Illustrated by Rens Cruz

President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III’s public castigation of the Supreme Court is something quite unprecedented in the country’s political history. Never before has a chief executive openly criticized the chief magistrate and his justices in the public to the same extent as Aquino did.

On the 30th anniversary of the Makati Business Club, Aquino questioned the High Court’s quick action of granting a temporary restraining order to former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s petition to remove her from the immigration bureau’s watch list.

“When our lawyers all know that it takes the Supreme Court 10 days, normally, to attend to motions, and it decides to issue a TRO for Mrs. Arroyo in three, who can avoid wondering what she did to merit such speedy relief?” he said.

Aquino lambasted the Supreme Court again at the First Criminal Justice Summit where he questioned the constitutionality of Corona as a “midnight” appointee of Arroyo and how he has acted on cases involving the former President.

Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said it is the prerogative of the President to speak his mind but they find it quite disturbing.

“It is not at all unusual for the executive branch to disagree with the judicial branch. But what is considerably unusual is for the Chief Executive to look down on members of the judiciary in public and to their faces denounce the court’s independent actions,” Marquez said in a statement.

Marquez was right when he called Aquino’s recent tirades against the Supreme Court “quite disturbing”. However, more disturbing are the repercussions of the widening rift between two branches of the government. Aquino acts as if he is above the law. Corona, on the other hand, decides on cases, as if he is not above politics. The Supreme Court, ideally, should be independent in deciding the constitutionality of rules, laws, and orders.

It is understandable where Aquino is coming from. The High Court has done nothing but thwart his reformist agenda. For one, the Supreme Court declared the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) unconstitutional saying the investigating body violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The PTC was supposed to target alleged cases of graft and corruption in the Arroyo administration.

Aquino has all the right to criticize Supreme Court decisions but to publicly denounce the institution, and to the extent that he is doing it, is a display of arrogance. The Supreme Court may have erred in promulgating decisions and constantly ruling against the administration but the High Court deserves a little respect.

The president should take extra caution with his criticism so as not to be misinterpreted as someone who thinks he is above the law.

Corona, on other hand, should not have been Chief Justice in the first place. He was appointed two days after the May 2010 elections – way beyond the constitutional ban on making appointments.

It is irreversible for Corona to be the country’s chief magistrate, but at the very least he should have shown propriety when handling cases involving the former President.

Corona held various cabinet positions under Arroyo. He served as Arroyo’s spokesperson and chief of staff while she was still vice-president. When she assumed the presidency, Corona became Presidential Chief of Staff, Presidential spokesperson, and acting Executive Secretary at various points in Arroyo’s nine-year term. Ultimately, Arroyo appointed him as the country’s 23rd chief justice under dubious circumstances.

The conflict of interest is very much apparent and it has reflected on Corona’s voting pattern as a Supreme Court justice.

As chief executive and chief magistrate of this country, Aquino and Corona swore different oaths to the Filipino people.

Senator Franklin Drilon, a party stalwart of Aquino in the Liberal Party, noted that Corona has a 19-0 record on cases involving the former President. Drilon said Corona has never voted against Arroyo in deciding cases.

If Aquino wants to “preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, and do justice to every man,” he must respect the law he is supposed to enforce and stop acting as if he is above it. If Corona wants to fulfill the High Court’s mandate and let it be, in his own words, the “the last refuge of the people in matters related to law and justice,” he should start acting on cases without prejudice, and with utmost judicial independence free from the clutches of politics.

Illustrated by Gian Suyat

The Philippines is a country beset with the problems of feudalism – a system of landlord ownership over agricultural lands, at the expense of the farmers who only rely on land for their living.

This is the set-up of Philippine society the recent ruling of the Supreme Court has dared to challenge. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 4,900-hectare land of the Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita be distributed among its 6,200 farmer beneficiaries.

The Cojuangco family gained ownership of the Hacienda Luisita and its sugar plant Central Azucarera de Tarlac through a loan from the Government Service Insurance System, with the condition that they distribute the land after ten years.

