THOSE JOURNALISTS aspiring for a Pulitzer Prize (and even those who are not) may be happy to know that Pulitzer Prize winners regularly hold seminars to share valuable knowledge and tips on how to best practice the profession of journalism.
Sheila Coronel, founding executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and current director of the Tony Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism in Columbia University, shares excerpts from the recent Pulitzer Prize Seminar entitled Holding up the Mirror, and featuring this year’s winners of one of the premier awards of journalism.
In her blog Watchdog Watcher, Coronel, who also moderated the seminar, said this year’s Pulitzer winners were asked questions that many journalists all over the world would also have liked to ask – “how they worked in teams, where they got the information for their databases, and how they got people to talk to them when they knocked on their doors at night.”
Read Sheila Coronel’s blog and watch excerpts of the seminar here.
ON FEBRUARY 20, 1989, then President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Republic Act No. 6713, or An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Code, authored by then Senator Rene A. V. Saguisag, clearly and explicitly states that all public officials and employees must regularly file their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) as part of a move for greater transparency and accountability.
More than that, the Code states that these documents must be made publicly available to all those who request them, within reasonable limits.
But 23 years later, Saguisag is still waiting for the justices of the Supreme Court, the highest tribunal and the ultimate interpreter of all the laws of the land, to comply with that simple law.
In all the years that the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism has been gathering SALNs of ranking officials to track the growth of their wealth, the Supreme Court has been the most consistent in ignoring the requirement of RA 6713 for public disclosure of the SALNs. Through the years, the Supreme Court has issued various resolutions exempting itself from public disclosure of asset records. The most common justification used by all the Supreme Courts, past and present – to preserve the independence of the courts by protecting its magistrates from harassment. However, it is a justification that does not appear to apply to all other government officials and employees of the executive and legislative branches, who must still abide by the provisions of RA 6713.
Not even the impeachment and conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona for willful failure to disclose his true assets has moved the Gods of Padre Faura into a regime of greater transparency.
In fact, with the assumption of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno as the lead magistrate, the Supreme Court has further tightened its hold over the SALNs. Not only has the Supreme Court consolidated all the previous resolutions and directives restricting access to the SALNs, it has also made any decision to release such documents a decision by the court en banc. This means that simple requests for SALNs now have to be decided on by the entire court.
The SALN is not the only issue in which the Supreme Court has shown itself beyond the reach of ordinary laws. De La Salle University College of Law Dean Jose Manuel Diokno points to several decisions by the SC exempting it from other requirements that other government officials must comply with. For one, the SC has issued circulars that effectively shield justices and judges from the scrutiny of the Office of the Ombudsman.
“Is it judicial independence at issue here, or judicial impunity?” Diokno asks.
Saguisag, for his part, asks a much simpler question: If the highest court of the land can flout the law, “where else can we take the SC?”
In the last of its four-part series on the wealth of the Supreme Court justices, PCIJ Executive Director Malou Mangahas looks at how the highest court in the land has succeeded in what Saguisag calls “amending” existing laws to suit its own needs, protect its own interests, and write its own definition of transparency.
THE PHILIPPINE CENTER for Investigative Journalism is proud to publish The Ampatuan Assets: Mansions, Money, and Politics in Maguindanao, a 30-minute English-language documentary that reveals the extent of the fabled Ampatuan wealth and apparent efforts by the clan to dispose of some of these assets before government can seize them.
Senior members of the Ampatuan clan are among the principal accused in the 2009 Maguindanao Massacre, where 58 people, including 32 journalists were murdered in the worst case of election violence and violence against journalists. The incident propelled the Philippines to the top of the list of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists in 2010.
The documentary is the English-language version of the two-part documentary Lipat-Bahay that was aired over GMANewsTV last November 24.
The documentary reveals the extent of the wealth of clan patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr. and his sons Andal Junior and Zaldy, based on investigation by several government agencies including the Anti Money Laundering Council, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Commission on Audit.
