As the days go by, the bandwagon effect is in full swing, with more people announcing their intentions to take legal action because of a newspaper article was published based not on mere hearsay, but a legal affidavit. Gianna Toboni penned a piece on press freedom in the Philippines for media company Vice earlier this year, where she quoted Human Rights Watch emergencies director Peter Bouckaert, who said, “The reason why they are self-censoring is because they’re afraid for their lives.”  

It is not just a matter of avoiding assassination, but prosecution as well.

It has been seen in the past, with local reporters from various publications appearing to form a pact on what not to cover, in a supposed effort to appease certain individuals. One past instance, the newspaper ran a story that defied “the agreement,” which resulted in the subject of the piece canceling a press briefing and the other members of the reporter pool angry at the writer.

In this particular case, whether or not the content of the document was factual, it is a statement that was delivered under oath. The job of determining whether or not the individual perjured him or herself rests in the hands of a court; a journalist is merely telling a story – had there not been a legal document, then perhaps there is some legitimacy behind the effort to suppress local media.

Manila-based crime reporter Aie Balagtas See explained her characterization of being a journalist to Toboni, saying, “We are daily historians.”

“As historians, you’re a mirror,” Balagtas See went on to say. “You put that mirror to the society’s face and tell them.”

In the same way numerous members of the Philippine House of Representatives and Senate support implementing punishments for the proliferation of “fake news,” it appears to be a notion shared by local officials, considering a report by Reporters Sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders) earlier this year, calling such legislation as “[providing] leeway to allow for the broadest possible censorship.”

The report also echoes the sentiment made by Bouckaert regarding the situation for journalists in the Philippines.

“In Egypt, journalists are frequently accused of disseminating false information whenever they criticize the government, or report on sensitive issues that upset it,” the report said. “This widespread practice leads to self-censorship among journalists in their coverage of events for fear of joining the long list of colleagues who have been prosecuted and imprisoned.”

Perhaps the basis for why local reporters seem to walk on eggshells when it comes to delivering the news.

In an article for media organization Ted, Patrick D’Arcy spoke with free press advocate Trevor Timm, where the latter called a free press “the bulwark against secret government, against authoritarianism and against tyranny.”

Timm also discussed the perils of brandishing the phrase “fake news,” calling it “troubling” if “’fake news’ becomes shorthand for reporting that the government doesn’t agree with” – which has been illustrated in the Philippines on many occasions.

Unfortunately, it would appear an emphasis on ensuring everybody is happy, rather than telling the whole story, is the overriding method of local reporters. However, as Timm explained in his interview, “It’s not just journalists who are affected by the erosion of press freedom rights; it’s really the public that ultimately suffers.”

In a study by De La Salle University assistant professor Gary Mariano, he discussed how the state is impeding the rights of journalists in the Philippines.

“The downgrading of press freedom in the Philippines cannot be attributed directly to official state policy, but rather to the excessive use of defamation suits to silence criticism of public officials,” he wrote.

His study also took a look at Senate Bill 918, written by former Senator Edgardo Angara, father of current Senator Juan Edgardo ‘Sonny’ Angara, where he wrote, “While a newspaperman is free to share his views publicly on issues that affect our nation and our people, he remains unprotected from the risk of imprisonment.”

“The penalty of fine must be sustained, as we believed that libel must not go unpunished,” Angara explained. “To imprison a person convicted of libel might preclude him in the future from doing his job with zeal and critical eye.”

Mariano’s study mentions findings by Freedom House, a non-governmental organization, which boasts Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of former US President Franklin Roosevelt, as one of its founders, which “attributed the rash in the filing of libel suits against journalists to the downgrade of press freedom in this country.”

The study also identified positions taken by proponents of the bill, including the ability for journalists to say whatever they want without fear of harassment and journalist-respondents no longer being arrested when facing libel charges.

In terms of allowing journalists to say whatever they want, one would (once again) point to the phenomenon of “fake news.”

Philippine Press Institute (PPI) Executive Director Ariel Sebelleno spoke during a seminar at the L’Fisher Hotel back in August, where he questioned lawmaker intentions to regulate “fake news.”

“Have we become so stupid that fake news has to be stopped [by law]?” he asked.

Sebelleno said it is up to the reader to check the source, see if a specific story has been covered widely, review spelling and grammar, among other items in order to determine if something is “fake news.”

In the case of the local story, one can see the source was a legal document, which is a legitimate source. However, given the tendencies of government and the common practice tamping down on unfavorable news, the tepid reporter pool operating in the city – serving not the people, but the government – has, in effect, limited the dissemination of news stories unfavorable to elected officials; the type of environment Timm referred to as “troubling.”

The bills cited in Mariano’s study all expired in a previous session, however, in terms of SB 918, he recognized the benefits if were signed into law, although he believe it fell short in the true decriminalization of libel.

“Libel would remain covered by criminal procedure, which requires the arrest of defendants and the posting of bail,” he wrote. “And, once convicted, the journalists would have a criminal record.”

What they say about the media in the Philippines is very much true. At first, thought it was just about an industry that just did not look that deeply into stories because of partisan interests; now, it’s become clear those “interests” have only come about because of fear. As stated in the last column, where a journalist who worked in the field described her difficulties operating during Martial Law, implemented by former President Ferdinand Marcos, with the same descriptions of the industry then, mirroring today’s environment, it is difficult to see how officials condemn the era as one of despotism when many are utilizing the same tools./WDJ