After the set date, the Cojuangco family still failed to distribute the land to its tenants. More so, they were able to escape land distribution by availing the stock distribution option in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, a bogus land reform law approved by former president Corazon Aquino. The SDO allows the land owners to provide tenants stocks or shares of the income instead of distributing actual land to the farmers.

The farmers have organized to fight for the distribution of land since the 1960s, which culminated in November 16, 2004 when police officers opened fire to the protesters, killing 14 farmers in the picket line.

The farmers of the Hacienda Luisita have been fighting for their land for almost 50 years. Indeed, the SC ruling might be a sign of hope for an end to this long-running feudal set-up in the country.

However, much skepticism has been raised about the sincerity of President Aquino to transcend his family ties and distribute the hacienda of his relatives. Aquino is related to the Cojuangcos through his mother Corazon.

Aquino in news reports has declared that the Cojuangcos must follow the SC ruling. However, he maintained that his relatives must still be given “just compensation.”

“Farmers need to be empowered so they can have their own lands to till. But agrarian reform has a second part. Let us not deplete capital. That means there should be just compensation so that the owners of land do not end up having their land taken from them, that they be rightly paid,” Aquino has said.

He went on to say that no “one sector” must be sacrificed over the other – perhaps pertaining to the private sector which involved the sugar plantation business of his kin.

Remaining impartial throughout this phenomenal decision would then be a challenge for a President with a landlord history, given the slow-paced and cautious treatment he has been giving this agrarian dispute since he assumed power. True, he had proclaimed compliance to the ruling of the SC, mainly because he thinks any decision from the SC is an “order.” However, it remains to be seen when Aquino would entirely turn his back on his familial connections for the sake of genuine agrarian reform.

These are the two objectives of the President – give land to the farmers, but give his kin payment for their loss, as well. To wait for him to include in his objectives the provision of free land to the landless and an end to concentrated land ownership in the country would be a futile one, unless he strips himself of his landlord history.

The Philippines is a semi-feudal country run by a President with a landed family. The SC ruling is thus the first step to end this feudal set-up. For the decision to truly favor the landless, the farmers must then be given land for free without any payment to the owners. Aquino’s landed family who had for so long benefitted from this set-up need no more of just compensation.

Illustrated by Marvic Masagca

It isn’t difficult to answer the rallying call to remember the 2009 Maguindanao massacre. Fifty-eight people, including 32 journalists and media workers, were killed in a case of election-related violence brought about by a warlord-coddling government. It is considered the worst case of poll-related violence in the country’s history.

The massacre is also the single worst case of journalist killings in the world – an act so brutal, its anniversary, Nov. 23, has earned the dubious distinction of marking the global day of solidarity in the fight against impunity.

The superlative infamy of the massacre has served to keep the issue burning in the public sphere. Led by the media, human rights groups have been actively campaigning for a quick resolution to the court cases and the full administration of justice for the victims and their families.

As a result of the public clamor, the cases have been fast-tracked: more than 100 suspects face the judge twice a week. Speedy as the cases may be, it has still been estimated that decades could pass before a resolution is reached.

Much hope has been pinned on a successful ending to the Maguindanao massacre tragedy. It seems that the entire country believes that when justice is served on the Ampatuans and the other alleged perpetrators of the murders, the culture of impunity will cease. While winning these cases would be a huge victory in the fight against the string of human rights violations in the Philippines, it carries no guarantee of an end to the struggle.

In spite of the gravity of the Maguindanao killings it remains only one of many instances of violence against journalists, against taxpayers, against human beings. It is a product of a system of corruption, warlordism, dynastic politics and self-preserving “public service.”

The media industry has succeeded in honoring the memory of the 58 who perished in Maguindanao by remaining vigilant in calling not only for justice, but a total end to impunity. By remembering and exerting as much effort in fighting against injustices – even those not directly committed against media practitioners – perhaps it would be possible to keep people, not just memories, alive.

