Category: rodrigo duterte

Why reporters are persistent in press conferences

Ellen

President -elect Rodrigo Duterte May 29 presscon. Lower photo shows GMA7's Mariz Umali asking a question.

President -elect Rodrigo Duterte May 29 presscon. Lower photo shows GMA7′s Mariz Umali asking a question.

In press conferences, there are times when reporters are persistent with their questioning, annoying the official especially if it’s on a topic that he wants to buried.

A reporter’s persistence is not for persistence’s sake. It is not caprice.

A reporter pursues a subject to clarify so that he or she can give the public the information correctly and clearly. Reporters always ask for categorical answers to avoid misinterpretation. Because it is the duty of the journalist to make sure that his or her reports are accurate- a basic in journalism.

Reporters covering President-elect Rodrigo Duterte have been criticized for being soft on him. Some, yes. Even fawning. But not all.
Watching his late night to mid-morning press conferences that are one or two hour monologues, I sympathize with reporters covering him. One needs not only an ample reserve of stamina but nerves of steel not to get intimidated by his manners which border rudeness.
Take the case of GMA-7 Mariz Umali, the subject of the president-elect’s wolf-whistling.

She had to raise her voice to ask her question, “How do you deal with cabinet secretaries who are not performing?” to get Duterte’s attention because no one was moderating the presscon. It was a free-for-all format.

Even when Duterte made that improper act and even said “Nagpapansin ka talaga, ano (You really want to be noticed.)” to the amusement of other people in the room, Umali remained focused and repeated her question until Duterte answered.

Same thing with Rappler’s Pia Ranada Robles, the subject of vicious posts in social media for her persistence in asking Duterte about the impropriety of his wolf-whistling considering that a Davao ordinance considers it a form of sexual harassment.
Here’s the transcript showing how Ranada-Robles stood her ground amid Duterte’s attempt to avoid the issue. (Note: Except for the last quote of Duterte, the transcript was by Rappler’s Paterno Esmaquel II)

Pia: Sir, we have this ordinance nga, the Women Development Code. In the ordinance, it states that catcalling, whistling – sorry, let me just read it, part of it: “Cursing, whistling, or calling a woman in public with words having dirty connotations or implications” is actually sexual harassment, so it seems as if you, uh—”

Duterte: (whistles)

Audience: (a few people laugh)

Duterte whistles during June 2 presscon

Duterte whistles during June 2 presscon

Duterte: You know, you don’t have any business stopping me. That is freedom of expression.

Pia: Sir, your own law says that there is a limit to expression.

Duterte: If you go overboard and you start to harass the woman.

Pia: Sir, the definition in the ordinance is “whistling,” so that’s already—
Duterte: Well, if you go, you cajole with the woman (whistles). “Miss, uh…” As a matter of fact, when I first saw you, I said… (whistles)

Audience: (silence)

Duterte: Go to another question. You cannot stop anybody from whistling.

Pia: Okay, Sir.

Duterte: But I would say, who gave you the right to presume that I was whistling because I saw you? You have to be in a room, kaisa ka lang, a man and you, and he would whistle (whistles).

Pia: So, Sir, you’re saying you were not whistling at Mariz during the time she asked her question?

Duterte: Of course not. That is, ano, objective, or is it subjective? Subjective?

Pia: No, Sir, because she was asking.

Duterte: You are guessing.

Pia: No, no, no, Sir. I’m not guessing. Because she was asking a question, and the question was directed at you, and your reply to her was a whistle. So unless you clarified that you were talking to someone else–

Duterte: I was exasperated by the question. Whistling is not a sexual thing (whistles again, then mumbles)…Wala nang hinto kundi magtanong.

Pia: Sir, for you it might not be sexual, but to others it might be. So the world does not revolve around your definition.

Duterte:Do not presume that you are the one. It belongs to the (intelligible). I would look at that woman there.

