Category: General

ON FRIDAY, November 23, the nation marks the third anniversary of the Maguindanao Massacre, the worst case of election-related violence in Philippine history, and, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the single deadliest event for journalists on a day in recent world history.

The massacre claimed 58 lives, including that of 32 journalists and media workers. In their memory, as well as that of journalists across the world who had also been murdered or remain under attack, press freedom advocates and watchdogs across the globe have declared November 23 as the International Day to End Impunity.

But the quest for justice for the victims of the Maguindanao Massacre seems stuck in a long, torturous migration path, and it is most certainly, not a daang matuwid. It is a quest variably weighed down by slow and inept officials and agencies, lawyers given to excessive dilatory maneuvers, the vagaries of politics, and elections that visit every three years like a social plague.

Our latest offering is a two-part report to mark Year 3 of the Maguindanao Massacre. It unravels how this tragic story is turning more tragic by the day.

Authored by PCIJ Multimedia Director Ed Lingao, with research assistance by Mindanews Editor Carolyn O. Arguillas, the report looks at how the Ampatuans have managed to claw their way back to political and economic power, despite the Maguindanao Massacre. It focuses on two pegs:

* The sale in May 2011 by Andal Ampatuan Jr., lead respondent in the Massacre case, of eight large real properties to one of his lawyers, an apparent sweetheart deal that surprised court officials, regulators, and public prosecutors. The Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit had failed to include the eight properties in the lifestyle check and audit they had conducted, and in the freeze order that the Anti-Money Laundering Council had secured from the Court of Appeals in June 2011.

* At least 72 clan members (with Ampatuan for surname and middle name) are running for local office in the May 2013 elections, including nine as candidates of President Aquino’s Liberal Party, and 34 others as candidates of Vice President Jejomar Binay’s United Nationalist Alliance (UNA). UNA is a coalition of Binay’s PDP-Laban party and the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) party of former President Joseph Estrada.

Part 1 and Sidebar 1 of this report are now online.

AT LEAST a hundred cases related to impunity against the exercise of freedom of expression have been recorded in Southeast Asia for 2012, according to the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), a regional press freedom watchdog and network of independent, national media organizations.

Of 10 countries covered in the alerts and monitoring network of SEAPA, the Philippines gained the indubitable honor of landing first on the list – as it was, and remains to be, the deadliest place in Southeast Asia for journalists and media workers.

The Philippines accounted for a full third or 36 of the 100 cases of impunity that SEAPA has recorded in the first 10 months of 2012 alone.

These 36 cases included nine murders, 17 cases of threats, and 10 cases of attacks.

All the cases recorded in the Philippines involved “impunity through violence” mostly against journalists, and two activists (including one witness to a media murder case).

SEAPA logged 13 killings in all in 2012. The Philippines accounted for two-thirds or nine cases.

On Tuesday, SEAPA released a brief report of its count of impunity-related incidents in 2012, as it began a series of activities to mark the International Day to End Impunity (IDEI) on Friday, Nov. 23 that is also the third anniversary of the Maguindanao Massacre.

According to SEAPA executive director Gayathry Venkiteswaran, the numbers mean that there is a lot of work to do in the region to end the culture of impunity.

“SEAPA looks not only at acts of violence, but also legal action of states to suppress the right of freedom of opinion and expression,” she said, noting that of the 100 cases, 29 were committed by state parties in the name of the law.

Of the 100 cases, SEAPA said 71 involved cases of “impunity through violence,” including 35 cases of threats, 23 cases of attacks, and 13 murder cases, mostly involving journalists.

The balance of 29 cases involved “impunity by law,” including 22 cases of criminal prosecution, and seven cases of arrest and detention of journalists.

“Southeast Asia remains problematic with regards to safety and protection of journalists with 100 impunity-related cases recorded, or 71 cases of violent incidents (including threats) both from state and non-state actors, and 29 cases of state legal actions,” SEAPA said.