This editorial was edited on Nov. 24, 2011, at 12:30am.

The University of the Philippines, like Hogwarts, is in grave danger – not from Death Eaters but from budget eaters. It tries to get out of the spooky forest while branches and twigs run through its legs. It trips, falls down, and gets up again though ignorant of what lies beyond the forest. UP now staggers.

The university (along with three others) has dropped from the list of the world’s top 300 schools. From the 314th spot in 2010, it fell to the 332nd this year.

Rep. Sonny Angara was right. Though, for some, surveys and rankings do not matter, they still serve as gauges, and this time, as warnings as well.

Last week, talk on the issue of the education budget cut echoed through the halls of Palma Hall, its old classrooms and horrible comfort rooms tainted by graffiti serving as forums for thought.

There was a time when the university was one of the best, its new and updated facilities breeding brighter minds and competent students. But that was several years ago. Now, among the large, lush trees of Diliman and the robust façade of the buildings lies a bulk of problems.

If the university were given an adequate budget, there would be no spooky forests.

If the budget were sufficient, no instructor would complain of his salary. An assistant professor could receive 36 percent more than what he gets now. An associate professor could get 53 percent more. A full professor, 51 percent.

Perhaps when better paid, no professor would fail to give his students high-caliber instruction. No professor would spend a whole period just talking about his life. No professor would need to bring overhead projectors to class. No professor would need or want to leave UP.

If the budget were sufficient, UP could accomodate a diverse assortment of students from aroundn the country, all with one thing in common – great minds. No student who passed the UPCAT would pass up the chance to go to the university.

If the budget were sufficient, a student would only need to pay the bare minimum tuition.

If the budget were sufficient, the libraries would always be properly lit.

If the budget were sufficient, UP would regain the distinction of being best school for agricultual studies from Mindanao State University. UP would once again excel in agricultural engineering, overtaking the Visayas State University. The best veterinarians would be from UP, not Benguet State University. (Meh, not sure about this paragraph though. SUCs stick together, though, you know, I believe in UP pride)

If the budget were sufficient, the Philippine Collegian wouldn’t waste space reporting on inadequate funding for the publication. There would a copy of the paper for every student. The members of the staff wouldn’t need to shoulder expenses out of their own pockets.

If the budget were sufficient, the UP Pep Squad could spend its winnings on team members’ personal wants. The gym could be fully renovated. The UP Fighting Maroons may finally find their glory.

For those pushing for a self-sufficient university as an escape route, you must accept the fact that if it happens, UP might lose its status as the country’s premier university. Columnist Boo Chanco writes, “I agree with the lawyer, ‘This is not sustainable.’ If UP continues down this path, it will be eclipsed by Ateneo and DLSU. UP can only ride the wave of its past glory for so long.”

A land grant from the court, the lawyer said in the column, takes about five to 10 years, add rallies around the campus and resistance from the most influential professors, it cannot be achieved. The land, he added, cannot be used for any other purposes than that intended, academic probably.

The UP Ayala Technohub still has empty buildings and that is because “contractual restrictions that prevent leases by call centers and other so-called low value activities.

UP does not deserve its situation right now. UP students always belong to the nation. It is their duty to give back. The Filipino people do not deserve meager returns.

US-based Filipino journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner Jose Antonio Vargas is nearly a whistleblower, except for the fact that he himself is culprit. In his essay published in the New York Times last June 22, he revealed what was unlikely to a Pulitzer Prize recipient and writer for the country’s major newspapers — that he belongs to the millions of American residents who are undocumented immigrants.

He spilled a can of worms, of hopes, and of loopholes. It is not only a debate whether what he did was right in terms of journalistic ethics, but debates on accountability, the dynamics of American politics and the state of Philippine society.

