Fifty years ago, the Philippines had one of the freest — if not the freest — press in the world. Today, that is history. What was once an honorable and respectable profession, journalism now comes with an occupational hazard — it is the most dangerous profession.
When I was a boy in grade school, my favorite reading material included the Classics Illustrated, Reader’s Digest, and the Philippine Free Press. I loved the classical stories and all the world events — particularly the politics of the Cold War — in the Reader’s Digest. But it was the Philippine Free Press that educated me about politics, government, and all the hot issues of the day. I admired the journalists for their courage in exposing corruption in government. No erring politician was spared from being fried in the press.
Today, it is the other way around
— the journalists are the ones being fried... literally. And that
is very sad because without a free press, how can democracy survive?
No country in the world could claim that
it’s government is democratic unless it can guarantee that the Fourth Estate
enjoys freedom. Censorship, assassination, and intimidation are the most
common methods used to suppress freedom of the press. The Paris-based Reporters
Without Borders (RSF) reported that in 2004, the Philippines
and Bangladesh
were among the world’s most dangerous places for journalists. RSF said
that in 2003 and 2005, “after Iraq,
the Philippines
is the most dangerous country for journalists." Six journalists have been
killed so far this year, 43 since 2001, and 80 since 1986. Compared to
the 14-year Marcos dictatorship, there were more journalists killed in the last
five years.
Compounding the killings of journalists
is a similar pattern of assassinations targeting leftist activists.
These unabated killings were denounced by
the London-based Amnesty International (AI) in its report released last August
15, 2006. The report — which chastised the Philippine government with the
now-famous words, “Shame On You!” — indicated that there were 66 “extrajudicial
killings” in 2005 and 51 in the first six months of this year.
The AI report alluded that the
intensification of such killings may be attributed to the all-out war against
the communist insurgents and their allies. This reminds me of the 1960s
when the government purportedly created a para-military group to fight the
communist New People’s Army (NPA) and its predecessor, the Hukbalahap, in
Central Luzon. The members of the para-military group were called the
“Monkees,” named after a popular American musical group. The NPA
guerillas, with their unkempt hair, were called the “Beatles,” named after the
world-famous mop-haired British musical group. Thus, the rivalry between
the two musical groups was duplicated by their namesakes in the killing fields
of Central Luzon, not with musical notes but with
the eerie rhythm and staccato of gunfire.
After the embarrassing “Shame On You!”
report, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo announced last August 21, 2006 the formation of a “commission
to conduct an independent probe of the killings of media practitioners and
militant activists." She appointed former Supreme Court Justice Jose
Melo to chair the commission. Ominously, within hours after President Arroyo’s
announcement, another leftist leader was murdered inside his house in Surigao
del Sur.
While the formation of the Melo
Commission is a good move, it remains to be seen how it would stop the killings
and bring the killers to justice. It is believed that the killings of
some of the journalists was the work of some provincial and local politicians including
the crime lords who were exposed for corruption and other illegal activities.
On the other hand, the extrajudicial killings of leftist activists
are believed to have been committed by rightist and anti-communist groups.
The questions that linger in my mind are:
Would the government successfully pursue the prosecution of those
involved in the killings? And, would witnesses come forward to testify
against the accused? While it would be highly improbable for the
government to succeed in prosecuting the killers without the cooperation of
witnesses, it can do something to mitigate the killings by enacting strict — I
mean, with teeth — gun control laws.
I watched the movie “Lord of War” not too
long ago and saw the viciousness of people who are involved in the illicit arms
trade. Known as the “Merchants of Death,” illicit arms dealers are solely
motivated by profit.
When an illicit arms dealer sells a
firearm which would consequently be used in a murder, would that make him an
accessory? It is a little bit of a stretch but think about it.
First of all, the government should
restrict — or, better, nationalize — the manufacture and importation of
firearms. A moratorium should also be imposed to limit arms production and
importation for military and police use only. Privately owned arms
manufacturers and importers should be put out of business as part of the
nationalization program.
Secondly, registration of firearms should
be mandated and strictly enforced with stiff prison terms for violators.
This would provide a mechanism for the government to trace firearms used
in killings. All existing firearms in the possession of politicians and
their bodyguards should be inventoried and monitored. They should only
use their firearms for the protection of the politicians.
The notoriety of the Philippines
will haunt the government for a long time. It would certainly affect
tourism and would deter foreign businesses from investing in the Philippines;
thus, destabilizing the economy. There are already signs that the
country’s economy is weakening and could possibly lead to a recession in 2007.
The gains that the Arroyo government has been proud of in the past two
years could be wiped out... fast.
By Perry Diaz
