The killing of journalists was also cited among the reasons the Reporters San Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders) downgraded the Philippines to 142nd place (from 139th in the previous year) in their 2006 World Press Freedom Index.
The government has denied this charge and, among other measures, has set up Task Force Usig, led by Police Deputy Director General Avelino Razon Jr. to get to the bottom of the killings and bring the guilty parties to justice.
The Task Force has declared that not all the slain media were killed as a result of the exercise of their profession. Razon puts this number at 20, out of 46 reported killed since 2001. The reasons range from business disputes, personal quarrels with local personalities, and even love triangles. This is where the problem begins.
International press organizations, such as the PPI, and our own National Union of Journalists accept neither the Task Force figures, nor the reasons given for some of the journalists’ killings. They insist on 46 killings or, in any case, a higher figure than 26.
However, their rejection of Razon’s figures is, so far, not based on specific, much less credible, contrary evidence or information. Their arguments tend to be based on apocryphal reports or "conventional wisdom." Some debates are mired on the level of ideology or emotion.
This is an area sorely in need of objective facts. While many in the public maintain an open mind, except those who are absolutely convinced that everything the government does is tainted with criminal intent, there does not seem to be any perceptible effort on the part of foreign and local press bodies to get to the ultimate facts.
Information offered by Razon and Task Force Usig is routinely dismissed as mere government propaganda. Sometimes the "facts" are suspected as having been doctored, or tailored to quiet down the uproar caused by unexplained killings.
Some colleagues in the profession sit through official briefings without saying a word, then go back to their laptops using the figures they were told, without regard to those official explanations.
I don’t entirely blame them, though. A lifetime of listening to government double-speak and rationalization, while fellow journalists continue getting killed, has taught them to be prudently skeptical, even cynical. After all, we have a long experience of press repression in this country, despite official assurances that press freedom lives.
Last week, Razon announced that 21 out of the 26 cases of slain media persons had been "solved." Media immediately jumped on that statement. His claim to an 81% "crime efficiency solution" (21 out of 26) struck many as self-serving, or worse.
It turns out that cases are deemed "solved" when cases are either filed with a prosecutor’s office or a court. Of the 21 "filed" (and, presumably, solved) cases, 13 had arrested suspects, two had surrendered suspects and two have suspects at large. Two other cases are still undergoing preliminary investigation at a prosecutor’s office. In the remaining two cases, the suspects therein have been convicted.
Those who prefer to see the glass as half-full zero in on the filing of cases with the courts or a prosecutor in 81% of the incidents of killing. On the other hand, those who see the glass as half full or mostly empty focus on the conviction rate of only 7%.
The Task Force responds, quite plausibly, that once suspects have been identified and the evidence turned over to the prosecutor, it is the latter’s responsibility to file the case in court and marshal it all the way to conviction.
Now we get into arguments into the efficiency of the entire justice system in the country, which is the same sort of argument as to why we keep losing the fight against poverty in the country. We wind up concluding that it is the entire system, and therefore not a particular office or institution, that should be blamed.
The media does have a point when it expresses dissatisfaction with the conviction rate and the reality that the other cases have shown little movement over the past several years. But there is some truth to the response that the pace of justice in this country is that slow, and that the problem is squarely on the lap of the Department of Justice in regard to slow-poke prosecutors, and the Supreme Court in respect of the turtle-like pace of courts.
But the Task Force also pleads for understanding in that witnesses to the killings, and victims’ families, allegedly don’t cooperate with police investigators, the prosecutors and the courts. This inevitably results in inordinate delays in, if not the outright dismissal, of the cases for want of evidence.
Press organizations, like human rights groups, usually counter that it’s the government’s responsibility to secure the cooperation of witnesses, and assure the safety of those who do. This, however, is a little simplistic. While the military and the police must indeed be able to assure witnesses that their safety and security will be protected, the reality is that no government can guarantee absolute safety 100% of the time.
The solution may be somewhere in between. The public and media must cooperate in the apprehension and conviction of the perpetrators. But the police must also realize that there is no other recourse often left to victims’ families but to rely on police protection if they give their cooperation.
If official analysis is accurate, and the culprits really are members of the New People’s Army, military and police, or may be government officials, then the government has to realize that the fears of the victim’s families and other material witnesses do have real basis. Who else can these families and witnesses run to?
If the government shows inability to protect them – it doesn’t matter what the reason is, whether lack of funds or other resources – it cannot keep citing lack of progress in the cases filed as an excuse for their failure to achieve a higher success rate in bringing the killers to justice. It must do much more to convince the potential witnesses.
Next time, we answer the question: Is press freedom under attack in this country?