The issue on ethics is done. Though the code made by the Society of Professional Journalists speak that “journalists should admit mistakes and correct them promptly”, he was one responsible journalist. Having a profession which involves public trust, it is inevitable this issue would be raised. But this conversation leads to nowhere. Journalism has an entirely different set of ethics far apart from other forms of ethics. Leave it.

Leave it but focus on what it brought to America. Like how Philippine senators felt it awkward upon knowing we are the only ones in the world without divorce, a U.S. senate committee has started hearings on the “DREAM Act” on June 28. Finally. The act grants amnesty and citizenship to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, if they finish higher education or serve in the military. After Vargas surfaced, a Mexican who crossed the boarder illegally also did -– a valedictorian from Arizona State University.

Many Filipinos have already fought for authentic Green cards but weren’t heard. What awakened them was when people who American considered as “gifts” admitted to be aliens. Too late.

Call Vargas a propagandist, he only did right.

It also leads into reading another list: on the number of undocumented immigrants and how many of them are actually Filipinos. It taints the culture. In the first place, there would never be a huge number of Filipino immigrants if pasture as green as that in other nations is found in the home country. The tendency for Filipinos who are unemployed is to resort to migrating to U.S., particularly, with a tourist visa, work and remain as aliens. When they return home, they can never come back. Which is more comfortable?

Ethics tells journalists to give voice to the voiceless. In his statements, he did not become less of a journalist. It is a sacrifice as much as it is an opportunity for people looking for a better life.

Paulit-ulit na umaalingawngaw ngayon ang sagot na “..major, major…” ni 2010 Bb. Pilipinas-Universe Maria Venus Raj. Sa radyong pinakikinggan ko kaninang umaga, tila naging umpukan ng biro ang mga salitang ito ni Raj. Sa telebisyon naman, isinama pa sa mga ulo ng balita ang reaksyon ni Raj sa kanyang kontrobersyal na sagot. Maging sa isang pahayagan sa internet, ginamit pa ito bilang titulo ng artikulo (“A ‘major, major’ win” mula sa Inquirer.net).

Hindi ko maiwasang maalala ang malungkot na sinapit ni 2008 Bb. Pilipinas-Universe Janina San Miguel kung saan naging umpukan rin siya ng masasakit na biro. Hindi rin kasi niya nasagot nang maayos ang katanungan ni Paolo Bediones, ang naturang host ng patimpalak noong taong iyon. Matatandaang nasambit niya ang “family” bilang “pamily.” At sa dulo ng kanyang sagot, sinabi rin nya, “Sorry guys because this was really my first pageant ever because I’m only 17 years old and (tawa) I, I did not expect that I came from, I came from one of the top 10…”

Kung si San Miguel ay sinabihan nina Melanie Marquez at Ruffa Gutierrez na kumuha ng mga aralin sa Ingles, nagbigay ng suhestiyon si 1969 Bb. Pilipinas- Universe Gloria Diaz na sana ay magkaroon din ng interpreter ang mga pambato ng Pilipinas tulad ni 2010 Ms. Universe- Mexico (bagamat siya mismo ay bihasa sa paggamit ng Ingles) batay sa karanasan ni Raj. Ayon sa kanya, ang problema ay nag-iisip ang isang kandidato sa Tagalog, kaya naman may nawawala na kapag ang sagot ay nilalagay na sa wikang Ingles. Kung titignang mabuti, may punto ang dating beauty queen sa kanyang suhestiyon, lalo pa at saktong ngayon ay Buwan ng Wika. Hindi nga ba’t mas komportable tayo at mas naipapahayag natin ang ating saloobin kapag tayo ay nagsasalita sa ating tinubuang wika?

Kailan nga ba gumamit ng Ingles ang karamihan ng mga Pilipino? Ayon sa kasaysayan, ginamit bilang pangunahing wika ang Ingles sa mga paaralan bunga ng Taft Commission noong panahon ng pananakop ng mga Amerikano. Marahil iyan ang makakapag-paliwanag kung bakit marami sa mga nakatatanda ay mahusay sa pagsasalita sa Ingles– na may Amerikanong punto pa!

