Word War on Impunity

The exchange between press freedom advocates and Aquino officials reflects the underlying adversarity inherent in media’s relationship with government. But the talk on the issue of impunity has become a touch too hostile and a tad too touchy; with a superfluity of words that cannot help the cause, as too many are being said for effect rather than clarity. It is a kind of prickly situation that can push proponents to the edge from where it will make it difficult for everyone to move forward.

Recently, a number of press groups, including the Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR), had issued statements noting the rising number of journalists and media workers killed during President Aquino’s watch. A group of organizations gave PNoy the title of Impunity King.

In response to one of these statements, Secretary Sonny Coloma said, there is “no more culture of impunity” and questioned the inclusion of media workers, such as drivers, in the statistics.

Soon after, from November 29 to December 11, two Filipino journalists were killed in connection with their work; and another wounded in a shooting attack in Iloilo City. CMFR found the third killing of another journalist was not work-related.

In Tokyo to meet with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, President Aquino expressed his regret about the recent killings but he said this was not a “national catastrophe.” Published a few days later was a statement that said the President’s inaction makes him “as guilty as those who gave the orders to kill and those who pulled the trigger.”

I think both sides should cease and desist from blowing up this word war to explode into further absurdity and nonsense. Scoring rhetorical points and throwing around soundbytes can become an occupational distraction; none of which brings us closer to our goals.

The point is to get back on the same page in the understanding of impunity; because without this shared understanding, there response will lack systematic approach.

The word itself is not just about the repeated attacks against journalists. The word gets to the central problem; the failure to punish crime; as such failure emboldens others to do the same.

The context of impunity is best described as a culture, involving significant and visible aspects of our society:  the culture of violence, criminality and lawlessness, the low capacity for forensic investigation, the involvement of police and other law enforcement agencies in crime, and a dysfunctional court system.

The government figures in all of the above. We have pointed it out before, only the state can put an end to impunity. Only the state has that authority and power.

It is therefore important to engage officials in a constructive manner. This involves providing them with facts and context, which advocates have more of, having studied the issue far longer than most officials. CMFR’s case studies lead to a brutal assessment of the failure of law and order, the disregard of officials, especially in the local level; even more in the remote areas, for the law they are supposed to uphold.  Given some of these cases, it is obvious that so much needs to be done to counter impunity.  There is no one simple solution, no silver bullet to kill the culprit.

The advocates and other NGOs, even ordinary people – all have a significant role to play as stakeholders, primarily as sources of information and of broad societal pressure. But in the end, it is the willingness of officials at the highest level to respond to this with a comprehensive response, a broadly stated policy perhaps. The government has to do more than what it has done; because the impact of such unpunished criminality on our public spaces and our way of life, is simply catastrophic.

The need then is for all our cooler selves to come to the table with no other agenda but to convince one another that the killing of journalists is not just a sectoral issue. It reflects on the rate of murder in the country that in 2009 reached 14 daily. This only includes those that are reported. So many killings go unreported and are not reflected in national statistics.

The shame of it lies in the failure of the government to establish a level of law and order for the protection of its citizens. And obviously, we cannot blame the Aquino government alone for a historic failure.

The campaign to end impunity is anchored on the killing of journalists; because the monitoring of these killings is being done systematically; so much so that some solutions become obvious, emerging from the experience and knowledge about cases. Journalists in this country are numerous, a visibly influential community. Many become moving targets in an environment of guns and violence.

The killings of journalists make news.  Which is why the campaign to stop the killings of journalists can lead to the greater good gained for all – the protection and public safety of all citizens. Putting a stop to impunity is to protect not just journalists, but all Filipinos.

How can we fail to sit at a table and have sane conversation about what to do about that?