Jesse Robredo and Press Freedom Cities

It is clear from the outpouring of messages on social and traditional media that the public has recognized Jesse Robredo’s gift to the Filipino people, their government and the culture of Philippine politics. Genuine praise has come quickly and generously, even during the vigil when his fate was still uncertain. People meeting one another during the long holiday weekend were quick to note the quick darkening of the mood as the nation awaited more news about the crash and rescue operations which promptly followed.

It is in Naga that his legacy lives, holding the promise of similar possibilities in other places. His election as its mayor quickly revived and renewed a city which had stagnated, with little to show of its potential. His work ethic enlivened Naga’s civil servants. Responding to a range of public needs, he started public information efforts which would soon be a model for others, his management style was efficient and effective. Access to information was a critical instrument employed to insure transparency and the seminars held by the Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR) presented the example of Naga’s online programs as a model that should be adopted to facilitate public knowledge of how public monies are spent.

I did not really get to know him well and so will leave it to others to talk about his virtues as a government official, and there are many among his peers in the Cabinet and the Liberal Party, his staff, and other civic leaders who saw him in action.

But we were about to work together on yet another innovation which would have made Jesse Robredo a strong and enthusiastic ally.

CMFR and the others involved in the work of counter impunity, media defense, and humanitarian assistance to besieged journalists and survivors of the slain had gained some successes since the formation of Freedom Fund for Filipino Journalists (FFFJ) as a network in 2003: the conviction of four journalist killers in two cases, 13 cases in court to prosecute other suspects, and the ongoing trial of the primary suspect in the massacre of 58 persons were great strides in this most difficult endeavor. But the slow movement of cases in the courts, the difficulty of supporting witnesses and sustaining their testimonies—these along with the larger culture of violence that inheres in so many aspects of Philippine society made us feel we were stumped and stalled in the dead ends and blind alleys of our political culture and judicial system.

In a meeting early this year with Secretary Robredo, I shared with him CMFR’s attempt to study cities that were free of journalist killings in the line of duty or at least had a low incidence of attacks and threats against media workers. Other aspects to evaluate were the city government’s efforts to establish transparency and public information programs and other mechanisms to facilitate the work of journalists, and to engage in a positive and constructive manner a lively and vibrant local press—much as he had tried to do during his terms of office as mayor of Naga.

He was interested and we promised to keep the connection alive, having in mind the possible cooperation of the Department of Interior and Local Government in naming these cities as outstanding sites of press freedom. No commitments at the time, there was nothing definite. We had agreed CMFR would share their database on killings and other attacks and threats, as well as our recommendations for government action on impunity so that he could think more about how the lessons it held could be incorporated in the framework of local governance. The Philippines had also notoriously ranked third in the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) global index on impunity from 2010 to 2012.

The city has been the focus of study as well as the locus of efforts to promote transformation and reform for good reason. The city presents those characteristics and aspects of community, infrastructure, an economic base that altogether could enable its populace to absorb as well as undertake change and innovation. The ideas put to test with huge success in Naga could be easily replicated in other cities in Philippine provinces. Given his exemplary stint as a city executive and his open approach to new ideas, I felt secure that CMFR had opened a new door in our search of solutions to the problems both in impunity as well as those that plague government and press relationships.

Secretary Robredo took calls on his cellphone and set dates on the calendar himself. But I knew he was overworked and had more urgent issues confronting him in DILG. I did not press when he had to cancel appointments and understood that he would have to place our project on a back burner as he attended to other un-scheduled responsibilities raised by serial disasters in the past year. I did not think it right to press. But I was confident that when the time came, he would engage the network of press freedom advocates as partners in the search, perhaps, even the creation of Awards for Press Freedom Cities in the Philippines.

His death has put our experiment on hold as it has dashed other hopes and dreams for an even larger role for him in Philippine politics—one that would secure and fulfill the present promise for progress and reform. A shared faith teaches us to be grateful as we grieve, to be thankful that he was once among us. And we can only pray that his legacy in government service did not perish in the fatal crash; indeed, we can hope that his death can call others to see to it that his example becomes rooted in the culture of the people he committed to serve so selflessly.