Pilipino o Filipino?

Matapos ang ilang taon, isinaad ni Wenceslao Vinzons sa draft ng Saligang Batas ng 1935 na ang wikang pambansa ay bubuuin ng MGA WIKA SA PILIPINAS, ngunit nag-iba ito nang ilabas na ang pinal na dokumento ng Saligang Batas. Nakasulat doon na ang Tagalog na linggwahe ang magiging batayan ng wikang pambansa, at ito na nga ang naging simula ng pag-aaway ng mga pangkat-etniko. Sinikap na ayusin ito noong 1974, kung saan ang “Pilipino” ay naging “Filipino,” hindi rin isang natural na linggwahe pero isinasama rito ang lahat ng wika sa bansa maging ang Ingles at Espanyol. Pilipino ang ginamit na official language (para sa mga official functions tulad ng pagsusulat ng mga batas) at Pilipino naman ang pambansang wika. Hindi pa rin natapos rito ang away ng mga pangkat-etniko dahil tulad nga ng paglalarawan ni Dr. Pamela Constantino ng Kolehiyo ng Arte at Literatura, “Tagalog din naman yan eh!”

Noong 1974, kumalat ang sentimiyentong radikal at nasyonalista sa ilalim ng dating Pangulong Marcos, lalo na dito sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas. Ayon kay Dr. Constantino, mas pinipili ang paggamit ng Pilipino kaysa Ingles; mas mataas pa nga ang grado mo kung Pilipino ang ginamit sa pagsagot! At maging sa mga asignatura ng chemistry at engineering, Pilipino pa rin ang ginagamit. Ngunit sa taon ring ito sinimulan ang Bilingual Language on Education.

Ngayon naman, sa ilalim ng DepEd Order no. 74 series 2009, ipinatutupad ang multilingual Education Policy, kung saan maaaring gumamit ng bernakular na wika sa mga eskuwelahan, ngunit makikita doon na ito ay hanggang 4^th year highschool lamang. Mula sa pinakamababang paaralan hanggang sa kolehiyo ay kailangan magsalita ng Ingles ang mga mag-aaral.

“Inferiority Complex”

Sa puntong ito, ano nga ba ang papel ng wikang Filipino sa paglilinang ng kamalayan ng mga tao? Makikitang magulo ang mga batas tungkol sa wika habang nariyan pa rin ang alitan ng mga pangkat etniko sa sinasabing pagiging angat ng mga Tagalog sa ibang grupo. Mayroon nga tayong Buwan ng Wika, ngunit hindi naman natin tinitingala ang mga wikang tinubuan natin. Tulad nga ng nabanggit ni Dr. Jovy Peregrino ng Departamento ng Filipino, kapag nagsasalita ka sa Ingles, ikaw ay tinuturing sosyal, elite, edukado at sophisticated. Kapag naman ikaw ay nagsalita ng Filipino, ikaw ay cheap, mababa at mukhang walang pinag-aralan. Ayus lang na magkamali sa Filipino, ngunit tila dudumugin ka ng taumbayan kapag nagkamali ka sa Ingles. Sa wika pa lang, mayroon na tayong matinding pagpapahalaga sa Ingles at pandidiri naman sa mga lingguwahe ng bansa. Mayroon pa rin tayong inferiority complex sa mga puti; ang kultura, lingguwahe at mga produkto ng mga Amerikano ay magaganda at abante habang ang sa mga Pilipino naman ay pangit at atrasado.

Hindi ligtas ang midya sa ugaling ito ng mga Pilipino. Ginagamit ang Filipino sa mga panggabing programa ng balita para mahakot ang “masa.” Samantalang sa cable naman, ginagamit ang Ingles sa halos lahat ng mga Pilipinong programa para magmukhang world-class. Ngunit hindi ba halos lahat rin naman ng manonood nito ay Pilipino rin? Kung Pilipino ang gagamitin sa mga programang ito, mangangahulugan ba na ang mga ito ay cheap, mababa at ­low-class? Ito rin kaya ang dahilan kung bakit walang broadsheet ngayon sa Maynila ang nasa Filipino?

