A Story— And a Source— Goes Awry
A Story— And a Source— Goes Awry
And a reporter is left holding the bag
By Hector Bryant L. Macale
ON SEPT. 1, the Philippine Daily Inquirer ran an exclusive story that confirmed a chilling though long-held suspicion: despite warnings about possible terrorist attacks, security remains lax in the country’s major airports.
The report, written by contributor Arlyn dela Cruz, news anchor and producer for TV network Net 25, told of how a self-styled security and anti-terrorism expert was able to “sneak a bomb onto a flight from Manila to Davao City” at the height of a nationwide security alert on Aug. 14. The alert was triggered by a report from Britain four days earlier that said British police had thwarted an alleged plot by terrorists to blow up planes in midair with the use of liquid explosives.
The story’s headline said it all: “‘Suicide bomber’ flew on RP plane: Airport guards flunked anti-terror test 2 times.” It went on to say that had the expert detonated the bomb, “he would have turned the commercial plane into a fireball and killed himself, the crew and hundreds of other passengers.”
Mystery deepens
The story be-came even more interesting as it said that a government official had tapped the expert to test security mea-sures at the country’s airports.
The expert was not iden-tified; neither was the go-vernment official who hired him. The Inquirer withheld their identities on the request of the expert who was the source of the story.
Instead, the newspaper, using infographics, gave a detailed account of how components of the bomb were smuggled into the plane and later assembled. The expert filmed the assembled bomb and showed the footage to selected members of media. Dela Cruz was one of them. In 2003, Dela Cruz became controversial when she went missing for more than three months in Mindanao while covering the Abu Sayyaf Group.
“The only missing act was the push on the button to blow up the aircraft,” the Inquirer quoted the source as saying.
After explaining how he was able to sneak the bomb’s components into the plane, the source gave recommendations on how to improve security measures in the airports. In the same issue, the Inquirer also interviewed a police security official at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) who insisted that the country’s premier airport had enough procedures to prevent terrorist attacks.
‘Undue alarm’
Various government officials quickly reacted to the Inquirer story. Chief Supt. Andres Caro, chief of the Philippine National Police-Aviation Security Group (PNP-ASG) told the newspaper: “The report caused undue alarm to our passengers, our visitors, the tourists.”
Later, Caro said that the paper should have gotten in touch with him before running the story and checked if there was really a security audit last Aug. 14. “Pinahiya kami nang walang laban,” he was quoted as saying.
Undersecretary Ricardo Blancaflor of the Office of the Executive Secretary said that what the expert had done “was not authorized by any of the agencies under the Anti-Terrorism Task Force.” In the task force, Blancaflor serves as executive director of legal affairs and public information. He chastised the newspaper and said it should have been “more circumspect,” adding, “Sometimes, we blurt out news without thinking of the ramifications.”
In the next few days, the press came to know the identity of the Inquirer’s source. He was Samson Macariola, a security and anti-terrorism expert who worked for Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte. After Sept. 1, reports pointed to Duterte as the government official that Macariola was referring to as the one who commissioned him to perform the operation. Duterte is Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s anti-terrorism adviser.
Just a dummy?
Duterte confirmed that there had been an airport security test but denied that he ordered the operation and that the expert brought parts of a real bomb.
“The news is inaccurate,” he said, explaining that the expert only used clay for the simulation test. “It was just a dummy,” the mayor added.
Senior Supt. Edwin Corvera, PNP-ASG deputy director, told The Philippine Star that Macariola was a resource speaker at a seminar on anti-terrorism in Davao City on Aug. 14 and 15.
“During the showing (of his lecture), I was told that he (Macariola) was bragging that he could penetrate airport security and I guess…the press picked it up (from there),” Corvera said.
Macariola could face criminal charges for making a false claim, reports quoted Malacañang and the PNP as saying.
Retraction
A week after his story came out in the Inquirer, Macariola retracted what he told Dela Cruz. “There was really no test, no explosive smuggled in,” he now claimed.
Confirming what Duterte had said, Macariola insisted that he only brought with him on the plane a modeling clay that looked like a C-4 bomb which is used in terror attacks.
More damning to Dela Cruz, the expert said the story was based on his training module and on mere “possibilities” and that he did not know the source of her story.
In a three-page affidavit that Macariola filed before the National Bureau of Investigation on Sept. 13, he said: “If there is anyone to be charged for unjust vexation, it should be the writers of the news stories for peddling hearsay or speculations to the public without evidence.”
Standing by the story
Despite Macariola’s retraction, Dela Cruz and the Inquirer are standing by their story.
On Sept. 9, Dela Cruz wrote in the Inquirer that she had even read the draft of her story to Macariola just to make sure there was nothing wrong with it.
“I was relieved that he was satisfied with how I wrote the story,” she said, referring to the fact that she did not mention the names of the other people involved in Macariola’s experiment. Dela Cruz added that she even wrote the story feature-style so “it would not sound so alarming.”
