THIS IS in a country which for several years claimed the dubious distinction of having the highest death rate of journalists in the world. And it is also a country that takes great pride in its press freedom.
In an article in the Philippine journalists' magazine Diarista, headlined "Philippine free press under siege", I discussed the case of Jose Burgos, a crusading journalist. The introduction read:
Jose 'Joe' Burgos, celebrated publisher-editor of the progressive tabloid daily We Forum, is the toast of Filipino journalists fighting to defend their threatened press freedoms. When he was arrested recently over allegations of libel in one of his columnist's articles, he refused to leave his office until he completed his editorial for the next day's paper - a hastily written piece about his arrest.
In his next editorial, Burgos was back with a more considered article entitled "Warrant of Arrest". "We're back behind our rusty but reliable typewriter, dear readers," he wrote, "after spending 20 hours under detention at the Quezon City police headquarters, courtesy of Judge Rica Lacson.
"Our arrest was all legal and the charges are for real, not trumped up. But the way the warrant of arrest was issued (without any warning even of the charges) by the judge makes me think that our judicial system needs to be placed under a microscope by legal minds."
Burgos -- founder-publisher of the crusading Malaya newspaper during the Marcos dictatorship, former acting governor of Ilocos Sur province and the recipient of international press awards -- delivered a taped message after his colleagues gathered for the national congress of the Philippine Movement for Press Freedom (PMPF).
He called on journalists to strengthen their ranks in the face of growing threats to press freedom. Burgos said that if a We Forum editor could be arrested without warning, others in the media industry could also be jailed.
On the basis of the Burgos arrest, it seemed that anybody could be arrested without an investigation if a case was filed directly by a complainant before a municipal trial court. And the judge has the prerogative, the final say, on whether to issue an arrest warrant or not - even without having heard the side of the accused.
As Burgos said at the time, "We've got the axe falling down on our necks - all neat and legal."
RIC VALMONTE, a leading labour rights lawyer, prominent radio commentator and president of the Philippine Movement for Press Freedom (PMPF), also urged journalists to become more involved in the issues of media freedom, censorship and professionalism.
He campaigned for the PMPF to strengthen its community alliance as part of its responsibility to the people "to whom the right of the freedom of the press really and ultimately belongs".
Founded in 1987 with only six charter members, the PMPF has expanded nationally with 20 member organisations from the print, radio and television industries as well as other press freedom advocates.
Among the movement's affiliates are the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), the Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Media ng Pilipinas (KAMMPI), the Philippine Union of Broadcasters (PUB), Asosasyon ng mga Komentarista at Anawnser sa Pilipinas (AKAP) and the Press Photographers of the Philippines (PPP).
In December 1989, then President Corazon Aquino invoked emergency powers following an abortive nine-day military coup attempt which left more than 100 people dead.
The first casualty of the emergency powers appeared to be the free press which had bloomed since Marcos was ousted. At the time, journalists regarded the crisis as the gravest threat to their freedom since Marcos.
Being a journalist is a high-risk occupation -- three Filipino journalists were killed during 1989, seven died in 1990, with a post-Marcos death average of six a year until Fidel Ramos became president. Although risks have continued for Filipino journalists, the civil wars in Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia and in Somalia later became far more dangerous for reporters.
The downside of the vibrant and open Philippine news media environment has been the sensationalist and lurid preoccupation of some tabloid-style newspapers and broadcasters with trivia, sex and crime.
As noted University of the Philippines journalism educator Dr Crispin Maslog says, along with the country's media freedom has developed excesses of irresponsibility and a loss of credibility similar to that unleashed by the extreme British tabloids.
In his book Communication, Values and Society, Maslog laments: "In their effort to capture their share of the market, these newspapers try to outscoop each other. In their effort to be the first with the news, they sometimes sacrifice accuracy. In their attempt to attract readers, they often become sensational. In short, they do things which affect their major asset - their credibility."
A national survey of the major roles of the Philippine press in mid-1987, about a year after the pro-democracy revolution, indicated that the biggest majority of readers (89.8 per cent) considered the Philippine press plays an important role in informing the public about society.
This was followed by a perception that the Philippine press plays an important role in national development (85.6 per cent) and that it also plays an important role as critic/financial scrutineer of government (83.6 per cent).
Another high-ranking concern was that the Philippine press protects the interests of the common people (70.6 pr cent). The highest ranked negative perception was that the Philippine press prints too much gossip, rumor and unverified reports (44 per cent).
The high rating in credibility and performance was probably due, the report suggested, to the "reservoir of goodwill for the alternative press which valiantly fought the Marcos dictatorship during the last years of martial law". A similar survey now would most likely find a greater degree of cynicism or scepticism among the public.
THE PHILIPPINE Press Council's work has been hampered by problems such as bitter divisions about its identity. Nevertheless one of the innovative features that contrasts with its equivalent in Australia, Britain, Fiji (recently established) and New Zealand is the concept of a readers' advocate, or "ombudsman". The idea of an ombudsman, borrowed from the United States was adopted in 1988.
The first 18 ombudsmen became the core members of the Philippine Press Council and were sworn into office by the chief justice. An ombudsman's role, according to the Organisation of Newspaper Ombudsmen, is to:
- Improve the fairness, accuracy and accountability of the newspaper.
- Enhance its credibility.
- Strive to improve its quality.
- Make the newspaper aware of the concerns of, and issues in, the communities served by it.
The ombudsman serves as an in-house critic, representing the reader who has suggestions, questions or complaints. The ombudsman also alerts the editor to all complaints, investigates them, and recommends corrective action when needed.
If journalism is to be professionalised, its practitioners must adhere strictly to a code of ethics. Since journalism in the Philippines largely follows the American tradition - including the first amendment -- the ethical code followed by Filipino journalists is largely similar to the United States.
In the Philippines, censure of journalists by their colleagues has been rare. But there has been an informal process for dealing with complaints.
Compared to the Australian, New Zealand and Papua New Guinean codes of ethics, the Filipino one is a comprehensive and impressive document. Clause 10, for example, deals with unethical behaviour by editors and publishers, saying journalists should "only accept such tasks as are compatible with the integrity and the dignity of my profession, invoking the 'conscience clause' when duties imposed on me conflict with the voice of my conscience".
But Clause 11, in my experience in Manila, is rarely observed - it forbids the "ambush interview", frequently the only way to catch a senior government official.
David Robie is Lecturer in Journalism at the University of Papua New Guine's South Pacific centre for Communication and Information in Development (SPCenCIID). This article was developed from a paper presented at the "Freedom at the Crossroads: The Media and the Constitution" seminar in Port Moresby, 29-February-1 March 1996.