Makikitang lubhang malalim na ang kaisipang maka-Amerikano sa mga Pilipino. Mahirap itong burahin, lalo na’t kahit ang mga nakatatanda, ang produkto ng mga Thomasites, na dapat ay nagwawasto sa atin ay silang tumatangkilik sa kulturang mananakop. Dagdag pa rito ang hindi pagpapahalaga mga asignaturang Kasaysayan at Filipino sa larangan ng edukasyon. Nawa ay matanto ng bagong administrasyon na kung talagang sila ay nagnanais ng pagbabago para sa mga Pilipino (at hindi para sa ikabubuti ng mga dayuhan), dapat nilang tutukan at lutasan, tulad ng sinabi ni Dr. Peregrino, ang pagiging DAYUHAN NG MGA PILIPINO SA SARILING BAYAN.

The Aug. 23 Manila hostage-taking proved to be a bitter litmus test for many of the country’s institutions: the police, the military, the local government units, and the media. When it comes to mistakes committed, the mainstream media finds itself bearing responsibility for much of the events leading to the botched rescue operation that saw eight dead and seven injured.

The events of that evening validated the media’s powerful role in shaping events, most especially in crises. Information could be used both as a tool and as a weapon, so therefore the media had a crucial role to play in minimizing harm among the stakeholders, as well be accountable in its reportage.

The media’s most damning failure lay in its live telecast of the situation. From the get-go, the major television stations were broadcasting Mendoza’s capture of the bus—live. Reporters were on scene delivering blow-by-blow accounts of his moves, and worse, the SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) team’s. It is now assumed that Mendoza’s composure evaporated upon seeing the violent arrest of his brother Gregorio on the bus’s television monitor caused him to shoot his Chinese hostages.

Was live coverage absolutely necessary? Was there a dire, urgent need for the public to know every move of the SWAT team? While the right to be informed is well and good, we do not believe live coverage was needed. Firstly, this clearly violates the KBP’s guidelines on information disclosure in crises. A news blackout would have been already extreme but the media could have opted to delay coverage instead by half an hour or so. This was employed during the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis in Tehran. That way coverage would have still been delivered without compromising the rescue operation.

The very quality of coverage was also mediocre. When you have ABS-CBN airing the panicked driver Alberto Lubang’s chilling yelp “Patay na silang lahat,” without any initial verification (to its credit, GMA 7 did not), one can clearly surmise the degree of professionalism the media possesses. The images of the dead were also simply broadcast to every living room in the country without any attempt to censor or to blur. Throw in panicking (i.e. GMA 7’s Mel Tiangco), cussing, and laughing reporters who lose all self-control the moment Mendoza starts shooting complete with wild gestures—quite unnecessary—and you have a lethal recipe for news sensationalism and fact distortion. Emotions replaced rational thinking and this clouded all judgment on the part of the reporters.

Most incredible and appalling of all was the utter absence of the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) in all this. For 12 hours, Malacañang lay dormant; CNN had to interview Manila’s vice-mayor Isko Moreno for official comment. For all its vaunted purposes to deliver Pres. Benigno Aquino III’s “message” effectively and swiftly to the public, Aquino delivered his statement around 12 midnight, long after blood had been spilled on the Grandstand, and much to chagrin of Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang. His statement was not exactly stellar either: aside from being seemingly a recap of the day’s events, it lacked the compassion and conviction that normally befits a leader in times of crisis. Aquino appeared frighteningly detached from reality as he sought to gain control of a situation he seemed to know little about.

What went wrong? From the looks of it, Philippine society is suffering from a surfeit of information in many ways—and a rather complacent media is not helping the situation at all. From undergoing severe prior restraint and suppression under the Martial Law era, demand for instant information has reached its shocking peak. Much of this distressing reality can be traced to how the media tolerates and even encourages a shallow perception of the news, in effect holding their audiences hostage to the media’s interests.

