BOL in the News: Coverage Stuck on the Event, a Matter of Procedure (Updated)

ON THE evening of July 18, the bicameral conference committee approved the reconciled version of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) after addressing the different contentious provisions of House Bill 6475 and Senate Bill 1717. The historic passage came a year and a day after the 21-member Bangsamoro Transition Commission (BTC) had turned over a new draft BBL to President Duterte, who had promised to lobby to make it law.

The BBL, now referred to as the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL), seeks to abolish the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and replace it with the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) which proponents said would grant the region greater autonomy.

The bill was long in the making, going back to the 16^th Congress when the original BBL was tackled by lawmakers. But deliberations were disrupted by the tragic episode in Mamasapano in January 2015 which stoked anti-Muslim sentiments and which opposition politicians used to milk public sentiment against then President Benigno Aquino III and the advocates for the BBL.

Media covered the passage of the BOL, noting the elation of those present at the Senate and later at the House of Representatives. But coverage focused only on the procedural aspects of the story, missing out on the history and background, as well as lacking the analysis and insight that would explain how the BOL can work towards a more permanent peace.

CMFR monitored reports from the main broadsheets Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star; free TV primetime newscasts 24 Oras (GMA-7), Aksyon (TV5), News Night (CNN Philippines) and TV Patrol (ABS-CBN 2), as well as select news websites from July 18 to 25, 2018.

Straightforward

With most media fixed on procedural matters, initial reports of online news sites on July 18 recalled developments in the Senate when the bicameral conference committee finalized the reconciled bill.

The Inquirer and Star in their July 19 editions, and the Bulletin on July 20, followed suit, carrying statements from members of the bicam committee and the BTC who expressed their optimism and confidence in the landmark document. Along with statements of support were questions about the need to shift to a federal form of government to achieve autonomy or self-governance similar to the BOL.

Only Star continued reporting on the subject through the weekend, taking up topics such as the expenses of establishing the Bangsamoro region (July 21), as well as some apprehensions on the BOL (July 22).

Primetime newscasts began reporting the development on July 19 with information already reported online and in print. TV dropped the topic in the weekend.

When the House ratified the BOL on July 24, media again focused on procedure. Reports online and on television on the day and newspapers the day after recalled the events at the House and noted the tension between the factions of former Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on July 23, delaying the vote to ratify.

Cheers

Three online news organizations stood out for their efforts.

Rappler’s feature on July 23 noted not only the legal challenges that faced the law, but also asked whether there would be strong acceptance for the measure even among the Moros, for whom the measure was crafted.  It reflected the doubts of some of the leaders who felt that some communities within the Bangsamoro may not be ready to vote for the law in the plebiscite. Other sources pointed to the younger generation who may have their misgivings. The article underlined the importance of gaining “the hearts and minds” of the people so that the law can lead to a truly lasting peace in Mindanao (“After Bangsamoro law, a bright yet bumpy path to peace”).

CNN Philipines on July 24, meanwhile, listed 6 questions about the landmark document. The report provided key information on the topic which include a historical backgrounder on the BBL’s journey which capped several years of efforts by the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), as well as a brief comparison of key characteristics of the BARMM and the ARMM in terms of aspects such as political structure, justice system and fiscal autonomy (“The Bangsamoro Organic Law: Everything you need to know”).

A report by Davao-based online news website MindaNews on July 25 also tracked the changes implemented in the BOL and explained how some of the provisions in the ratified document differed from the earlier versions of the BBL (“From ARMM to BARMM: ARMM’s elected in BTA; ARMM with BTC as ‘caretakers’”).

Superficial, lacks critical information

Coverage of the approval of the BOL touched only the surface of the law as an event, when the landmark document called for more analysis and discussion of its significance as a turning point in the country’s history. If there is no curiosity about this, media should have made the effort to make this interesting by raising questions about what people can expect from the law, as well as flag problems as it moves forward in its long-term implementation.

Sadly, perhaps reflecting the national media’s view that this is something only for Mindanao and for the Moros, there seemed little curiosity about the subject. Is this passage a sign of government’s determination to fulfil a historic promise to the Bangsamoro? Or is it just current politics? Why is this version more palatable from its previous iterations?

This failure of coverage has no excuse, as there is an abundance of experts who can readily speak on the topic and the wealth of questions it raises given the proposed charter change and the shift to a federal system of government. Also on hand are readily accessible relevant documents and reading materials on the matter.

Another major missed opportunity for the media is to help the people appreciate the diversity of the nation and the meaning that autonomy has, not just for the Moros, but for all Filipinos.

So sad, when media coverage hints at the inherent limitations of journalism in the country, as journalists fail to understand the relevance and importance of the news they report. Sticking to procedures, they answer only the what, where and when. Hopefully, some journalists will be interested enough to follow through into the why and how.