According to SEAPA, the culture of impunity in the region has two faces: the first is that perpetrators of violence are able to escape punishment for their crimes. Without fear of consequences, perpetrators continue to carry out such acts.

The second, SEAPA said, is that states also commit impunity by prosecuting acts of freedom of expression. This not only creates a climate of fear among citizens and journalists, but also emboldens some groups to attack those who express critical messages.

Impunity, SEAPA said, can be broadly defined as non-accountability for actions that violate rights.

“This means individual perpetrators escape or are exempt from punishment or prosecution, perhaps due to the absence of rule of law. Because of this, more such acts will be committed because it is highly unlikely that perpetrators will be made to answer for their crimes,” SEAPA said.

“On a bigger level, impunity also concerns states that can continually mete out punishment without accountability on human rights concerns.”

SEAPA counted the 100 cases through its media monitoring and Alerts system, which publicizes acts of violations of the right to freedom of expression in Southeast Asia.

Under the category of “impunity through violence,” SEAPA reported:

- Attacks or “acts to inflict physical harm against a person, sometimes with the intent to kill,” include attacks against organizations, both physical and cyber attacks. Across the 10 countries, by category of cases, SEAPA’s report said:

Of the 23 cases of attacks, 21 relate to journalists, including two that are not work-related. Ten cases of attacks come from the Philippines, and five from Indonesia. The Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) has said, however, that as of the end of May they have received reports of 20 cases of violence.

- Threats or harassment refer to “cases of warnings against journalistic or free expression actions; includes both threats to commit physical and legal action against the victims.” Thirty-one of the 35 incidents relate to journalists; one case each relate to blogs, a media official, a concert, and an NGO. The Philippines has 17 cases, with almost all but one directed at individual reporters.

- Killings of or involving journalists and civil society activists. Thirteen cases reported in 2012, including 11 journalists and two activists. Nine killings were recorded in the Philippines, including one activist and one witness to a murder case witness. At least three are work-related murders.

Under the category of “impunity by law,” across the 10 nations covered in the report, SEAPA said:

- Detention and imprisonment or cases of arrest or detention for journalistic work or acts of free expression, whether with charges or not. This category does not include detention cases that resulted in convictions. Only 2 of 8 arrest incidents involve journalists. Two are related to bloggers. Half of the cases were reported in Vietnam.

- Criminalization of expression or the filing of criminal charges and conviction against journalistic work or free expression activities. This category includes the sentencing of detentions before 2012. Eight of the 21 cases involve journalists or news agencies. Of the 21 cases, 18 were initiated by the state or specific state agencies.

Vietnam is the country with the most cases, accounting for a third of the total. Cambodia and Burma follow with 5 and 4 cases, respectively. Thirteen cases involved convictions for criminal charges.

SEAPA noted that “violent incidents recorded were directed at journalists, while more legal actions were pointed towards individual acts of free speech.”

A similar pattern can be observed in countries with relatively freer media environments, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, where more acts of violence against journalists were recorded.

Meanwhile, SEAPA said there were more government initiatives to suppress free expression recorded in Vietnam and Burma/Myanmar, which have restricted media environments.

OBSERVATIONS BY COUNTRY

Burma/Myanmar:12 incidents

Most cases involve state interventions in the private media, concerning reporting on sensitive issues, such as government corruption, the military and ethnic unrest. No incidents of violence were reported except for cyber attacks (DDOS) against erstwhile exile media. Only one case involved a specific journalist — a DVB reporter who was accused by a government official for disturbance and tresspassing.

Cambodia: 12 cases

5 of the 12 cases involve civil society. This is restriction of civil society is somehow connected to moves to impose stricter control with the widely criticized draft NGO law. 6 cases are concerned with politics, while four cases concern local issues (land and logging).

