Crises and Scandals: A PUBLIC THAT’S NONE THE WISER

By the PJR Reports staff

THE PRESS clearly missed out important points on the biggest political crises that haunted the Arroyo presidency last year, although there were efforts to improve the coverage. Part of the reason: there were just too many scandals for reporters assigned to several beats to cover adequately.
From moves to amend the Constitution to the latest failed attempt to impeach Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to the fertilizer fund scam, the press thus hopped from one controversy (and beat) to another without closing the gaps and providing the public the much-needed context to enable it to connect the dots.

THE CHARTER CHANGE ISSUE
Given its long life (it’s been on the board for nearly a decade), the Charter change (Cha-cha) issue has enabled the press to look into most of the sub-issues attached to it—except one of the most important. The press has so far failed to provide the public any report on why government officials claim to be pushing for the amendment of the 1987 Constitution today—to chuck its “restrictive” economic provisions to address the global financial crisis.
The press deserved praise for discussing a variety of issues on Cha-cha. Most news reports and opinion pieces focused on the following angles: the term extension of incumbent officials, the personalities and organizations for or against Cha-cha, the anti-Cha-cha rally in Makati last Dec. 12, and which approach to take in revising the Constitution.
However, the press should have provided every information and argument available about the possible motives behind the revival of calls to amend the Charter and its consequences. Armed with sufficient knowledge, the public should be able to decide whether or not it will allow the proposed amendments.
PJR Reports reviewed the Cha-cha coverage three newspapers (Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer, and The Philippine Star), three news programs (TV Patrol World, 24 Oras, and Teledyaryo), and selected online news sites from Dec. 8 to 19.

Overlooked
On occasion, the press would mention that Cha-cha is supposedly being pursued by some of its advocates for economic reasons. But it has so far failed to look into this angle with any kind of depth.
House of Representatives Speaker Prospero Nograles filed House Resolution (HR) No. 737 which seeks to change Article XII Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution. This is the national economy and patrimony section of the charter. The resolution would “allow the acquisition by foreign corporations and associations and the transfer or conveyance thereto, of alienable public and private lands.” Nograles and supporters said the resolution would be the answer to the threats of recession and global financial crisis—despite the fact that such an amendment would be in keeping with the neoliberal approach that has led to the crisis.
The Star in one of its articles quoted Sen. Miriam Santiago thus: “My point is this, assuming the most innocent motive for Charter change (which) is to advance the Philippine economy by amending or revising our economic provisions, will it immediately produce results so as help the Philippine economy next year which will already be impacted by the (world) financial economy?” (“Speaker: NO GMA term extension”, Dec. 1).
William M. Esposo in his “As I Wreck This Chair” column in the Star asked whether the proposed Cha-cha economic reform would deliver “good governance, the rule of law, a predictable judiciary, peace and order, a climate of industrial peace, infrastructure that is at par with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) competitors, affordable energy and political stability” which he said attract foreigners to invest pushing for Cha-cha economic reform”, Dec. 11).
Another Esposo column last Jan. 4 also asked what kind of economic reforms the supporters of Cha-cha would introduce and what exactly they mean by “reform”. He also enumerated the questions that have troubled the critics of Cha-cha, the best characteristics of the present Constitution, and explained how the present charter came about.
Unfortunately, this kind of contextualization was rare. Much of the press did not ask how the Nograles resolution would help solve the country’s economic problems, and what the effect of allowing 100% land ownership by foreigners would be.
For the answers to these questions, and given the current economic crisis, an enterprising journalist could have asked Constitutional and law experts as well as economists to explain the rationale and consequences of the proposed changes. The press could have produced reports citing the experience of other countries which allow full foreign land ownership and studies that show the relationship among land ownership, investments, and economic. Equally crucial is information on the current debate among neoliberal economists and the neo-Keynesians who are divided over the question of whether state interference in economic matters is justified or not.

Other misses
The press barely discussed how the Constitution may be amended according to that document itself. Some background on constitutional conventions, constituent assemblies, and people’s initiatives would have helped.
Instead of amending the Constitution in its entirety, some members of the House of Representatives have proposed to change some of its provisions through the enactment of bills. The press should have also looked into the legality of this move.
In a Star report, La Union Rep. Victor Ortega said there are at least 30 Cha-cha resolutions submitted before the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments (“House panel to resume Cha-cha hearing on January 27”, Jan. 4). The press did not bother to mention what the most relevant ones were, or even to verify if there are indeed these many resolutions pending before the House committee.

To stay in power
Most reports on Cha-cha were about the possible term extension of incumbent officials including Arroyo. The press paid appropriate attention to this particular aspect of the issue as a key reason why many oppose amending the Constitution now. It would have helped the public better grasp the concerns of some groups and individuals if the press emphasized the inconsistencies in the statements of the Cha-cha advocates among Arroyo officials.
For instance, if not for human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares, HR 550 filed by Batangas Rep. Hermilando Mandanas would not have been known. The resolution aims to postpone the 2010 presidential elections to 2011 at the same time extend the terms of office of all elective officials including the president by a year. This was contrary to the statements released by several government officials that there were no plans to extend the term of the president and other incumbent officials. Mandanas has withdrawn the resolution.

