Palace, Senate collision course in media
Are political stories all about mudslinging, accusations and counter-accusations? Is there a better and more constructive way of covering bickering politicians?
The answer can probably be best illustrated by the coverage of the controversial Executive Order 464 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
EO 464, which prohibits administration, military and police officials from appearing in congressional hearings without the approval of President Arroyo, was Malacañang’s move to block Congress’s alleged “disguised impeachment proceedings” and inquiries in “aid of destabilization.” It was issued on the day Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani and Col. Alexander Balutan of the Marines testified before the Senate on the alleged wiretapped conversations of President Arroyo and elections commissioner Virgilio Garciliano, among others.
Reportage on the controversial EO highlighted the tension between the President and the senators more than anything else. The impact of the anticipated collision course between the executive and the legislative branches of government was magnified in the press as every tirade of Mrs. Arroyo against the Senate was made headline material.
Media got carried away by the controversy and, at one point, failed to check the facts before going to town with their story. The day after EO 464 was issued, government lawyer Efren Gonzales attended a Senate hearing on the North Rail project. The press reported that Gonzales was punished and his office was padlocked. Only the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the late night news program Saksi checked and visited Gonzales’s office. There, the staff told them that the lawyer’s office was padlocked to secure the documents under his care. The Gonzales’s superior, however, said he could face dismissal for violation of EO 464. Even if that were the case, media still jumped to conclusion and were way ahead of the day’s story.
Media had different takes on EO 464.
GMA-7’s 24 Oras did a special report on the legislative hearings and noted that despite the numerous jueteng hearings in the Senate, no bill has been filed yet (“Congressional hearings, may silbi ba?” Sept. 30)
The Daily Tribune went for a more hysterical headline—it warned of a military uprising and the ouster of the President because of EO 464. As back up, the report used a statement of Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, who said that several military officials were ready to defy EO 464.
Business newspapers zeroed in on the negative impact of the EO and the conflict between Malacañang and the Senate on the economy (“Economy at the receiving end of politicking,” BusinessWorld, Oct. 4; “Biz leaders: stop Palace, solon’s row,” BusinessMirror, Oct. 7).
One bright spot about the reportage was the effort to get the opinion of legal experts on the constitutionality of EO 464. One of the most quoted, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, questioned the legality of the presidential order in his Inquirer column (“Executive privilege or executive folly?” Oct. 3).
Reacting to those questioning the legality of EO 464, Manila Standard Today columnist Emil Jurado observed that “it is also unconstitutional to subject a person to unwarranted aggravation, public humiliation, and in short, deprive him of his rights” (“Issue in GMA-Senate faceoff,” Oct. 4).
An editorial, also in Manila Standard Today,posed a hair-splitting argument. It said that EO 464 did not really ban officials from attending hearings but only ordered them to ask permission from the President before appearing in congressional inquiries (“EO 464 in context,” Oct.13).
Comments are closed.