Like in any other profession, journalism has its own bad eggs, but many continue to adhere to the tenets of journalism which are to empower the people with information, give voice to the voiceless and hold those in power accountable.

It’s good to see the idealism and fire among the young journalists.

A tyrant won’t have it easy.

Transcript of the June 2 press conference. For Rana-Robles questions, start at 49:32:

Duterte spokesmen’s damage control statements add insult to injury

Ellen

To control the damage wrought by President-elect Rodrigo Duterte’s verbal assault on media during his press conference Tuesday justifying the extra-judicial killing of journalists, Peter Laviña, spokesman for Duterte’s transition team said media, his principal’s remarks were “taken out of context, misinterpreted, and misunderstood.”

That is adding insult to injury. That is like saying media did not report accurately Duterte’s statements.

Same thing with Duterte’s spokesman and press secretary Salvador Panelo’s statement that GMA-7 reporter Mariz Umali “should be complimented” for the president-elect wolf-whistling or cat-calling at her when she asked a question.


Panelo said:”Mayor Duterte is a very kind, playful individual. Pag siya’y pumito, ibig sabihin he’s fond of you, ibig sabihin mahal ka niya, kaya ka binibiro. Hindi po isang pambabastos yun. On the contrary, the receiver of that should be complimented.”
Matutuwa dahil binastos ka?

Umali’s husband Raffy Tima, also a GMA-7 reporter is not amused and definitely he does not consider it a compliment.

In his Facebook post, Tima said, “Catcalling my wife is wrong in so many levels. I expected that from a Mayor Duterte. I know his reputation well enough not to be shocked by it, but that does not make it right. For someone who espouses leadership by example, catcalling anyone in a press conference with all cameras trained on him defies logic. Then again, that’s Mayor Duterte.”

But what hurt Tima more was the reaction of people in the room: “What appalled me even more was how some people in the room reacted. Most laughed, others made teasing noise and basically urged the mayor to dish some more! And he did. I do hope none of them were journalists because if they were, shame on them.”

Tima further said, “When you see or hear anyone say something wrong you do not encourage it, you do the opposite. Or in that particular instance at least, they should have kept quiet and in their silence gave the message that what the mayor did was wrong. Some jokes are funny and should be laughed at. But disrespecting women is definitely not one of them.”

Definitely.

In fact, Duterte’s very own city’s Women Development Code as embodied in Davao City’s Ordinance No. 5004 and Executive Order No. 24 considers “Cursing, whistling, or calling a woman in public with words having dirty connotations or implications which tend to ridicule, humiliate, or embarrass the woman such as ‘puta (prostitute),’ ‘boring,’ ‘peste (pest),’ etc” a form of sexual harassment.

Media groups have expressed alarm over Duterte’s statements saying most of the journalists killed were corrupt. He said a mouthful to amplify his stand that “You won’t be killed if you don’t do anything wrong… If you are a journalist who is doing what is right, nobody will touch you, especially if (what you write) us true.”

Thanks to Manila Bulletin

Thanks to Manila Bulletin

Duterte’s statement is not supported by the cases of slain journalists in the Philippines (176 since 1986). The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines cites “the murders of Edgar Damalerio of Pagadian City, Marlene Esperat of Tacurong City, and Gerry Ortega of Puerto Princesa City, and, of course, the most heinous of all, the November 23, 2009 Ampatuan massacre, of which 32 of the 58 victims were media workers, making it not only the worst case of electoral violence in recent Philippine history but the single deadliest attack on journalists ever.”

And even if some of those journalists were corrupt, killing them is not justifiable. There are many ways to fight media corruption – report them to their editors and publisher. File cases against them.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the Paris-based organization that promotes and defends the freedom to be informed and to inform others throughout the world, is appalled by the Philippine president-elect’s statements. “Not only are these statements unworthy of a president but they could also be regarded as violations of the law on defamation or even the law on inciting hatred and violence,” said Benjamin Ismaïl, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

RSF urged Philippine media to demand an apology from Duterte and “to boycott the Duterte administration’s news conferences until the media community gets a public apology.”

