Timothy Snyder, author of ‘On Tyranny,’ once said, “To abandon truth is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.”
A silent but fervent cry for freedom reverberates in the shadows of political complexity, where the past’s echoes intertwine with the present’s struggles. What happens when freedom of speech becomes a silent rebellion, a clandestine dance beneath the weight of a regime under the hands of a tyrant’s son? The rhetoric lies on whether the fight for freedom remains in the dark or whether the voices of those who speak and fight are finally given a place in the conversation.
Introduction
The Philippines, ostensibly operating under a democratic system, underscores the paramount importance of information mobilization and an individual’s right to access and interpret such information. However, in stark contrast with this democratic ideal, the Philippines is ensnared in an ongoing struggle between the populace and the government concerning preserving freedom of speech and the press.
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) under Article 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines states that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” This statement is a constitutional provision that emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights related to freedom of speech, expression, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances peaceably. In essence, it means that no legislation should be enacted to limit or curtail these essential democratic freedoms.
The government is prohibited from passing laws that infringe upon the citizens’ right to express themselves, communicate through various mediums, and peacefully gather to address their concerns or seek remedies from the government for perceived injustices. However, what should we do if such a law is not being followed and is often undermined by those in authority?
History of Freedom of Speech and the Press in the Philippines
Throughout history, the Philippines has constantly been grappling with human rights-related issues. In 1969, the country witnessed a turning point in the fight for free speech with the enactment of the Bill of Rights under the new Constitution. This marked a crucial milestone in recognizing and safeguarding the fundamental rights of Filipino citizens.
Freedom of Speech
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of The Philippines, Article III Section 4, asserts, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.” Despite this constitutional guarantee, certain instances curtail this freedom. More recently, The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 101750) has been enacted in the Philippines. Under this law, individuals could face imprisonment for posting online comments deemed “libelous.” Although the Philippine Supreme Court initially intervened to halt the implementation of the cybercrime law, government control over public speech persists.
Freedom of the Press
While the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to a free press, journalists in the Philippines have faced violent reprisals. Between 1986 and 2005, 52 journalists were murdered, raising questions about the genuine freedom of the press and the government’s commitment to protecting it. Global media community members addressed this issue in 2012 through The London Statement, calling for robust measures to safeguard journalists.
Currently, ongoing issues with The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and existing libel laws remain significant challenges to freedom of the press in the Philippines. Despite governmental online and offline restrictions, citizens are actively advocating for their rights to free speech and freedom of the press.
The Current State of Freedom of Speech and the Press
In 2021, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. set into office and was given the chance to reign and gain the presidential seat of the Republic of the Philippines. Following his inauguration, he addressed several focal points which the government would focus on in the next six years, with one focusing on addressing the problems concerning press freedom and the rights of journalists. Given the amount of struggle and obstacles dealt with by the media in the previous administration, the current government hopes to answer such issues. However, despite this promise, there is still little to no progress.
In 2023, the Philippines held the 132nd position among 180 nations, slightly surpassing the 130th mark, albeit a few spots higher than in previous years. This placement indicates a lack of significant advancement in addressing the prevailing issue. The stability of authority hinges on the practice of unrestricted speech and expression. Within a democratic framework, journalists and other media practitioners steadfastly uphold their role in safeguarding accountability, especially within an environment that fosters impunity.
In the Line of Fire: Challenges Faced by Journalists
In the contemporary landscape of the Philippines, journalists and media practitioners grapple with various challenges that collectively pose significant threats to freedom of speech and press freedom. Foremost among these challenges is the explicit threat of violence, particularly for those reporting on sensitive issues or exposing corruption. The fear of reprisals, including physical harm and even loss of life, forces many within the media industry to exercise self-censorship, limiting the free flow of information and hindering the public’s right to know.
Then-President Rodrigo Duterte took a concerning step by banning two journalists from entering the presidential palace, as reported by the independent news website Rappler. This ban, which follows a Senate hearing scrutinizing Duterte’s close aide, Christopher Go, for involvement in a questionable military contract, has drawn condemnation from the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP). NUJP characterized Duterte’s action as “appalling” and “anathema to democracy.” This clash adds to the persistent challenges faced by media professionals in the Philippines, where threats, legal pressures, and attempts to shut down critical outlets continue to undermine the ideals of a free press.