Who sets limits then, as referenced by Aquino in his midnight message? Definitely not the audience, and likewise the state can only do so much. The answer lies in the media’s strict enforcement of self-regulation among its ranks. It should not wait for any external forces such as the government before they can even act. Keeping in mind the highest standards of broadcasting and journalism, the media ought to step up and properly fulfill its function as society’s Fourth Estate and watchdog.

If station managements simply realized the direct repercussions of their actions that evening, perhaps we would be witnessing less bloodshed in the future and maybe this country would still have a face to present to the international community. Ratings and competition aside, this would have been the only prudent thing to do.

Rights and responsibilities–at the end of the day it all boils down to these. Police officers, reporters, tourists, and even hostage-takers have these. Looking back on that fateful evening, who fulfilled their rights and responsibilities, and who did not? You be the judge.

Yesterday House members of the 14^th Congress (2007-2010) proved how low it could go, and eventually, they did not disappoint. Its last session was not even a real one. Some lawmakers did not care if the last session, a symbol of the kind of legacy the 14^th Congress will leave its country, was adjourned because of a lack of a quorum.

During the roll call, representatives deliberately filed out of the session hall, loitering right outside as the proponents of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill clamored for a majority attendance. After promising the country that no efforts would be wasted, House Speaker Prospero Nograles could only allude to a line in a famous ‘80’s song. “I did my best, but I guess my best wasn’t good enough.”

Truly, the legislative journey was an adventure for the FOI bill, which aims to outline a clear, uniform process for accessing public documents in a government where access depends on the whims of government agencies and where executive privilege is king. Gone would have been the days when journalists and non-government entities would wait for months to receive requested documents. The law would have been a reason to kill the Ombudsman circular limiting access to the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networks (SALNs) of government officials for journalistic, academic and judicial purposes. For 14 years, FOI advocates lobbied for a law clarifying the constitutional provision stated in the 1987 Constitution and it was in the 14^th Congress that the bill got the farthest. All that was left to do was for the House of Representatives to ratify the bicameral committee report and for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to sign it into a law.

It was that close. In fact, Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello said weeks ago that ratifying the committee report should only take minutes for the House. All the debates have been accounted for in the combined versions of the House and the Senate. Yet Camiguin Rep. Pedro Romualdo vehemently opposed the passage, saying that the bill “did not pass any debate.”

Apparently, it seems it was not Romualdo’s fault that he, the chairperson of the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability, did not initiate such proper debate while the bill was on the floor for deliberation. He decided that the bill needed more discussion when it is already ready for ratification—as if over two years of legislative procedure is not enough.

If indeed thorough discussion of the FOI bill was lacking, it points to how terribly sluggish Congress can be. However, Romualdo does not see this and points his finger at the media. If the media wants access to information, which is sanctioned by the 1987 Constitution, Romualdo and the rest of the Right of Reply proponents want access to the media through equal space and airtime to the replies of government officials.

Never mind that the good congressman was changing the subject; but to dictate upon the press what it should and should not write is to spit on the hallowed tenets of free speech enshrined in the Constitution.

What a way to kill the bill: if all else fails, boycott Congress’s final session so proponents would have no choice but to file it again. The picture is laughable, whether Congress was conspiring to leave everyone hanging and continue the Arroyo administration’s legacy of secrecy, or if representatives were simply too lazy to walk the red carpet to the session hall. Either way, its actions speak louder than whatever song lyrics Nograles can unearth from his tired repertoire.

Because of the majority who ignored the last session, the 14^th Congress has lost its last chance to redeem itself. It will be remembered as a Congress that favored government secrecy over transparency, filled with traditional politicians owing loyalty to a president submerged in accusations of corruption.