Duterte went ballistic on RSF’s call to boycott his presscpn. In a two-hour long presscon Thursday night, Duterte dared media to boycott him.”“Putang ina sinabi ko mga ugok, putang ina I can lose the presidency, my life, my honor. Just don’t fuck with me. Huwag niyo na akong takutin. Boycott, boycott, leche kayo, edi mag-boycott kayo!”

I don’t agree to a media boycott. That would be reneging on your responsibility to inform the public of happenings that affect them.
This is not the first time that a Philippine president has insulted media. In 2014, in his visit to Brussels, the outgoing president, Benigno Aquino III , in defending his administration’s disappointing human rights record said, “For instance, in the media killings, some who used to work in media died. Did they die because they were investigative journalists? Were they exercising their profession in a responsible manner, living up to journalistic ethics? Or did they perish because of other reasons?”

During Gloria Arroyo’s time, it was her husband, Mike Arroyo, who mouthed the same lines.

Whether the journalist’s killing was work related or not, that is murder. Murder is a crime.

A president is supposed to fight crime, not encourage it.

Duterte spokesmen’s damage control statements add insult to injury

Ellen

To control the damage wrought by President-elect Rodrigo Duterte’s verbal assault on media during his press conference Tuesday justifying the extra-judicial killing of journalists, Peter Laviña, spokesman for Duterte’s transition team said media, his principal’s remarks were “taken out of context, misinterpreted, and misunderstood.”

That is adding insult to injury. That is like saying media did not report accurately Duterte’s statements.

Same thing with Duterte’s spokesman and press secretary Salvador Panelo’s statement that GMA-7 reporter Mariz Umali “should be complimented” for the president-elect wolf-whistling or cat-calling at her when she asked a question.


Panelo said:”Mayor Duterte is a very kind, playful individual. Pag siya’y pumito, ibig sabihin he’s fond of you, ibig sabihin mahal ka niya, kaya ka binibiro. Hindi po isang pambabastos yun. On the contrary, the receiver of that should be complimented.”
Matutuwa dahil binastos ka?

Umali’s husband Raffy Tima, also a GMA-7 reporter is not amused and definitely he does not consider it a compliment.

In his Facebook post, Tima said, “Catcalling my wife is wrong in so many levels. I expected that from a Mayor Duterte. I know his reputation well enough not to be shocked by it, but that does not make it right. For someone who espouses leadership by example, catcalling anyone in a press conference with all cameras trained on him defies logic. Then again, that’s Mayor Duterte.”

But what hurt Tima more was the reaction of people in the room: “What appalled me even more was how some people in the room reacted. Most laughed, others made teasing noise and basically urged the mayor to dish some more! And he did. I do hope none of them were journalists because if they were, shame on them.”

Tima further said, “When you see or hear anyone say something wrong you do not encourage it, you do the opposite. Or in that particular instance at least, they should have kept quiet and in their silence gave the message that what the mayor did was wrong. Some jokes are funny and should be laughed at. But disrespecting women is definitely not one of them.”

Definitely.

In fact, Duterte’s very own city’s Women Development Code as embodied in Davao City’s Ordinance No. 5004 and Executive Order No. 24 considers “Cursing, whistling, or calling a woman in public with words having dirty connotations or implications which tend to ridicule, humiliate, or embarrass the woman such as ‘puta (prostitute),’ ‘boring,’ ‘peste (pest),’ etc” a form of sexual harassment.

Media groups have expressed alarm over Duterte’s statements saying most of the journalists killed were corrupt. He said a mouthful to amplify his stand that “You won’t be killed if you don’t do anything wrong… If you are a journalist who is doing what is right, nobody will touch you, especially if (what you write) us true.”

