Analysis
Missing the balance
By Amando Doronila
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:11:00 09/03/2008
The Commission on Human Rights in its resolution of the issue of the warrant-less arrest of up to 50 media persons who covered the Nov. 29 police siege of Peninsula Manila hotel tried to strike a balance in the clash of press freedom of journalists covering public disturbances and the duty of police to maintain public order. [Read story] The resolution failed to find the balance and left an ambiguous field that gave police ample latitude to restrict freedom of movement of journalists in conflict zones.
The commission found that the warrant-less arrest of the journalists constituted arbitrary arrest/detention in violation of “human rights standards” but at the same time concluded “the facts do not support a clear finding of repression or denial of freedom of the press.” It said that “the act of police operatives in arresting and detaining the media does not seem to have been meant in any way to curtail freedom of the press.”
In an attempt to be even-handed, the commission reminded the media “that the right of the public to know is accompanied by the right of the public to a peaceful environment and society,” adding that “for every freedom, there is a corresponding responsibility ... (and) respect for the police and the military and their role as protectors of the people and the state in any peace-loving country.”
The commission at the beginning made it clear that it is a fact-finding body with no prosecution powers, and the main function of its investigations “is to determine whether human rights violation have been committed.” It also said it was empowered to make recommendations to “relevant agencies for the purpose of ensuring government compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights.” After finding that “there have been violations of human rights of liberty, security of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest of complainants” (the journalists in the Manila Pen siege), the commission referred to the Philippine National Police and the Department of Interior and Local Government for “internal inquiry and filing of possible administrative/disciplinary cases and measures applied to proper persons and to the Department of Justice for further investigation and filing of proper cases as to violations of the Revised Penal Code and special laws on the rights of persons detained.”
These recommendations are without teeth, given that implementation is left entirely to the discretion of the law enforcement agencies.
Two issues were raised by the complaint of the National Press Club on behalf of the arrested journalists: (1) whether or not there was a violation of the right to liberty and freedom arising from the arbitrary arrest and detention of the journalists during the siege and later at Camp Bagong Diwa; and (2) whether or not there was a violation of the freedom of the press.
The incontrovertible fact is that the warrant-less arrests were the biggest mass lockup of journalists since the declaration of martial law by the Ferdinand Marcos regime, giving rise to accusations that the government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had conducted a worse crackdown on media personnel than the Marcos regime without the benefit of a martial law proclamation.
On the first issue, the commission found that the arrest and detention constituted arbitrary arrest/detention “in violation of human rights standards.” It found the arrest arbitrary for the following reasons: First, there were conflicting accounts of whether the detention was due to observance of the procedure for processing of hostage/victims, perpetrators, witnesses and key participants of the incident or due to the fact that they were being arrested for the actual commission of specific offenses.
“If the police officers were not sure as to why they were conducting the arrests, they should not have done so,” the commission said. “The media ... must be spared from such unlawful and capricious interference upon their right to liberty and security of person.”
The commission ruled that although the law on obstruction of justice penalized delaying prosecution of criminal case by obstructing the service of process or court orders, “there is no evidence to show that members of the media obstructed respondents’ attempt to serve the … warrant on [Lt. Antonio Trillanes] and his group. Thus, obstruction of justice cannot be made the basis for warrant-less arrest.”
It ruled that the respondents “failed to inform the media of the nature and causes of accusation against them, of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.” It said members of media were restrained by using plastic handcuffs, which were “instruments of restraint which is not justified under the circumstances.”
The commission ruled: “The facts do not support a clear finding of repression or denial of freedom of the press. However, the commission warns that acts to detain members of the media without clear legal basis dangerously stand astride the borderline between valid power and media repression in violation of fundamental freedoms.”
The commission said “the acts of the police and military to physically limit the freedom of movement and right to security of persons against arbitrary detention of some members of the media constitute acts that only just fall short of actual infringement of press freedom. But they have the effect of implicit threats to members of media of possible subsequent punishment if their reports displease the authorities.”
The police got off lightly despite the findings of arbitrary detention. These declarations do not constitute an effective deterrent to future violations. When the next political turbulence arises, nothing is clear as to where the police lines are located. In such a fluid situation, journalists move at their own risk.
|