Indonesia: 10 cases

9 of 10 cases are related to violence (attacks, killings and threats).
3 cases involved the military personnel’s heavy handed responses to journalistic activities; 2 cases concern religion

Laos: 1 case

The only case from Laos concerns the unlawful closure of a radio program, which was based on minister’s verbal order to the radio station director.

Malaysia: 9 cases

Four cases in Malaysia relate to the response of authorities to journalistic coverage of issues. Of these, only one case is from a private complaints.

Philippines: 36 cases

The Philippines is the most dangerous place to be a journalist in Southeast Asia, accounting for more than half of the violent incidents against journalists. Notably, there are no recorded cases of arrests or prosecution against journalists.
Almost all of the cases (except one or at most two) concern local issues.

Singapore: 1 case

This relates to the conviction of a person linked with an online post, which the court deemed as inciting to violence.

Thailand: 4 cases

Two of Thailand’s cases relate to the controversial lese majeste law.
Timor Leste’s only recorded case is about the mauling of a radio announcer who had reported on a corruption case.

Timor-Leste: 1 case of attack

Vietnam: 17 cases

7 of 11 cases of impunity by law from Vietnam are related to bloggers, including 3 cases of convictions of bloggers (5 persons). Also, 7 of these cases relate to charges of conducting anti-state propaganda (Article 88 of the penal code). Only two cases relate to journalists, including only one of an active journalist concerning an investigative report.

“REGARDLESS OF FRONTIER.”

The omission of this international human rights standard for the protection of freedom of opinion and expression in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) that leaders of the 10 member-states unveiled on Sunday has drawn flak from journalists in the region.

In a statement on Monday, the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), a regional press freedom watchdog and network of independent media organizations in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, averred that the AHRD falls below the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Ironically, the ASEAN heads of government had pledged to uphold the UDHR in the ADHRD they launched at a meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, over the weekend.

SEAPA’s founding and full members include the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility-Philippines, the Alliance of Independent Journalists of Indonesia, the Institute for the Study of Free Flow of Information of Indonesia, the Thai Journalists Association, and the Center for Independent Journalism of Malaysia.

Apart from working with journalists in these countries, SEAPA has also conducted training seminars and fellowship programs for journalists in the other ASEAN member-states of Cambodia, Myanmar, Timor-Leste, Vietnam, and Laos.

The AHRD enrolled a guarantee of freedom of opinion and expression in its Article 23, which was copied nearly verbatim from the UDHR’s Article 19, except for the said phrase.

“The omission of the phrase is a sign of the low commitment of ASEAN member-countries to freedom of expression,” said SEAPA executive director Gayathry Venkiteswaran.

She stressed that the phrase is a very important component of the freedom of opinion and of expression, especially in a regional organization like ASEAN where communication across national borders is key to development and accountability of its members.

“It is particularly alarming that the framers of the document opted to delete the phrase in the light of borderless communications through the Internet and with increasing integration and exchange among the regional media,” Gayathry said.

‘This can legitimize censorship of messages from overseas,’ she warned, noting that criticisms of ASEAN member-states include those coming from international bodies, nongovernment organizations, and opposition groups that had been forced into exile because of political repression at home.

SEAPA also echoed criticisms of the AHRD raised by other human rights organizations, which have earlier called for an extension of deliberations of the draft because of the low standards it set, and the lack of adequate public consultations.

Human rights groups have expressed particular concern that the AHRD contained three caveats to human rights in General Principles 6, 7 and 8 that can be used to get around the guarantees provided by the document.

“This is really appalling especially considering the practice in many ASEAN states of legally curtailing many civil liberties-including free expression-against international human rights principles,” said Gayathry.

“These caveats mean that human rights in ASEAN including free speech may or will continue to be curtailed,” she added citing national security, press control and criminalized speech laws currently in place in many ASEAN countries.

Human rights bodies of the United Nations have called out many of these national laws to be in violation of international norms, Gayathry explained.