More importantly, the documentary also reveals how the Ampatuans have succeeded in transferring some of these assets just before the government was able to secure a freeze order as part of its civil forfeiture case against the clan.
The video was produced by the PCIJ as part of its commemoration of the third year anniversary of the Maguindanao Massacre.
THE LONG-DELAYED Freedom of Information (FOI) bill breezed through the Senate floor on second reading Tuesday night, with main sponsor Senator Gregorio Honasan guaranteeing passage on third and final reading by next week.
But prospects are not as bright in the House of Representatives, as FOI advocates prepare to battle it out with the measure’s opponents in the plenary. Also on Tuesday, the House committee on public information formally approved the consolidated committee report, paving the way for debates on the House version in the plenary. The consolidated committee report had actually been approved as early as last month, but committee chairman Ben Evardone had insisted on calling another committee hearing just to formalize the approval.
In contrast, the Senate version was reported to the floor last week, after which several senators proposed amendments to the bill. Honasan said the amendments were mostly minor; Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, for example, had wanted to rename the bill to the Freedom of Information Act or FOI, after Honasan gave the measure the somewhat catchier name POGI, or the People’s Ownership of Government Information Act. POGI, of course, is a colloquial word meaning “handsome.”
In the end, Honasan said he preferred to keep the name POGI, even though advocates are more familiar with the acronym FOI.
After a brief period of amendments, Honasan moved to have the bill passed on second reading. Hearing no objections, Presiding Officer Jinggoy Estrada declared the measure passed.
Honasan said the third reading of the bill would be a mere formality in the Senate. As such, he said FOI advocates must now train their guns on the House of Representatives.
Atty. Nepomuceno Malaluan, Right to Know Right Now Coalition convenor, said the ball is now in the court of Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and President Benigno S. Aquino III.
Malaluan said that with the FOI virtually passed in the upper chamber, it would be up to the President and the House Speaker to wield their clout and make the measure move through the House.
In particular, Malaluan said FOI advocates are still hoping that President Aquino would certify the bill as urgent. Malaluan pointed out that the President had repeatedly expressed his support for the FOI when he was still a presidential candidate. The President’s interest in the bill appear to have waned though after he assumed office.
The bill has met some resistance in the lower chamber, with several congressmen demanding the insertion of a provision providing for a right of reply, or ROR. The ROR rider would require media organizations to give equal time, space, and prominence to officials who feel that they were the targets of negative reportage. ROR proponents in the House of Representatives insist that this provision would curb alleged excesses within the media. Media organizations however say that the ROR proviso is unconstitutional, as it virtually legislates editorial content.
As the world marked International Human Rights Day, Dec. 10, the government of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III asked the Supreme Court to lift the temporary restraining order (TRO) it issued in October against Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
The government insisted that the law does not regulate or punish free speech, contrary to the claims of Netizens and media groups that have filed 15 various petitions against the law.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has submitted a 148-page comment to the Supreme Court asking the high tribunal to junk the petitions.
Media and civil society organizations had succeeded in getting a TRO against the Cybercrime law last October, citing that the law curtailed free speech and increased the penalties and jail terms for the crime of libel.
In addition, lawyers’ groups have expressed concerns that the law will allow government greater latitude in gathering data on internet use.
In a report published by GMANewsTV, the online news portal of television network GMA, the OSG is asking the Supreme Court to allow the law to be implemented immediately.
The OSG has argued, however, that the petitioners have not presented any evidence to support their opposition to the law; instead, the OSG said the oppositors to the law have only made legal arguments against the measure.
The OSG also said that libel has already been defined as a criminal act by the Revised Penal Code, and as such is “unprotected speech” that cannot be shielded by the freedom of the press.
GMANewsTV said the OSG questioned the inclusion of President Aquino as a respondent in at least five of the 15 petitions, citing that the President enjoys immunity from suit during his tenure in office.
