Beyond the five Ws and the H: Probing the ‘Binay incident’

By John Reiner M. Antiquerra

THE PHILIPPINE Daily Inquirer reported on Dec. 19, 2013 that Makati City mayor Junjun Binay had several security guards of Dasmariñas Village arrested for barring the exit of his convoy on Nov. 30, 1013 through a restricted gate. The media reported the incident, but failed to go beyond the basic Ws (who, what, when, where, and why) of news writing.

The Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR) monitored the media coverage of the incident, scanning news reports in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, and the Manila Bulletin as well as reports in the television news programs TV Patrol, 24 Oras, Aksyon, and Solar Nightly News from December 19 to January 15.

He said, she said

From December 19 to 31 the Inquirer provided the most number of reports with seven stories, while Solar Nightly News did not report on the incident. The GMA-7 news program 24 Oras aired the most number of reports with four compared to the other news programs.

The reporting wound down with the advent of the new year, resurging only when the Dasmariñas Village Association (DVA) announced the replacement of the Right Eight Security Agency with another security group.

The news stories on the incident tended to be “he said, she said” accounts, focusing on what the different parties—the Binay camp, the security agency, and the DVA—were saying. Some reports were about several lawmakers’ calling for the investigation of the incident.

There were reports about Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano calling for the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to investigate the incident while Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice said “he will introduce a resolution for a House investigation of the Dasmariñas scandal…” Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello said: “If they (guards) don’t (file charges), a profound apology to the guards, an oath before the Chief Justice never to do it again, plus compulsory attendance at a seminar on the proper behavior of public officials conducted by DILG head Mar Roxas would  suffice.”

There were aspects of the incident that should and could have been further investigated by the media; among them: whether or not a private village can restrict the use of passage ways in the area and whether public officials had a right to insist on their use of barred passages. The accounts were limited to quoting Vice-president Jejomar Binay asking for respect for his son, the mayor and another Binay family member, Senator Nancy Binay. Opinion pieces took up these issues, showing a broad consensus among columnists that public officials should not abuse their power and position, and follow rules that apply also to ordinary citizens.

Balance and fairness require all sides of a story to be given space and time. The episode involving Binay as a public official deserved to be given attention beyond just routine reporting.  Junjun Binay is not only the mayor of a major Philippine city—in fact the finance capital of the country—but also the son of the current vice president of the Philippines who had openly begun to campaign for the presidency. The story therefore should give us much information about their conduct. It was reported that Nancy Binay was in the convoy with the mayor.

Valenzuela City Mayor Rex Gatchalian took the younger Binay’s side, saying that “As the city mayor, [he has jurisdiction over the entire City of Makati], including Dasmariñas Village. They should remember that the village is not an independent state and he should be allowed to move freely within the city’s territorial bounds.” (VP Binay: My son deserves courtesy, Dec. 21, 2013). There was no mention of this freedom of movement anywhere in the city to be bound to the conduct of his duty. But there was no mention of the duty being fulfilled by the mayor or his sister at the time of the day.

The reports notably failed to give important information about the rights and responsibilities of private housing associations which manage these residential areas. It took a Letter to the Editor in the Inquirer to cite a provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9904 or the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Associations (Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Resolution No. 877) which allows homeowners to regulate access to village roads to put in context such sentiments as that of Gatchalian:

(Homeowner organizations can) Regulate access to, or passage through the subdivision/village roads for purposes of preserving privacy, tranquility, internal security, safety and traffic order: Provided, that: [1] public consultations are held; [2] existing laws and regulations are met; [3] the authority of the concerned government agencies or units are obtained; and, [4] the appropriate and necessary memoranda of agreement are executed among the concerned parties;

The reader, Reginald Tamayo, an assistant city council secretary of Marikina City, asked if DVA satisfied the following conditions. He also said allegations of abuse of authority can only be cleared through “an impartial and objective fact-finding body.” (Mayor Binay abused authority in Banyan gate?, Jan. 8, 2014)

Politicking

Some legislators did demand the investigation of the incident, among them Senator Alan Peter Cayetano. The news reports on these demands, however, were angled on the conflict between the two political families which have issues on governance and a territorial dispute— the Cayetanos of Taguig and the Binays of Makati—over who has jurisdiction over Bonifacio Global City, Taguig or Makati.

The newspapers and network programs monitored did not follow up the calls for an investigation and Congressional inquiry.

Citizens’ rights

Later accounts reported that the Binay camp denied that it caused the arrest of the security guards who had stopped the Binay convoy, while the Inquirer stood by its report. None of the reports touched on the rights of the security guards which were highlighted in the episode. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) clips released by the Inquirer online showed Binay security personnel cocking long arms and guns.

Reports quoted the Makati police saying that the security guards were “invited” by the Makati police to the precinct, but that they were not arrested. Some of the reports asked the police what the basis of this “invitation” was. Police said that they wanted to verify the license of firearms held by the guards. The Binay camp said the guards voluntarily went with the police for “clarification.”

Social media pointed out “abuse of power” on the part of Binay’s team and of the Makati police. The guards who stopped the Mayor’s vehicles were obviously only doing their duty.

CMFR expressed concern via social media on the possible repercussions to the security guards of media interviews. But none of the reports indicated that the media had even considered getting the side of the security guards who, because they were among the people directly involved, should have been interviewed for the sake of balance and fairness.

The effect of the incident on the guards was the subject of a column of Solita Monsod’s on the Inquirer on January 3. She reported her findings: that “as of Dec. 28 one guard went on leave. And the other three went on leave starting yesterday.” (‘Smell of fear’ in Makati, Jan. 4, 2014)

As an opinion piece, Monsod’s take on the subject could be criticized simply as a personal view. If the same had been reported in a news account, then these facts would stand on their own.

After the publication of the Monsod column, other media reports cited the January 14 circular of the DVA announced the replacement of the Right Eight Security Agency which was in charge of Village security during the during the November 30 incident. The Association said this was to “address the issue of loss of confidence due specifically to their handling of the incident last November 30, 2013, involving Mayor Binay.” It cited the following reasons for replacing the agency: “Unauthorized and inaccurate representation of DVA to the media in matters pertaining to the November 30 Banyan gate incident” and for citing “inaccurate policies involving VIPs.”

In the same circular, DVA said the security guards serving the village prior to the change of security agency “have been given priority to be absorbed by First Eagle Security to continue serving in Dasmarinas Village.”

Monsod wrote about the “fear” that motivated these changes, including the departure of the security guards on duty during the incident. CMFR thinks that the media should have probed this outcome and what it meant. If the Binays are aspiring to be the First Family of the land, their use of power, and their sense of entitlement, should be matters of public concern.

But none of the news reports took on the side of the citizens by addressing such concerns as how citizens can be protected against abusive public officials, given how often such instances of government officials’ abuse of power happen not only in Makati but also elsewhere in the Philippines.