Dela Cruz would therefore be surprised when Macariola later texted her to say that she “ruined” his life. She replied, “You may say that you do not know me and you may now talk like the others who claim that you only used a dummy and clay. But didn’t you yourself tell me and other people that that would have been pointless (if the aim was) to really test the nation’s security capability?”
She added, “You know the truth and you know why you did it.”
Fact-checking
Jose Ma. Nolasco, Inquirer’s managing editor, said the newspaper had the story for two weeks before coming out with it on Sept. 1.
“We assigned it to an editor to check everything,” he told PJR Reports. There was a three-day fact-checking process during which details of the story were verified.
Following the negative reaction from officials and the source, Nolasco said the management decided to investigate what happened.
Nolasco noted that Macariola was the one who really wanted the story to come out, even talking to other journalists who might want to use the story.
“Talagang gusto niyang ilabas ang istorya,” he said.
Even in hindsight, Nolasco said the editors “did everything” to make sure the story was tight and public interest was served. Which is why today, he says, “We stand by our story.”
Before Nolasco’s interview with PJR Reports, Inquirer publisher Isagani Yambot had said that the paper does not plan to retract the story.
“We stand by it. We stand by Arlyn dela Cruz’s story,” Yambot told PJR Reports.
A reliable source outside the Inquirer also told PJR Reports that Dela Cruz’s story was “generally correct” and that Macariola had told him the same thing.
Macariola’s conditions
Despite Macariola’s retraction, Dela Cruz told PJR Reports that she understood his reaction, especially now that he is in danger of losing his job.
“Nalulungkot siya at naiintindihan ko iyon,” she said. But she said that Macariola, in turn, should understand that “this is something I can’t control.”
Dela Cruz said the Inquirer had followed Macariola’s conditions for the story: his name as well as those of the government official who ordered him to do the test, and the airline must not be identified in the report.
The paper identified him only when other media organizations named him as the Inquirer’s source for the story.
“Never akong nagturo ng source,” Dela Cruz said, adding, “Wala akong sinira sa kanya.”
Worrisome reaction
Although cases of sources recanting their statements are rare, they do happen and journalists are usually able to take this in stride. What appears to be more worrisome is the government’s reaction to the Macariola story and the threatening statements it has made against media.
Days after the Inquirer’s story came out, justice secretary Raul Gonzalez said the reporter and the newspaper were “equally liable.” (The Manila Times, Sept. 11).
According to the People’s Journal, Gonzalez said that Dela Cruz “could be in deep trouble.” He said both the reporter and Macariola can be held liable for violating Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1727, a Marcos-era law that declares as unlawful “the malicious dissemination of false information or the willful making of any threat concerning bombs, explosives or any similar means.”
Signed by the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos on Oct. 8, 1980, PD 1727 has yet to be repealed. It punishes convicted offenders with a maximum of five years in jail and up to P40,000 in fine.
“Gonzalez said those responsible for the security breach story could face a case of economic sabotage for making such a ‘false and fantastic claim’,” People’s Journal wrote last Sept. 12.
Clearly, the government was more intent in investigating the Inquirer rather than the story.
As Nolasco told PJR Reports: “I think this is a story that embarrassed security officials… and instead of tightening the security, they went to kill the messenger. And kami naman sanay sa adverse reaction. That’s the price we have to pay for telling the truth.”
The intention, Nolasco said, was “to prod authorities to review security measures.”
The Inquirer “just tried to tell the truth as much as we can,” he said.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) condemned Gonzalez’s order to check for any possible criminal liability that Dela Cruz may face for her article. In a statement on Sept. 8, the NUJP said that along with First Gentleman Mike Arroyo’s libel case spree, this move by the government shows that “it is not just bullets and threats journalists have to contend with in the continuing struggle to bring the truth as best as they can to the people.”
NUJP continued: “But then again, can we, should we, expect any better from a dispensation whose justice department is headed by someone whose idea of responding to unwelcome news—particularly of official ineptness and malfeasance—is to shoot the messenger?”
On hindsight
WAS THERE anything more that the Philippine Daily Inquirer could have done?
On the day that Arlyn dela Cruz’s story came out, there were other reports on the issue of security measures against terror attacks. One such story was a Reuters report on security issues in Europe following the incident at Heathrow Airport in London on Aug. 10 when British police announced that it had foiled a terror plot to blow up US-bound planes with the use of liquid explosives. This story, printed alongside the Macariola story, effectively added context to the Inquirer’s report.
In the inside pages, the Inquirer also interviewed a police security official and an airline security officer at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on security procedures at the country’s premier entry port. Likewise, the paper provided brief background information on the Office for Transportation Security (OTS).
All this was aimed at making sure that the story was as complete as possible.
A closer look, however, would indicate that there were a few more things the Inquirer could have done to close the gaps.
The newspaper, for example, should have interviewed Manila domestic airport officials and sought their reaction to Macariola’s claims. The views of OTS officials, described by the Inquirer as “the appropriate single authority responsible for the security of the transportation systems of the country,” would have also further strengthened the story.—Hector Bryant L. Macale
Comments are closed.