Thanks to Manila Bulletin

Thanks to Manila Bulletin

Duterte’s statement is not supported by the cases of slain journalists in the Philippines (176 since 1986). The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines cites “the murders of Edgar Damalerio of Pagadian City, Marlene Esperat of Tacurong City, and Gerry Ortega of Puerto Princesa City, and, of course, the most heinous of all, the November 23, 2009 Ampatuan massacre, of which 32 of the 58 victims were media workers, making it not only the worst case of electoral violence in recent Philippine history but the single deadliest attack on journalists ever.”

And even if some of those journalists were corrupt, killing them is not justifiable. There are many ways to fight media corruption – report them to their editors and publisher. File cases against them.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the Paris-based organization that promotes and defends the freedom to be informed and to inform others throughout the world, is appalled by the Philippine president-elect’s statements. “Not only are these statements unworthy of a president but they could also be regarded as violations of the law on defamation or even the law on inciting hatred and violence,” said Benjamin Ismaïl, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

RSF urged Philippine media to demand an apology from Duterte and “to boycott the Duterte administration’s news conferences until the media community gets a public apology.”

Duterte went ballistic on RSF’s call to boycott his presscpn. In a two-hour long presscon Thursday night, Duterte dared media to boycott him.”“Putang ina sinabi ko mga ugok, putang ina I can lose the presidency, my life, my honor. Just don’t fuck with me. Huwag niyo na akong takutin. Boycott, boycott, leche kayo, edi mag-boycott kayo!”

I don’t agree to a media boycott. That would be reneging on your responsibility to inform the public of happenings that affect them.
This is not the first time that a Philippine president has insulted media. In 2014, in his visit to Brussels, the outgoing president, Benigno Aquino III , in defending his administration’s disappointing human rights record said, “For instance, in the media killings, some who used to work in media died. Did they die because they were investigative journalists? Were they exercising their profession in a responsible manner, living up to journalistic ethics? Or did they perish because of other reasons?”

During Gloria Arroyo’s time, it was her husband, Mike Arroyo, who mouthed the same lines.

Whether the journalist’s killing was work related or not, that is murder. Murder is a crime.

A president is supposed to fight crime, not encourage it.

Cayetano’s Leni remark shows he is not “in” in Duterte’s power group

Ellen

Signing of NP-PDP Laban alliance. Photo by Mindanews.

Signing of NP-PDP Laban alliance. Photo by Mindanews.

After Congress, acting as National Board of Canvassers, declared last Friday Rodrigo Duterte of PDP-Laban as winner in the presidential contest and Leni Robredo of the Liberal Party for the vice-presidential race in the May 9 elections, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, Duterte’s running mate, told media that a cabinet position awaits Robredo.

“Mayor Duterte is reviewing every day names and positions [in the Cabinet], and I think from Day 1 he has been thinking about what job can be given the Vice President-elect,” Cayenato said adding that the position to be given to Robredo would be “tailored to what we heard from her during the campaign that she would like to handle.”

Robredo had said during the campaign that she would be interested in a cabinet position that involved lifting the people from poverty.

The following day, in a press conference with Cayetano beside him (also in attendance was Peace Process Secretary Jesus Dureza and senator-elect Manny Pacquiao), Duterte said Robredo “never entered my mind,” in the forming of his cabinet.

“No, I don’t even know her! ..Why should I talk to her? I said I’ve not considered anything for her,” he said.

He said right now the names he has in mind are that of friends who helped him in his campaign. “I’m more worried about where I would place the friends na nagkautang ako ng loob,” he explained.

(In the presscon Tuesday after his meeting with those he has named to be part of his cabinet, he said he is not getting Robredo to be part of his cabinet because he doesn’t want to hurt Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, who lost in the vice-presidential race.
(Duterte said, the Marcoses supported him and he won in Ilocos Norte while he lost miserably in Bicol, Robredo’s turf. He also revealed that his father was a member of the cabinet of the late Ferdinand Marcos.)

In the March 29 presscon, while Duterte was denying what Cayetano said the day before, there was no hiding the embarrassment of the senator, who looked like a chastised schoolboy.

