Reporting the Iglesia ni Cristo Mass Action: Leaving the public uninformed
MEMBERS OF the influential Iglesia ni Cristo (INC—literally, Christ’s Church) sect trooped to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Padre Faura street in Manila on August 27, protesting what they said was the extraordinary attention being paid by DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima to the illegal detention case that former INC minister Isaias Samson, Jr. had filed against eight members of the INC’s Sanggunian (Consultative body), the INC’s administrative council.
Spokespersons of INC, which was rocked by controversial allegations of corruption and abductions within the church only a month ago (“Covering the Iglesia Ni Cristo controversy: Imbalanced and unfair reports leave audience still uninformed,” Aug. 14, 2015), insisted that the investigation into Samson’s complaint was a violation of the constitutional provision on the separation of church and State. The INC members camped outside the DOJ building while calling for justice on other national issues such as the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) and the Mamasapano incident, in which two of their fellow INC members in the Special Action Force of the Philippine National Police (SAF-PNP) were killed.
Motorists and commuters plying the major metro Manila artery EDSA (Epifanio de los Santos Avenue) on Friday night, August 28 were caught off guard when the INC members moved to the EDSA-Ortigas and EDSA-Shaw areas to continue their demonstration, apparently upon the order of their church leaders, and gathering more participants in the process.
The unannounced move paralyzed traffic in the area, earning irate comments from those stuck in the standstill and prompting the media to quickly cover the situation until the weekend of August 29-30. On the morning of Monday, August 31, INC general evangelist Bienvenido Santiago announced that following discussions with the government, the church’s leadership had decided to call an end to the protests, which were also being held in other parts of the Philippines by INC members.
Despite the quick response of the reporters on the ground—and their often detailed accounts—the coverage was still lacking in pertinent information. It was more focused on the influx of INC members from different parts of Metro Manila as well as from nearby provinces without any attempt at explaining and contextualizing the issues the protest had raised.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) monitored the Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, and The Manila Bulletin; the primetime and late-night news programs TV Patrol and Bandila (ABS-CBN 2), 24 Oras and Saksi (GMA-7), and Aksyon and Aksyon Tonite (TV5); and the online news organization Rappler from August 28 to 31 to determine how the mainstream media covered the mass protest.
Motorists’ reactions
Reports on late Friday night were mostly about the traffic situation and the reactions of irritated motorists and commuters, as if these were the most significant facts about the protest. But the reports were also remiss in providing related information. Since the transfer of the protesters from the DOJ office to EDSA was unknown to many, the media, particularly broadcast, could have asked whether the necessary permits had been issued for the gathering at EDSA. While the reports did say that the demonstration before the DOJ office had a permit from the local government of Manila, it was not immediately reported whether the Quezon City government and the Mandaluyong City government had also issued permits to the INC and when these were given. Rappler was the earliest to report on the initial lack of permit for the EDSA gathering at around 10 pm Friday evening. The Philippine Star had a report on the contents of the permit only on September 2.
Reports explaining what the INC’s intention was in holding the protests were conflicting. From the time the INC members were in DOJ to the time that they flocked to EDSA, the media were reporting that the INC was calling for the resignation of DOJ secretary De Lima. However, in a Saksi report on late Friday night, INC Spokesperson Edwil Zabala clarified that the INC did not intend to push for the resignation of de Lima, saying that she would not be able to do her job if she steps down from her post. CNN Philippines also reported during the weekend that based on its own interview with Zabala, it seemed that De Lima’s resignation was just the call of a minority in the church and was not the official position of the INC as a whole. In the conclusion of the protest on Monday, Zabala claimed that the protest proved that the INC is still united and rock-solid in its beliefs. He was not asked if INC members had arrived at some kind of consensus to call for De Lima’s resignation or not. Neither was he asked if protesting the DOJ’s giving due course to Samson’s complaint was indeed proof of the strength of the INC members’ faith.
Despite its being the trigger for the protest, the criminal case Samson had filed against members of the INC’s Sanggunian was not immediately explained fully in the reports. The DOJ’s planned investigation into it as supposedly being in violation of the separation of church and State, as invoked by members of the INC who were interviewed by the media since Thursday, was mentioned repeatedly, but was not initially explored through, for example, interviews with experts. Lawmakers and other government officials who are at the same time INC members were not interviewed either to explain their interpretation of the concept of the separation of church and State in relation to their religion: was their being part of the State apparatus also in violation of that Constitutional mandate?
Though non-INC law experts were eventually interviewed regarding this matter, reports over the networks were aired only a day or two after the protest had started. In the case of print media, the Samson case was incorporated only at the end of their reports as background information. Rappler was the only media organization that provided full documentation on the case that Samson filed on August 26, but published it only on August 31.
Instead of just citing constitutional provisions, the media could have done a better job in explaining the separation of church and State by citing examples of previous issues or cases that dealt with this matter.
Some reports highlighted the views of possible candidates for president as well as of some government officials on the matter. The stories were framed as having an impact to the INC’s opinion of these potential presidential candidates, and the religious denomination’s possible action which could be either be favorable or detrimental to these candidates and government officials come election time.
Several news organizations carried social media content in their reports during the weekend. Most of these, however, were from angry, non-INC members and were generally antagonistic. The Inquirer, using data acquired by its social media department, published an article titled “Iglesia Ni Cristo protest backlash: De Lima trends like pop star” on Sunday, August 30. On the same date, The Philippine Star also incorporated in its report the tweets of ‘angry’ netizens in its article “INC leaders appeal for understanding.”
Aksyon Tonite also aired a special segment that featured the reactions of netizens to the EDSA-Shaw mass protest on Friday, August 28.
Despite their focus on the details of the protest, the mainstream media failed to point out in their early reports that the DOJ still had to conduct a preliminary investigation on the case, and that the prosecutor who would handle the case had yet to be assigned. This matter was only raised when Samson’s legal counsels spoke to the media, during which they asked the administration to be transparent with regard to the contents of the alleged “agreement” between the government and the INC which had led to the latter’s ending its members’ protest. The media did report that there was an agreement between the government and the INC leadership, but did not say what was agreed upon by both parties.
The five-day demonstration of the Iglesia ni Cristo is already history, or at least a footnote in future accounts on the relationship between religious groups and the State, since religion and politics have often been at odds in the Philippines. The issues have ranged from allegations of religious interference in affairs of State to, this time, claims that the State is intervening in the internal affairs of a religious group. Because of the generally acknowledged influence of religious groups over government and politics (the INC, for example, because of its control over “command votes,” is the subject of ardent courtship by politicians both between and during elections), the media could have done better in explaining both the separation and co-existence of these two powerful entities, but the reports only scratched the surface of the issue and accepted whatever information and views were offered to them by the INC, the public and the government on face value. Have the media abandoned their essential role as explainer and interpreter of events, limiting themselves to merely reporting what this and that side said, thus leaving the public profoundly uninformed and deeply confused?
good analysis. with the kind of reporting that Filipinos get, no wonder so many are so easily swayed by celebrities and unable to dig deeply into issues. the media should have pointed out how off the mark the INC’s reaction was (filing pa lang e nag rally na??? they must be hiding something), how the separation of church and state works out in the Philippines, or given a chart to show INC members in top government positions, etc … like you, I am soo disappointed.