#EDSA34: People Power, Press Freedom, Free Speech And Expression

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) believes the Filipino people have a stake in the issues of press freedom as well as free speech and expression amid ABS-CBN Corp.’s fight to have its legislative franchise renewed.

Officials of the NUJP led by its chairman Nonoy Espina turned over to Sen. Grace Poe, chairperson of the Senate committee on public services, voluminous documents expressing support for the network.

Poe presided over yesterday’s first public hearing on franchises for public and private companies in a bid to establish clear guidelines that will be observed and complied with by franchise holders.

The documents contain 200,000 signatures gathered since NUJP launched a campaign on Jan. 18 to have one million people sign a petition to back ABS-CBN’s bid for a franchise so it can continue to operate freely.

According to Espina, the possible non-renewal of the franchise and eventual closure of the network giant will have a chilling effect because of the “greater issue of freedom of the press and of expression.”

“When you shut down one of the biggest television networks, which serves as a venue to exchange views and opinions… it’s really frightening for our democracy… This is not just business… It’s all part of one package, you can’t separate one from the other,” Espina told reporters.

Anyone can access and sign the petition supporting ABS-CBN through change.org, which calls on Congress to do what is right and immediately pass the bill to renew the network’s franchise.

The petition also states that the quo warranto petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General before the Supreme Court (SC), seeking to revoke the network’s franchise, is proof that the current administration, in a “supremely undemocratic act,” is out to silence a media outfit because of the animosity of one man – President Duterte.

While the group expressed dismay at House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano’s conflict of interest when he admitted harboring a personal grudge against the network, the NUJP said: “We continue to hope that you, the elected representatives of the people, can rise above your leader’s petty vindictiveness and strike a blow in defense of freedom of the press and of expression.”

Several bills have been filed at the House of Representatives, seeking to renew ABS-CBN’s franchise. The bills are awaiting deliberations at the chamber.

“At the very least, if the President is really hell-bent on shutting down ABS-CBN, let him bear full responsibility by passing the bill renewing the network’s franchise and let him veto it if he dares to. Do not be accomplices in the rape of democracy,” the NUJP said.

 Philippine media: From being suppressed to almost anarchic

A 1989 paper titled “The media in the Philippines: The fine line between freedom and anarchy” by the Asian Institute of Journalism, published in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s digital library, said the Marcos government took ownership of a number of media organizations after the imposition of martial law in September 1972, including ABS-CBN, which was renamed Maharlika Broadcasting Corp.

“Other stations and papers were shut down. A number of them resurfaced, but the new owners were friends or associates of (then president Ferdinand) Marcos. During the period of martial law, most big business was in the hands of the President’s (sympathizers). This was also true of the media where the owners and managers did not hesitate to dictate the political line the media were to follow,” the paper read.

“Indictments against the media increased in force and frequency, creating an all-pervasive climate of fear and insecurity among media professionals,” it added.

According to the paper, when Marcos came to power, he transformed almost overnight what had been regarded as the freest press in Asia into an instrument for the perpetuation of his own regime.

“For many years, the people of the Philippines had no control over the information they received, and no access to media that told them what was really happening in the country. Under the Marcos presidency, information was manipulated, either by direct censorship or by self-censorship based on fear,” the paper stated.

The paper said a “climate of secrecy” reigned and all kinds of information were considered secret – from Marcos’ state of health to government investments and the transactions of financial institutions.

“Research data were difficult to come by: for example, reporters could not even obtain statistics on malnutrition in the Philippines. The only kind of information the government wanted to see released was what it considered to be ‘the true, the good and the beautiful’. Secrecy reached such heights that even certain laws that were passed remained secret,” the paper noted.

The Marcos regime also employed measures to control information, including Presidential Decree 33, which penalized the printing, possession, distribution and circulation of certain leaflets, handbills and propaganda, while PD 90 punished any person who published, distributed, circulated or spread “rumors, false news or information” that could prove “divisive” to the people.

“Because of the sweeping interpretation of these decrees, many Filipinos chose to whisper, as it were. Underground publications quietly changed hands, but those who were caught with them were either sued or threatened. The intimidation and harassment of journalists was a common occurrence. Those who dared to speak out could lose their jobs, or were the object of administrative and legal charges,” the paper revealed.

“Harassment under the Marcos regime could also take the form of an ‘invitation to answer some questions.’ Eight women journalists were thus summoned by the National Intelligence Board to the military base of Fort Bonifacio in December 1982. Their interrogation lasted for some hours, and the women were questioned about their private lives as well as their political convictions,” the paper said.

Based on the paper, the turning point finally came in August 1983 with the assassination of former senator and opposition leader Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr.  “Suddenly, ‘alternative’ media began to surface. A handful of tabloid newspapers and radio stations created by journalists dared to defy government instructions on how to handle news stories, despite the constant harassment and intimidation.”

“Though they had little or no advertising, they somehow managed to survive and by late 1985, these alternative media were growing in number and had more credibility than the pro- Marcos ‘establishment’ media. In the end, they brought about their own liberation. And in the process, they liberated the country as well,” the paper stressed.

 During the Feb. 22 to 25, 1986 EDSA people power revolution that toppled the dictatorship, the paper pointed out that media organizations were in the forefront – informing, mobilizing and directing.

“What made this media ‘coup’ even more spectacular was that journalists were operating in a climate of fear and apathy created by years of repression,” the paper said.

“Many have concluded that the mass media played a crucial role in helping forge the ‘new’ Filipino who was not afraid to criticize the Marcos regime, became involved in the affairs of the nation and felt deeply concerned by its future,” it added.

Following the EDSA uprising and the installation of Ninoy Aquino’s widow Corazon as president, the SC ruled in 1987 that all laws must be made public.

The paper noted that Aquino kept her campaign promises: “One of the first acts of the new government was to free the media.”

“According to the pronouncements of President Aquino and key officials, the new government’s policies may be resumed as follows:  recognition of the people’s right to information; pluralism of ideas and recognition of the people’s right to be heard and to participate in development planning and implementation; privatization of the media; support and encouragement of media based in rural areas; coordination of government information services,” the paper said.

“For the media, liberation proved to be heady. Newspapers sprang up overnight and ran column after column on opinions and letters to the editor. Never before had the press, radio and television enjoyed such freedom,” it added.

The paper noted that the media promised the new president a 100-day “honeymoon” or up to June 5, 1986 to give her and her officials time to adjust and make the transition, but this lasted for only a month.

Despite “greater credibility,” the paper said the post-EDSA mass media was accused of sensationalism, misinformation and disinformation due to increased competition – the number of dailies had risen to 23. Divisions between the so-called Marcos loyalists and what served as the alternative media during the dictatorship also persisted.

There were 308 radio stations and 44 television stations, owned and operated by 96 companies. Of these, the government operated 25 radio stations nationwide and one television network. ABS-CBN was given back to its owners.

“Even the government is at a loss as to how to deal with the media. As (then) Press Secretary Teodoro Benigno said, ‘. . . If you move to control them, you are not practicing democracy. If you don’t move against them, the very democracy you want to protect might just crumble,” the paper stated.

Aquino herself once said jokingly: “Perhaps it was my mistake that I restored the freedom of the press . . . Adverse media reporting gives foreigners and Filipinos the impression that government policies do not do anyone any good…”

But Aquino also told the Press Foundation of Asia in April 1986 that “I would rather have a press that goes overboard than a censored press” even if reporters did not always get their facts straight, and media reporting sometimes took “destructive forms.”

Aquino revoked PDs 33 and 90, which led to the worst abuses against journalists and media institutions, and more than 500 political prisoners, many of them journalists, were released.