Where did Cayetano get the idea of Robredo’s appointment in the cabinet?

A review of Cayetano’s statement showed he based it on Duterte’s “earlier statements” saying that “ she’s welcome and that he will give a job to everyone who wants to work with him.”

It will be recalled that during the campaign, Duterte said if Robredo would not win he would make her “assistant president…..because she is beautiful“

This incident about the non-appointment of Robredo to the Duterte cabinet leads one to ask, “How “in” is Cayetano in the Duterte power circle?

Cayetano will be going back to the Senate as his legislative term is up to 2019. Duterte said he wants Cayetano to head the Department of Foreign Affairs and that his nominee Perfecto Yasay, Jr. will hold the position in an acting capacity, maybe until the one-year ban for losing candidates expires.

But is that the cabinet position that Cayetano desires, considering that he has higher political ambitions?

Also, sources said it‘s not true that Cayetano had something to do with the appointment of Mark Villar as secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways. It’s the support of Manny Villar of Duterte during the campaign that got Mark the position.
A source said the Villars went for Duterte-Marcos in the last election.

Three members of the Nacionalista Party – Ferdinand Marcos, Jr, who was number two in the VP race, Cayetano (third) and Antonio Trillanes IV (fourth)- who ran for vice –president in the last election.

A keen political observer suggested to us to take a close look at the photos and video of the signing of the NP-PDP alliance a few days after elections in Davao.He said, “Take note of Cayetano’s facial expression.”
Let me take a look.

Beware the Parade of Little Digongs

Ellen


Another brilliant editorial by InterAksyon.com

Photo from www.interaksyon.com

Photo from www.interaksyon.com

News reports tagged him the alleged “Number 1″ pusher of illegal drugs in Central Luzon, and he was said to have been seized by four men shortly after attending a court hearing on Tuesday. At dawn last Wednesday, his body was found on a grassy field.

The bullets were faster than the judge. But it is the public’s – and incoming leadership’s – reaction, or lack of it, that has so far been more chilling than the sight of a hogtied dead man, packing tape covering the corpse’s face, fatal gunshot wounds forming the exclamation point to a grisly end. Which is to say: there are those who are aghast, and there are those who merely shrug, but the loudest camp has decidedly been that of the cheerleaders.

In Tanauan, Batangas, Mayor Antonio Halili organized a parade through town of suspected drug dealers, including a handful of minors. No amount of expressed concern from rights activists and the Commission on Human Rights would make the re-elected Halili reconsider the legality or ethics of a perp walk. Indeed, to Halili, at least the suspects are still alive to be escorted back to jail and then to court, where they may yet prove their innocence, save for the misfortune of having been already shamed as guilty.

Cebu City’s mayor-elect Tomas Osmeña’s only problem with not knowing who killed off the drug suspect in Bulacan is that he wouldn’t know whom to congratulate. In his hometown, credit is good, but Osmeña would be ready with cash. The mayor says he is in fact willing to give cops P50,000 as reward for every suspected drug lord killed. “It can be their extra source of livelihood,” Osmeña was quoted by Cebu media as saying. “Basta legal or in the line of duty.”

When does a suspect officially become a criminal? We all know the answer. When a court says so. A trickier question then: What’s a “line-of-duty-legal” kill of a suspect?

Incoming President Rodrigo Duterte’s choice as head of the National Police, Supt. Ronald dela Rosa, offered this formulation to media:

“Shoot-to-kill if the criminal fights back or is armed.”

And if they don’t fight back? he was asked.

“Make them fight back.”

The man they call “Bato” therefore suggests that on top of an extrajudicial kill, police can get away with framing suspects for resisting arrest.

To be fair, the incoming chief of the Philippine National Police also has it in for rotten members of the police: “If you work well, I will support you all the way. (But) if you engage in illegal acts, like illegal drugs or protecting criminals, I will discipline you for sure.”

