The media fights back

Because of the recent political events the government has raised its iron hand and directed it toward the media as well. Are we the enemy?

As I write this, media groups and individuals are in court making a petition for certiorari, prohibition and declaratory relief. Time constraints prevented me from signing the petition but one of the media groups I am affiliated with signed as one of the petitioners.

The decision to file a petition was made after two meetings between the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and media practitioners. The contents of the petition were fully discussed with the parties concerned and substantial changes were made to ensure that the petition addressed the concerns of both print and broadcast journalists.

Rarely do journalists go to court for reasons connected with their work. Why did the media go to court? Here is a technical summary of the objectives. This could be very instructive for those who are not in the legal profession.



-To declare that the Executive Department, represented by the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Justice, the Director General of the Philippine National Police, the Chairman of the National Telecommunications Commission and their officers, agents or other persons acting under their authority or supervision, have no lawful power, authority or jurisdiction to prohibit the publication or airing of news and commentary based upon its contents.

Only a court, with its accompanying due process safeguards, may impose content-based prior restraints, when the grounds therefore are duly proved.

-To prohibit the Executive Secretary, the Philippine National Police, the Department of Justice, and the National Telecommunications Commission from imposing any form of content-based prior restraint on the press, be it formal or informal, direct or in the form of disguised or thinly veiled threats of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution.

The threat of official intervention—in the form of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution—is just as damaging to a free press as the fact of it.

-To annul and set aside the issuances of the NTC that prohibit the press from airing or broadcasting news and commentary that, in the NTC's sole and unfettered discretion, are "subversive," which "tend" to propose or incite sedition or rebellion, or which constitute "rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments, information, interviews and other similar or related materials."

NTC does not have any lawful power, authority or jurisdiction to prohibit these, much less judge what is subversive (when the crime of subversion has long been repealed), what merely "tends" to propose or incite sedition or rebellion (whatever that means to the NTC), and what constitutes "rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments and the like (whatever that means to the NTC).

The dangers of un-reviewable administrative actions that impose prior restraints on the press are as ancient as dictators. The petitioners seek the intervention of the Court to stop the use of the strong arm of the law to exclude speech as protected by the Constitution.

The petition is not hinged on declaration of state of national emergency; hence lifting of Pres. Proc. 1017 does not in any way affect the nature and objectives of the petition.

The petitioners are media organizations, journalists and broadcasters, and members of the academe.

The respondents are Eduardo R. Ermita, Executive Secretary; Raul Gonzales, Secretary of Justice; Arturo Lomibao, Director General of the Philippine National Police; Ronald Olivar Solis, Chairman of the National Telecommunications Commission.

The venue is the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear petitions for declaratory relief.

FLAG has concerns over the current composition of Supreme Court, most of whose members were appointed by Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. FLAG also has concerns over the outcome of petitions challenging Pres. Proc. 1017.

As the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) explained, the petition asserts media's rights against any censorship or prior restraint that are protected under the Constitution. Whether Pres. Proc. 1017 has been lifted or not the petition proceeds. It holds executive officials Ermita, Lomibao, Solis and Gonzalezresponsible for pronouncements and issuances that seek to impose restrictions on the media.

The petition asserts that "only a court, with its accompanying due process safeguards, may impose content-based prior restraints." The petitioners therefore ask the court to prohibit the officials mentioned from "imposing any form of content-based prior restraint on the press, be it formal or informal, direct or in the form of disguised or thinly veiled threats of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution."

Only the courts, after due process, and not any executive agency, have the right to impose restrictions on media content.

CMFR and other media groups like the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, the Philippine Press Institute, and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines signed as corporate entities. Other media groups and individuals journalists have joined in the battle.

All are one in saying, ``Never again.’’