|
Freedom 17 Jan. 2008 |
. |
|
THE past few days, so
much commentary and reportages in print and broadcast, were devoted to
the advisory from Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez to chief executive of
media networks and media companies on compliance with "lawful orders
from duly authorized government officers and personnel during
emergencies." The reminder, which was a general reiteration of existing laws and guidelines in such situations, raised the hackles of media, and rekindled debates as recent and as heated as at the December 5, 2007 Government-Media Dialogue at the Manila Peninsula Hotel, the one called by the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas in the aftermath of the Manila Pen takeover by Sen. Antonio Trillanes. Being a media man myself and given my position in government, I was drawn to the swirling issues like fish to water. As recent as eight years ago, our Supreme Court in ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC (GR NO. 133486, January 28, 2000) had occasion to rule on this matter. Said the Court: "The freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of our democratic government. It is a ‘preferred right’ and, therefore, stands on a higher level than substantive economic or other liberties. This must be so because the lessons of history, both political and legal, illustrate that the freedom of thought and speech is an indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. The realities of life in a complex society, however, preclude an absolute exercise of the freedoms of speech and of the press; such freedoms could not remain unfettered and unrestrained at all times and under all circumstances. They are not immune to regulation by the state in the exercise of its police power. While the liberty to think is absolute, the power to express such thought in words and deeds has limitations." The Court, after having raised freedom of expression into a "preferred right," recognized in the same breath the realities in society that set limits to the power of expression. In fact, in the balancing of individual interest and public need, the state has the inherent right to prevent ‘substantive evils’ that could, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, constitute a "clear and present danger." These principles, however, only serve as a guide or frame of reference, in addressing every live situation similar to the Oakwood Hotel and Manila Pen takeovers. There is enough guidance in the statute books for the police to resolve these situations: Arts. 132, 134, 142, 151, and 152 of the Revised Penal Code, on offenses ranging from rebellion, sedition, insurrection, or inciting thereof; PD 1829 on obstruction of justice; PNP Operational Procedures, Rules 3 to 7, 11, and 21, on arrests and civil disturbance management. Media has its own rules of conduct in their Circulars, such as KBP Circ. 07017, enjoining KBP members "not to hinder or obstruct efforts of authorities to resolve the situation;" Circ. 05-014 on coverage of terrorist activities, and the guidelines and SOP of individual media outfits. We will not want for rules or guidelines. But as we had done in December, and as we suggested in the wake of passions stirred up by the DoJ Advisory, we must continue with our constructive dialogue on these concerns. Managing the borders and boundaries of government and media need not be destructive and debilitating. Every situation can be resolved and all concerns addressed in a dialogue. As a Greek philosopher aptly said, "civilized people converse … this is the only way they resolve conflict." |
|
| [TOP] [HOME] | |