Dela Rosa said there will be an “internal cleansing” of the 160,000-strong PNP. “Internal cleansing is important among the ranks of our policemen. Let’s make sure that before we clean other people’s backyards, our own is clean,” Dela Rosa was quoted by the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Not sure if the New People’s Army considered it a favor or qualified for a reward, but more likely just by coincidence, on the same day that the body of suspected Bocaue drug lord Ramonito Nicolas “Don Ramon” Mendoza was found in Bulacan, the communist rebels summarily executed a retired police officer in Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental.

Gingoog Mayor Marie Guingona described retired SPO4 Francisco Baguiz – part of her city council slate in the last elections – as a kindly community leader. Baguiz was taken from his vehicle at a checkpoint manned by NPA rebels, and then killed for alleged “crimes against the people.”

We don’t know what that means. Baguiz was never brought to trial.

What are we to make of these separate incidents? That they are linked.

They are tied, first off, by the same flaw in their common premise: that without benefit of having seen anyone through court, people in or with power can arrogate unto themselves the authority and confidence to finger who is guilty.

Second, they share the irony of harming the very cause they invoke – that of fighting crime and upholding justice. Not only did we not really determine the dead suspects’ stories, but precisely because they have been rubbed out, society will have a harder time ferreting out who else should share in the ultimate finding of guilt.

If anybody will grant, for example, that it was reasonable to presume Bocaue’s Don Ramon guilty, how unreasonable is it to ask: Was he not so much executed as silenced?

That, indeed, has always been the danger with extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals: far from simply assuring people that the authorities took the easiest path to render quick justice, they give rise to suspicion that suspects are killed so they won’t drag more people down with them.

Finally, all these episodes that purport to celebrate and emulate the leadership and mission of Digong can only shape and warn the incoming President of a dilemma that he will have to confront sooner or later.

Dela Rosa said he will have to start with an internal cleansing of the PNP because “we will not have the moral ascendancy to enforce the law if our lawmen themselves cannot be disciplined.” We have already discussed the irony of that directive above. But it presents another level of irony for our next President.

Since it became clear that Mayor Digong will soon be President Duterte, he and his men have made palpable effort to elevate the discourse, demeanor, and direction of the next leader of the Republic of the Philippines. Forget what the populist candidate had said over the course of a calculated campaign that was bitter and acrimonious not just by his doing. What is important now is that the mayor is a lawyer who respects the Office of the President. Apart from trying his darnedest to be a little more prim and proper, he will uphold the rule of law.

These are not empty words, we trust, we hope, we pray. We give President Duterte due recognition, opportunity, and support to work for a safer, better, happier Philippines.

But if the past two weeks alone is any indication, Dela Rosa’s need for “moral ascendancy” will be Duterte’s burden as well. If it is not a President Duterte that is to be feared, aspirant Little Digongs in towns invoking his name and the Davao Death Squad template will (we dread to share the vision) happily slip and slide down their respective muddy slopes while casually spraying their constituents with well-meaning bullets.

To be clear: none of these, technically, have taken place under a Duterte Administration. We are still little more than a month away from his first day in office as President. Until then, there are a number of things Duterte should actually NOT do. For one thing, he does not need to name prospective appointees to the Cabinet until he has actually decided, spoken to them, and gotten their commitment to serve. Neither does he need to keep obliging the media for daily soundbytes. Duterte has won. He needs to stop campaigning. One of his first tasks now, apart from deliberately forming his team, is to manage the people’s expectations.

It is good, for example, that he has stepped back from all that “3 to 6 months” crap. But it is on this point that Duterte would do well to expound. It is here, where Little Digongs would take any of his words as marching orders, that we would encourage and need him to speak, precisely as incoming President.

He must – or at least this is our hope – Duterte must claim some moral high ground before small-minded and backward thinking mayors and policemen define the landscape for everyone. President Duterte must draw the line, if there is, in his mind, a line to be drawn. Either way, the people who look to him as leader deserve to know what we can count on, or what we are in for.