Forewarning
As what happens often, some reports and commentaries provided the missing pieces in the Cha-cha coverage.
The political year-ender of Bulatlat.com, “The Arroyo Government: Struggling to Survive till 2010 and Beyond” by Benjie Oliveros explained why Arroyo would most probably not want to step down in 2010. The analysis included discussions on the different controversies that hound the Arroyo administration and concluded that her probable reason for staying in power is the immunity that protects the sitting president from suits (Dec. 20, http://bulatlat.com/main/2008/12/20/the-arroyo-government-struggling-to-survive-till-2010-and-beyond/).
The press kept a watchful eye on the Supreme Court’s role in Cha-cha. Several reports noted that with the forthcoming retirement of seven justices, Arroyo’s appointments could tilt the balance to her favor before 2009 even ends. Aries Rufo’s “Supreme Court: GMA’s last card to extend term beyond 2010” explored the possibility of the administration’s tinkering with the Constitution and allowing the president to stay in power beyond 2010 with Supreme Court approval. (Jan. 3, http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/02/09/supreme-court-gma’s-last-card-extend-term-beyond-2010).

UNIMPEACHABLE
The renewed moves to amend the Constitution came on the heels of the most recent impeachment complaint against Arroyo.
The press did cover the latest attempt to oust Arroyo from the presidency, but much of the coverage relied on “high-profile” personalities involved in the controversy and their statements. More than evident was press fatigue over covering the impeachment complaints that are annually filed against Arroyo.
The Manila broadsheets and much of television news focused on the accusation by Pangasinan Rep. and former Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. that Arroyo bribed him and other lawmakers during a meeting in Malacanang on Oct. 11, 2007 to support a weak impeachment complaint against her. That complaint, filed by lawyer Roel Pulido, was eventually dismissed by the House of Representatives then headed by De Venecia.
De Venecia, a former administration ally, also linked Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel to the controversial national broadband network (NBN) deal with Chinese firm Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corp. De Venecia was ousted as House Speaker in Feb. 2008 after a falling out with Arroyo. During his speakership, the administration-controlled House of Representatives had dismissed all impeachment complaints against Arroyo since 2005.
The Manila newspapers emphasized the views of De Venecia, who endorsed the complaint. His son, Jose “Joey” III, who had earlier exposed alleged irregularities over the NBN deal, joined in filing the latest impeachment complaint against Arroyo.
The press did not pay much attention to the groups and personalities who had put the complaint together or who co-sponsored it. For example, many reports kept referring to the suit as either the “De Venecia complaint” or “the complaint filed by Joey de Venecia III”, even if there were other complainants. These complainants included Karapatan deputy secretary general Roneo Clamor; the Kilusang Mayo Uno’s Elmer Labog; missing activists’ mothers Edita Burgos, Concepcion Empeño, and Erlinda Cadapan; lawyer Harry Roque Jr.; Iloilo Vice Gov. Rolex Suplico; former government officials; and representatives of various civil society groups.
Except for the NBN-ZTE deal and alleged Palace payoff, the other charges against Arroyo were either not addressed at all or were only minimally covered. These included the rampant human rights violations during Arroyo’s watch and the gold reserves contract for Mt. Diwalwal.
In an interview with PJR Reports, Roque agreed that most media reports implied that the impeachment was a “project” of the De Venecia father and son. And yet, “Hindi naman talaga totoo dahil napakalaki ng sektor na nirepresent ng mga complainant (That is not true, since the sectors represented by the complainants wide were broad),” he told PJR Reports.
Missing in the coverage of the last impeachment complaint was the presentation and discussion of issues, Roque added, and that the impeachment process was not explained to the people. “Hindi masyadong na-emphasize iyong constitutional office nung impeachment at naging, again, personality-oriented dahil sa mag-amang De Venecia. Marami rin namang pumupuna na parang namarginalize ’yung iba’t ibang sector na naghain ng impeachment complaint (The constitutional office of the impeachment was not given enough emphasis and the issue became personality-oriented because of the De Venecias. A lot of people noticed that the other sectors who presented the impeachment complaint were marginalized.).”
The media should be conscious to the fact that the impeachment complaint was not just conceptualized and filed by one person, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan Secretary General Renato Reyes said. “(The press) should be conscious also that the impeachment was not being advanced by only one person but by many groups, many individuals affected by the Arroyo regime.”
Former Arroyo official Corazon “Dinky” Soliman shared a similar view. The press tried to sensationalize the coverage and made it personality-oriented, said Soliman, who resigned as social welfare secretary along with other Cabinet officials at the height of the “Hello Garci” scandal in 2005. The coverage should not have focused solely on Joey de Venecia, but more on the fact that the complaint would not succeed just like previous attempts. The press did not explain that the impeachment bid is a constitutional process that is the right of every citizen, she told PJR Reports.

Because De Venecia’s statements and reactions were all over the coverage, some readers and viewers could not be faulted for thinking that he was the initiator of the complaint, that he was just getting back at Arroyo for his removal from the speakership by her House allies, and that, over all, it was just another pointless politicians’ circus.
Voting 42-8, the House of Representatives Justice Committee dismissed last Nov. 26 the impeachment complaint, the fourth such attempt against Arroyo in three years, with the public none the wiser.

Comments are closed.