The evolving dynamics between the media and the government underscore the need for a robust and independent press to ensure transparency, accountability, and an informed citizenry. Playing a crucial role in ensuring accessibility and accuracy, media serves as a primary source of information for many. However, a concerning trend has emerged involving censorship and criticism directed toward journalists who dare to scrutinize the government’s actions. One notable target of such pressures has been the news outlet and platform Rappler, which has faced increased government scrutiny in recent years.
The arrest and subsequent legal proceedings against Maria Ressa, along with Rappler’s former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr., reveal a concerning pattern of attacks on press freedom in the Philippines. The government’s direct targeting of prominent journalists, including Maria Ressa, has intensified concerns about press freedom. Maria Ressa, the founder and CEO of Rappler, a leading news outlet, has been a vocal advocate for press freedom but has faced personal repercussions for her efforts. Notably, Ressa has been subjected to legal actions, including a high-profile arrest on cyber libel charges. These actions against Ressa highlight the precarious situation for journalists, where their duties are met with legal repercussions, posing a significant threat to the principles of a free and independent press.
Despite being granted provisional release on bail after an overnight detention, Ressa and Santos faced an uphill legal battle. On June 15, 2020, a Manila court delivered a verdict, marking them as the first journalists in the Philippines to be convicted of cyber libel. The conviction carried a potential penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to six years. This legal assault is not an isolated incident. Ressa, Santos, and Rappler’s directors face an array of other lawsuits and investigations, including alleged tax violations and violations of prohibitions against foreign control over mass media.
With political polarization and biased reporting present additional challenges, media outlets influenced by political affiliations or pressures contribute to disseminating biased information. This polarized media landscape makes it challenging for the public to access objective and diverse perspectives, hindering the democratic ideal of an informed citizenry. Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort from civil society, media organizations, and the international community.
Entangled in the Web of Red-Tagging and Persecution
Legal constraints complicate the practice of free speech in addition to overt threats. Journalists must negotiate a complicated legal environment while running the danger of being sued for their reporting due to legislative ambiguities and the possibility of selective enforcement. Character assassinations, misinformation operations, and cyberbullying have made digital platforms into battlefields due to the increase in online harassment and cyberattacks.
Since 2016, numerous individuals advocating for human rights, activists, and journalists have lost their lives following accusations of red-tagging. Leading up to the national election in May 2022, various journalists, activists, and rights organizations urged the incoming president-elect to cease this harmful practice. What is concerning, however, is that despite these calls, red-tagging and organized persecution persist unabated.
The issue of red-tagging in the Philippines has been a longstanding concern, reaching a critical point under President Rodrigo Duterte, particularly after the breakdown of peace talks in 2017. Duterte’s Executive Order 70, advocating for a comprehensive approach against local communist groups, led to the establishment of the National Task Force-End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and triggered a heightened campaign of red-tagging, threats, and harassment against various groups, including human rights defenders, activists, lawyers, and trade unionists.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, along with various human rights organizations, has urged an immediate end to this strategy, expressing apprehension about the broad counter-insurgency measures resulting in increased human rights violations. The Philippines, as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and. Political Rights (ICCPR) is obligated to safeguard fundamental rights, including life, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly.
Alongside these illegal preparatory acts came the Anti-Terror Law, which changed the government’s approach to press charges based on probable future criminal activity. Across the board, presumptions of innocence are undermined by governments’ reliance on pre-crime initiatives. The Philippine government must reaffirm its commitment to international human rights responsibilities while combating terrorism because of the profound influence that fear, alienation, and prejudice have on ideals of justice, equality, and non-discrimination. In the end, rights risk being violated by powerful authority. As stated by Human Rights Watch senior Philippines researcher Carlos Conde, “Red-tagging is a pernicious practice that targets people who often end up being harassed or even killed, …red-tagging is rapidly shrinking the space for peaceful activism in the Philippines.”
Addressing the Rhetoric
Since stepping into office, there has not been any notable progress seen from the government. The challenges the public and journalists deal with are still rampant and seen at present. As said by the International Press Institute (IPI), despite promises to improve press freedom, the first year of Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s presidency has shown little progress in safeguarding journalists’ rights in the Philippines. While Marcos Jr.’s election raised hopes for a more press-friendly environment compared to his predecessor, Duterte, who openly targeted and attacked journalists, the situation remains challenging. The president’s anti-press rhetoric has diminished, but violence against the press persists, with three journalists killed during Marcos Jr.’s tenure. Legal attacks, threats, and harassment, including cyber libel charges and “red-tagging,” continue, creating a lasting culture of fear among media professionals.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) reported 75 press freedom violations within the first ten months of Marcos Jr.’s presidency, surpassing the documented attacks during any year under Duterte. Despite some improvements, such as the end of the ban on Rappler reporters covering the Palace, the media still operates in a culture of fear. Key cases against journalists and media houses initiated under Duterte continue, including the detention of Frenchie Mae Cumpio and the rejection of Maria Ressa’s appeal in her cyber libel case. ABS-CBN, the largest media conglomerate, which shut down under Duterte, has yet to be reinstated nationally under Marcos Jr., causing a chilling effect on other newsrooms.