The 139 missing representatives have bastardized the democratic process as well as the very constituents they are supposed to represent. These representatives’ absence is a slap to the face of freedom-loving Filipinos everywhere being denied access to pertinent documents. Their absence at this very crucial vote has very clearly magnified the inefficiency of Congress, as well as its self-interested members. What could be running in the head of Congressman X, as he shuffled up and down that corridor in the Batasan, killing time, while the likes of Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III and Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante vainly tried to bring the FOI bill to the floor?

In July the 15^th Congress will convene, but many familiar faces will still greet the cameras. Amid warnings that the Arroyo bloc would ceaselessly slow down the bill’s progress, it is now up to the new administration bloc in Congress and on the political will of the next president to protect and further this right sanctioned in the Constitution.

Presumptive president Benigno “Noynoy” C. Aquino III was one of the senators who approved the bill after all. He may have a mountain of inherited problems to hurdle, but the FOI bill should be among the top things in his agenda, if he is to prove his commitment to change and his advocacy of government transparency.  We can only remain vigilant, and hope for the best.

The election campaign season is fast approaching. The media are again expected to play the important role of helping the people make sound decisions. It is a crucial role that can make or break the country’s future; a daunting task to ensure that their democratic exercise to vote will not be put to waste. Yet, the Right of Reply Bill might just impede the media practitioners to fully perform this role, especially if it gets passed before or just in time for the election campaign. To echo the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility’s concern, the Philippine media would have a hard time dealing with accommodating replies of allegedly maligned politicians over more important news and information which could have helped the people to, quoting Bill Kovach, be “free and self-governing.”

Media can never be platforms crowded with replies of politicians. This will be a grave disservice to the people to which the media should empower.

But more than the issues that go with the 2010 elections, we condemn the bill as a breach of the constitutional safeguards toward a free environment for the press. We were being taught of the concept of editorial prerogative, a prerogative that emanates from the guarantee of a free press as mandated by the Art. III, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution. The absence of state intervention in the affairs of the media makes it possible for the media to perform its check-and-balance functions. This recent move to partly impose content on all media, no matter how partly it covers print or web space or air time, is unconstitutional.

We uphold this right as further supported by the landmark case Miami Herald Publishing Co. vs. Tornillo. The decision read: “A newspaper (or any media entity) is more than a passive receptacle and conduit (of information)….The choice of material and limitations on size and of content constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” This encapsulates the overarching wisdom behind the free press clause, and must be scrapped altogether.

If this imposition will be passed, it will only create a more difficult environment for the media, which is already struggling in recent years. For instance, the campus press, as part of alternative media, will suffer most the brunt of this repressive measure. The bill imposed fines of up to P200,000. With lack of resources to come up with an issue, and the lack of administrative support experienced by some campus and college-wide publications, how would they pay the fine? Will they just fall on a tendency to be too careful to point of falling short to its duty to expose the ills of the society and the suspects behind these?

Add to that a culture of impunity, and as broadcast journalist Maria Ressa constantly points out, a “chilling effect” created for the media. Our recent ranking, sixth at the 2009 Global Impunity Index, is a shame to this government which failed to implement significant measures to provide justice to the 96-and -counting cases of journalist killings.

Strengthening the manifestation of this kind of environment are the turn of events in recent years: Mr. Mike Arroyo’s case-filing spree against 50 journalists, the handcuffing of journalists covering the infamous Manila Peninsula Siege, the filing of wiretapping case against veteran broadcast journalist Cheche Lazaro, and of late, the assault to a campus journalist while covering the break-in of several students in Malacañang, and the directive from the Office of the Ombudsman tightening the process of asking the Statements of Assets and Liabilities of government officials.

Indeed, for the Philippine media, these are times made more difficult by the state’s blatant attempts to muzzle press freedom. As future media practitioners, the ones who will inherit this bill when it gets passed, it is high time to rise within our ranks go out of our way to help media practitioners in their call to scrap such unconstitutional, imposing and harmful bill.