the creation of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict, to name a few.
In relation to press freedom, he mentioned the spread of fake news, historical revisionism, and the harassment of student journalists and other members of the campus press.
He cited particular incidents of harassment against the press, such as ominous calls to the chairperson of the Bicol chapter of the College Editors Guild of the Philippines in 2017, the refusal of press accreditation to alternative media Bulatlat amid the COVID-19, Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia’s targeting of a campus publication which criticized her COVID-19 policies, the arrest of Juliet Espinosa, who had criticized the General Santos City mayor’s response to COVID-19, and the threatening of Joshua Molo, the Editor-in-Chief of the University of the East-Manila’s publication, for criticizing the national government’s response to COVID-19.
Manuel also referred to the act of red-tagging, or the alleging of several persons and groups as members or sympathizers of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).
Despite these incidences, Manuel stated that campus press freedom has “kept the hope alive” for dissent and free expression in the country.
“Amid all this, the hope that we can find is also in the campus press. Although we young individuals, those who use their campus publications, their platforms, not just for dissemination issues within their school, but also for amplifying the concerns of the Filipino people, these young writers, these journalists have shown that they can stand against the tide,” said Manuel. (To be concluded)