For instance, she cited, in nearly all the ASEAN member-nations, criminal libel remains in force.

“National security and public order should be very strict exceptions to curtail human rights and free speech,” according to Gayathry but enshrining these concepts among the General Principles of the AHRD “can mean they come before human rights.”

“By placing caveats in the AHRD principles, ASEAN has prioritized escape clauses in the states’ responsibility to uphold human rights,” she said,

Yet despite these limitations, Gayathry said SEAPA will still hold the member-states accountable for the rights that the AHRD has sworn to promote and protect.

“We don’t accept what the ASEAN leaders have insisted on – that this is a non-binding document,” Gayathry said.

“If they have adopted it, they are committed to honoring it. We will hold the member-states to the standards they agreed to, but we will be guided by the international standards on human rights.”

FILIPINO JOURNALISTS would not have to worry about the Right of Reply bill pending in Congress if they practice fair and balanced reporting in the first place, says President Benigno S. Aquino III.

The President made the remark in the sidelines of a conference by the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas in Tagaytay City, according to a report from the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

The President’s remark comes amid growing outrage in the media community over Malacanang’s failure to push the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill through Congress, even as the Palace sends mixed signals on the Right of Reply bill.

The Inquirer report indicated that the Palace position on the Right of Reply (ROR) bill is that journalists would not have to worry if they make certain that their stories are fair and balanced to begin with.

“The same spirit hews closely to our position on the issue of right of reply. As (the Bible) says, the truth will set you free. If two sides of a story are reported, if the details of every news are accurate and the freedom of all Filipinos to form their own opinion is valued, then any journalist has nothing to worry about, isn’t it,” the President was quoted by the Inquirer as saying.

The Inquirer story may be read here.

The President’s statement comes just a week after a Palace Communications Office official said that Malacanang was supportive of the Right of Reply bill provided it does not encroach into the freedoms of expression and the press.

Media organizations have opposed the ROR bill filed by Rep. Rodolfo Antonino, claiming it violates freedom of the press and encroaches on editorial independence. The ROR bill provides that officials who feel slighted in media stories may demand free equal airtime and print space of the same prominence from media organizations.

Interestingly, media organizations have also accused Antonino of filibustering during the last House Committee on Public Information hearing, resulting in the failure of the committee to act on the long pending Freedom of Information bill.

 

A crime against the people by the House of Representatives – and by President Benigno S. Aquino III and the ruling Liberal Party.

This was how the Philippine Daily Inquirer described Monday’s aborted hearing on the FOI bill by the House Committee on Public Information in what amounts to the most strongly worded editorial on the FOI by mainstream media.

In its Wednesday editorial entitled “House hypocrites,” the Inquirer decried the “calculated incompetence” of the committee in allowing Rep. Rodolfo Antonino to hijack the hearing to complain about procedural issues. Antonino effectively used up most of the committee’s time, preventing it from discussing the measure itself.

Then, at the stroke of four in the afternoon, Antonino moved to have the hearing adjourned, citing a rule imposed by the House leadership that Congressmen may not skip plenary sessions unless they have special permission from the Rules Committee. Interestingly, the session itself was cancelled later that day because of the absence of a quorum.

In its editorial, the Inquirer said the Aquino administration and the Liberal party should be held at least partly responsible for what happened to the FOI, as the President has effectively taken a hands-off approach on the measure even though he had made it part of his presidential campaign in 2010.

“What happened the other day (or rather, what did not happen) amounts to a crime against the people,” the Inquirer said. “It is a crime in which the Aquino administration and the Liberal Party, which came to power in 2010, are complicit.”

The editorial noted how the administration coalition in the House could run with “enviable efficiency when it wants to,” or when the President gives clear marching orders. Palace spokesmen the other day said that the President was taking a hands-off policy on the FOI now that the measure was being deliberated on by Congress.

“The House leadership and the administration it works closely with, do not want the FOI cause to advance,” the editorial stated.