Print, TV reports miss the point: The truth about the anti-terror bill is not a matter of opinion

Screengrab from Rappler.com


THE PRESS was obviously caught off-guard by the speed with which House Bill (HB) 6875, or the Anti-Terrorism Bill, went through three readings. Approved on May 29 by the Committee on Public Order and Safety and the Committee on National Defense and Security, it went through third and final reading in less than five working days in Congress. It was certified as urgent by the president on June 1. 

One must presume that the authors of the bill and the members of the two committees were doing the president a favor. Once the second reading is done, bills are usually given a window time of at least three days before its final approval. Not all bills certified by the president as urgent automatically receive this quick a processing.

The latest of the government’s measures to supposedly check terrorism in the country, the bill has been criticized for its odious provisions. An Anti-Terror Council composed of Cabinet members can designate, after probable cause, persons or groups as terrorist. The text is vague about this method, and raises questions about how the council would observe due process.

Given the context of recent warrantless arrests of persons for “seditious” expressions on social media, it would seem that the proposed law is yet another means of giving the executive more power against dissenting citizens.  The bill once signed into law is likely to be used to silence legitimate criticism of government. 

CMFR jeers the timidity with which print and most TV reports presented the bill when this passed third reading. The same treatment was given the passing of Senate Bill 1083 last February, with the news only naming the two senators who did not vote for the same. The coverage merely tracked the proceedings in Congress, noting that the House simply adopted the Senate version of the anti-terror bill.

CMFR monitored the coverage of three Manila-based broadsheets (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star), four primetime news programs (ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol, GMA-7’s 24 Oras, TV5’s One Balita Pilipinas and CNN Philippines’ News Night) and selected online news sites from May 29 to June 5.

True to form, news accounts in print could do no more than quote selected sources.  Reports cited criticism of the proposed law by those in the political opposition, rendering the discussion in terms of political factions, not the principles underlying the debate. Quotes from those supporting the bill were mostly from politicians and public officials who resorted to the cliché of assuring that no one except terrorists need be afraid. 

Limiting the discourse to what the pros and cons had to say made the truth about the bill a matter of opinion rather than facts.

None of the reports in print bothered to present the text of the bill itself, the provisions that could unleash the forces of state power against its own citizens. Reference to these provisions would have sufficed to show the bill as legitimizing the dismissal of the judicial process, which in the hands of an authoritarian regime would make vulnerable to terror charges anyone who questions government actions or criticizes the ineptitude of public officials.

Print news accounts did not emphasize the current context of the rise of red-baiting by law-enforcement agencies, targeting journalists who report on the CPP-NPA-NDF and militant organizations. The demonizing of anything that has to do with the Left has become such a dangerous pattern; and yet the reports did not bother to raise this salient background in the reports.

On TV, news accounts took time to enumerate the provisions that define terrorism, as well as the sections on warrantless arrests, detainment and prohibition of torture; but this was done with little independent analysis. Actual discussion of the bill was dominated by representatives who either voted for or against it. Primetime newscasts also echoed assurances by some senators and Cabinet officials of safeguards against abuse.

Similarly, TV did not refer to the context of red-baiting, or the recent sedition raps against ordinary citizens who criticized the government online.

CMFR cheers Christian Esguerra’s explainer in TV Patrol’s June 5 edition. This stand-out report dissected provisions of the bill that go against the judicial process and subvert the power of the courts. He emphasized that the bill was clear that protests and other critical activities are not covered by the definition of terrorism, but the vague and overbroad definitions are valid reasons for citizens to fear being branded as terrorists. Esguerra cited the provision that penalizes those who will incite to commit terrorism through speech, writing, banners or other representations.

Online reports did better than their print and broadcast counterparts. News sites such as Philstar.com, Rappler and OneNews.ph produced contextualized pieces to validate the public’s fear and rejection of the bill. The reports took into account the current anti-terror measures of the government, which already brand legally-recognized organizations and groups as terrorists. Human rights advocates, religious leaders and other concerned stakeholders were also given more space online.

On June 5, Rappler‘s Lian Buan produced an explainer on the dangers of the anti-terror bill. She referred to a matrix by Commission on Human Rights lawyer Ross Tugade, who put together the existing Human Security Act and the House bill for a point-by-point comparison of the contentious provisions. For each provision, Buan incorporated comments from members of different lawyers’ groups, as well as those from former Justice Antonio Carpio. The consensus among them is that the House bill is even more dangerous than the existing law, because the addition of a section penalizing “inciting to terrorism” already involves freedom of speech.  History provides enough evidence of the law’s being used against those with little means to provide for their defense.  In reporting on the anti-terror bill, the media cannot leave out the Duterte regime’s strong emphasis on law enforcement as a way of addressing all kinds of problems.  Objectivity calls for more than just quoting those who are for or against a development or proposal. Their fidelity to facts, their knowledge of background and history, noting the context in which certain actions have evolved — all these help their coverage pass the test of truth and fairness.