From the Newsrooms: Second teen killed by cops this month; More travel guidelines issued to curb trafficking

A rundown of key events and issues covered by newsrooms from August 21 to 27, 2023.

IN LESS than two weeks after the killing of 17-year-old Jemboy Baltazar made news, another teenager was shot and killed by the police in Rodriguez, Rizal. John Francis Ompad, 15, was shot outside his house on August 20. As told by the local police, the story was reported with no other sources on TV and online on August 25 and in newspapers on August 26. 

News accounts all included details in the police report and repeated by police in media interviews: John Ace Ompad, the 19-year-old brother of John Francis, was on his way home on a motorcycle when police in plainclothes and a civilian companion attempted to flag him. Refusing to stop, John Ace continued toward his home, later throwing his helmet to his pursuers. This provoked the cop to shoot at Ompad’s direction. John Francis went outside to check on the commotion and was hit in his abdomen.

Reports did note Ompad’s killing as the second reported killing of a teenager by the police this month. Enough newsrooms gave the story the prominence it deserved.

Media attention should scrutinize these cases that involve seemingly trigger-happy policemen in order to put a stop to such needless killings. The police are called to exercise the greatest care in the use of their firearms, and to avoid doing harm to citizens. In this case, the young victim was standing outside his home. There are rules and procedures designed to avoid such scenarios.

Yet, another form of threat and torment provoked concern and criticism from netizens in social media, which newsrooms were quick to report. As eager as Filipinos are to leave the country for greener pastures, the government seems set to make their departure as painful and punishing as possible. 

The bureaucratic nightmare imposed by the government on first time travelers could well hold back many Filipinos from queuing for departure. Once again, government has taken the easy way out, opting to penalize everyone in order to check those involved in human trafficking. Having bought a ticket and booked a flight, the traveler has to pass the hurdle imposed by immigration officials to prove that their travel had no connection with human trafficking. Social media have recycled all kinds of stories about the questions asked and documents required by immigration officials. The practice of checking illegal trafficking at this stage seems misplaced; as these officials seem to be asking questions as rote exercise and succeed only to harass and delay all departures. 

Despite this horror darkening the travel experience, it will probably fail to stop Filipinos from their travel plans, whether for pleasure, for education or for work as an OFW.

Taking effect on September 3, the new departure guidelines announced by the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT) were reported in mainstream accounts on TV, online and print last August 22 and 23. The sheer length of given guidelines set off a wave of protest and public criticism through social media.

Netizens noted the excessive documentary requirements. Self-funded tourists are required to present financial documents, while those whose trips are sponsored have to present papers to prove the sponsorship or relationship to the source of funds. 

Social media comments raised the question: Why is the burden of proof placed on the citizen traveler instead of the law enforcement agencies assigned to curb criminal activities? The sentiment surfaced: All this is to keep Filipinos at home. Government seems intent to prevent citizens from traveling. Actually, the observation that Bureau of Immigration (BI) is simply out to harass travelers may be closer to the truth. 

Numerous episodes have been recounted by travelers being held and interrogated by immigration officials, the delay causing travelers to miss their flights and be left in the airport with offloaded baggage. Some have taken to social media to recall having to provide proof of the traveler’s education, circulated with jokes about carrying one’s yearbook as proof of graduation. 

Media reports referred to the Department of Justice, head agency of the IACAT, clarifying that the guidelines were not really new and were only streamlined. Media picked up more assurances from the IACAT: Only first-time travelers will likely be subject to closer scrutiny; checking financial capacity will focus on visa-free countries, such as Myanmar and Cambodia, where recent trafficking cases were traced. The Philippine government has received distress calls from Filipinos in these countries, who said they were promised customer service and call center jobs but were forced to perform cryptocurrency scams targeting citizens of Western countries.

But migrant groups, lawmakers and other stakeholders held fast to their stand. Media cited the above sources who insisted that the requirements violate the citizens’ right to travel and to privacy, which are guaranteed by the Constitution. Joanna Concepcion, chair of group Migrante, pointed out that Philippine migration policies have been examined globally because it has been a leading exporter of labor. She said IACAT has not considered how these requirements “will surely fail a rights-based examination.”  

In an op-ed in The Freeman, Jerry Tundag also raised an interesting counterpoint: “The presumption of innocence has not been stricken off the Philippine Constitution. It is still there in Article III, Section 14 (2). So why are the majority of travelers being made to prove they are not traffickers or trafficked people in violation of their constitutional rights? Since when is a mere inter-agency council more powerful that the Constitution?”

Some House lawmakers called for the use of intelligence funds—a current subject of legislative debates—to address human trafficking more adequately.

Inquirer’s editorial on August 27 did well to remind the public that the BI’s own officers have connived with human traffickers, allowing them to pass immigration lines without question. At the same time, some foreigners had been granted entry to the country despite the lack of required valid documents, as reported in the “pastillas” scandal that a BI whistleblower made public. 

Media did not say it, but anyone who has traveled internationally knows that there are no cameras allowed in the immigration lines and booths, so there is no way of proving whether the immigration officers are resorting to arbitrary judgment about who should be held back or allowed to leave. 

More restrictions open up the process to arbitrary treatment of travelers, dependent only the whim or caprice of the official on duty. The situation seems to call for oversight of some higher authority—the Chief Executive, Congress or the courts—to check the excessive policy and the ease with which a traveler can be harassed. 

Newsrooms also reported the following developments: 

• The Office of the Ombudsman ordered on August 24 the dismissal from service and filing of graft charges against former and incumbent officials of the Procurement Service of the Department of Budget and Management (PS-DBM), in connection with the multibillion peso Pharmally scandal. Executives and some officials of the pharmaceutical company were also ordered charged.
  
• Finally, an admission that candidate Marcos’ campaign promise of lowering the price of rice to PHP20 a kilo is “difficult to achieve” was heard at the budget hearing for the Department of Agriculture (DA) last August 22. The undersecretaries attending said that the price could not be lowered to the level even in the next two years, and that they have not been able to ascertain price stability for the grain. DA Usec. Domingo Panganiban was cited in reports: “We are looking for solutions to the problems but not at this point in time.”