PH has a “worse state” of press freedom

On April 22, a newspaper’s headline screamed that press freedom in the Philippines is in a worse state, according to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) —a Constitutional body which had maintained its independence from those in power.

A statement of CHR spokesman Atty Jacqueline Ann de Guia said journalists and other media practitioners are holding the line to defend accountability in a democracy, most especially in an environment that tends to tolerate impunity.

The 2021 World Press Freedom Index released by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) suggests that the Philippines is facing a worse state of press freedom as it slipped from 136th in 2020 to 138th this year, out of the 180 countries surveyed.

Consistently, and on repeated occasions, the CHR has expressed grave concern over the worsening state of media freedom in the country and calls out the State’s long history of suppressing various forms of free speech and truth-telling.

This is concretely reflected in a wave of persecutions directed towards journalists and media institutions, as a recurring theme in the current administration’s actions and pronouncements.

Legal suppressions

It is also alarming to note that some pieces of our legislation, such as the Cybercrime Prevention Law and the Anti-Terrorism Act, pose legitimate threats to further threaten freedoms of speech and expression, particularly in articulating political sentiments or dissent.

This is an overt way of silencing criticisms toward government actions, or the lack thereof, in matters affecting public interest.

Moreover, the government has afforded to shut down ABS-CBN, a major broadcasting network in 2020, amidst a national health crisis depriving people access to timely and relevant information.

Vaccine to disinformation

In the spirit of National Broadcasters’ Month this April, we highlight how journalists’ work indeed is the vaccine to disinformation and misinformation.

In a time of a global pandemic, their job has never been more important to tackle the science surrounding the public health crisis, and in ensuring fair and honest inquiry about issues concerning the health and safety of the people.

The RSF report sends a firm message that the current political climate exacerbates the danger and fears over the erosion of democratic and press freedom during these uncertain times.

The CHR urged the government to provide legal protection to the members of the press while they perform their duty as the fourth estate, and to expedite the investigation of media-related killings and attacks.

Such hostile treatment to journalists echoes the censorship and human rights violations that beset our nation during the martial law rule, in which we say: “Never Again.”

If the government is true to its commitment in upholding its human rights obligations, it shall hold hand with a free press in ensuring a meaningful, transparent, and responsive engagement with its citizens based on fact, reason, and science.

“The persecution of the media has been accompanied by online harassment campaigns orchestrated by pro-Duterte troll armies, which also launched cyberattacks on alternative news websites and the site of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, in order to block them,’’ RSF said in its report on the Philippines.

The RSF classified the Philippines as having a “bad” environment for journalism.

Biased application of law

Although the Philippines transitioned from authoritarian rule in 1986, the rule of law and application of justice are haphazard and heavily favor political and economic elites.

Long-term violent insurgencies have continued for decades, though their threat to the state has diminished in recent years. Impunity remains the norm for violent crimes against activists and journalists, and President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs since 2016 has led to thousands of extrajudicial killings.

In July, the Anti-Terrorism Act., with broad definition of terrorism, took effect prompting intense criticism and numerous petitions requesting that the Supreme Court rule on the law’s constitutionality.

President Duterte’s notorious drug war continued throughout the year, and killings increased by 50 percent during the initial months of pandemic-induced lockdown.

Patronage politics

Distribution of power is heavily affected by patronage and kinship networks.

In the past 30 years, political dynasties have expanded. Groups competing for party-list seats are frequently dominated by traditional political families, and recent elections have resulted in an increasing concentration of power in the hands of a few families.

Election-related funding also contributes to the concentration of power: there are no limits on campaign contributions, and a significant portion of political donations come from a relatively small number of donors.

Social media platforms, especially Facebook, have been weaponized and exploited by Duterte and his supporters. In October 2020, Facebook removed hundreds of accounts for violating its policy against “coordinated inauthentic behavior on behalf of a foreign or government entity.”

One network originated in China, while another, which was linked to the Philippine police and military, criticized activists and the political opposition.

Without challenging the findings, Duterte issued vague threats regarding Facebook’s operations in the country.

The Constitution provides for freedoms of expression and the press. Private media are vibrant and outspoken, although content often lacks fact-based claims or substantive investigative reporting.

The country’s state-owned television and radio stations cover controversial topics and sometimes criticize the government, but they too lack strict journalistic ethics.

While the censorship board has broad powers to edit or ban content, government censorship is generally not a serious problem in practice.

One of most dangerous for press

The Philippines remains one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists, and the president’s hostile rhetoric toward members of the media exacerbates an already perilous situation.

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) found attacks and threats on the media have continued relentlessly throughout the Duterte administration, and that there had been no major efforts by state agencies to investigate serious incidents or otherwise address the problem.

A coalition of media groups documented 128 attacks and threats against the press between July 2016 and April 2019, including physical attacks; threats, including death threats and bomb threats; smearing journalists as conspiring against the government; red-tagging; and distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on alternative media sites.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 9 journalists have been killed in the Philippines in connection with their work since 2016, including three in 2020.

The majority of violent attacks remain unpunished.

In December 2019, however, a trial court found dozens of defendants guilty for the brutal massacre of 58 people, including 32 journalists, in Maguindanao in 2009. Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., the most prominent defendant, was sentenced to life in prison.

Other obstacles to press freedom include Executive Order 608, which established a National Security Clearance System to protect classified information, and the Human Security Act, which allows journalists to be wiretapped based on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. Libel is a criminal offense, and libel cases have been used frequently to quiet criticism of public officials.

Government transparency remains limited despite some positive initiatives. Local governments have been required to post procurement and budget data on their websites, and the national government has instituted participatory budgeting at various levels.

The country’s first freedom of information directive was issued by Duterte in 2016, but it mandates public disclosure only in the executive branch and allows major exemptions.

Duterte has refused to release a filing known as a statement of assets and liabilities and net worth (SALN); all previous presidents made the disclosure, pursuant to a 1989 law.

In September 2020, the Ombudsman restricted public access to government officials’ SALNs, asserting they were being “weaponized,” and announced that the office was no longer conducting “lifestyle checks” that investigate officials’ apparent unexplained wealth.

Tags: #commentary, #columns, #BareTruth, #pressfreedom