In the media realm, the Philippines currently holds the 132nd position out of 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index, marking its highest ranking in six years. Despite this seemingly positive development, concerns persist regarding the state of media under Marcos Jr.’s administration. Last July 24, 2023, Marcos Jr. had his second State of the Nation Address (SONA), in which hefailed to mention anything media-related despite the many calls to reassess protections for journalists and the problem with misinformation and disinformation. Despite not addressing media issues in his SONAs, President Marcos Jr. has previously assured journalists of protecting their rights.
The NUJP documented 84 attacks and threats against media workers from June 30, 2022, to July 22, 2023. Regrettably, three journalists were killed during this period—Rey Blanco in September 2022, Percival “Percy Lapid” Mabasa in October 2022, and Cresenciano Aldovino Bunduquin in May 2023. On July 14, police harassed three journalists from San Juanico TV covering a land dispute in Pastrana, Leyte, with gunshots fired in the vicinity. The Presidential Task Force on Media Security denied police involvement. Thus, it highlights a contradiction in Marcos Jr.’s support for the media and his family’s tendencies to use disinformation and online propaganda networks to further their agendas.
Roby Alampay, founder of PumaPodcast, notes that the Marcos Jr. administration has normalized many tactics to control the media used by Duterte. Transparency, access to information, and countering disinformation are still significant challenges. Marcos Jr. has limited his availability to independent journalists and shown little interest in liberalizing public access to information.
Where do we go from here?
In navigating the complex landscape of press freedom in the Philippines, the path forward demands concrete policies and initiatives. To effectively tackle the pressing challenges at hand, a comprehensive investigation and prioritization are imperative in the years to come. Ensuring the safety and security of the Filipino community hinges on the government playing an active role in safeguarding the rights and liberties of its people.
Dispute resolution, while essential, must not merely be a superficial endeavor. The government’s commitment to depart from past practices is crucial to avoiding the continuous erosion of the country’s legitimacy and integrity. Trust and transparency are indispensable pillars that must be upheld for the government to fulfill its duty as the head of the state. By amplifying these foundational elements, the government can foster an environment where its citizens feel secure in their rights and confident in the integrity of the state.
It is paramount to recognize the broader narrative beneath the surface of this issue. Trust and transparency encapsulate the bedrock of effective governance, and any deviation from these principles forces the populace to demand a higher quality of state governance. Addressing the current challenges requires the government to resolve disputes and rebuild and strengthen the trust between the state and its citizens.
Is the future bleak?
As we gaze into the future, the Philippines’ trajectory remains uncertain. Amidst the backdrop of global progress and transformative changes, the need to illuminate pressing issues becomes paramount. The pivotal question surfaces: will the courage to speak up cease to be a challenge? In times of political ambiguity, it becomes imperative for citizens to persist in their advocacy for rights and freedom. As active participants in our national identity and the international community, our role in contributing to the betterment of the world order necessitates a collective commitment to respecting and upholding fundamental rights.
The road ahead requires concrete policies for tackling challenges and prioritizing the safety of the Filipino community. Genuine dispute resolution, a departure from past practices, and upholding trust and transparency are crucial. These elements foster an environment where citizens feel secure in their rights and confident in the state’s integrity.
Ultimately, the concern lingers: will the courage to speak up be hindered? As political optimism wanes, the focus should be on nurturing unwavering advocates for freedom and rights. Upholding individual rights nationally and globally is vital for reshaping the international order. Amidst these challenges, there are glimpses of progress and potential avenues for collaboration and change. Encouragingly, there are voices advocating for freedom and rights, both within the country and on the global stage.
In conclusion, the future envisions voices echoing justice, equality, and freedom. Active participation in our national and global identity requires a collective commitment to respecting fundamental rights. This commitment plants seeds for positive change, promising a future where voices resonate with justice, equality, and freedom.
Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: Media reporters interview Armed Forces of the Philippines | Image sourced from Picryl