Extremes

The unlimited and full media coverage of the ongoing investigation of the hostage taking fiasco last August 23, 2010 once more proves that anything done in excess is not good; that all parties concerned must still observe some kind of moderation and responsibility in the exercise of their right and the performance of their duty to inform the people on the inner workings of the government. Understandably the almost total lack of transparency during the last administration may have triggered the present policy of almost total transparency. But then again going to the extremes is wrong.

Of course our Charter provides that the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized (Section 7, Article III); that the State shall “adopt and implement a policy of full public disclosure of all its transaction involving public interest” (Section 28, Article II). These provisions thus involve both the right of the citizens to information and the corresponding duty of the State to provide that information.

 Indeed, “an informed citizenry with access to the diverse currents in political, moral and artistic thought and data relative to them and the free exchange of ideas and discussion of issues thereon is vital to the democratic government envisioned in our Constitution” (Valmonte vs. Belmonte 170 SCRA 256). But both this right of the citizenry to information and the duty of the State to provide it are subject to reasonable safeguards on national security and national interest.

Giving media unlimited access to the botched hostage taking investigation seems to be overstepping the bounds of this constitutional policy. First of all the blow by blow accounts of the various witnesses and resource persons aired live on radio and TV are raw information. Their admissibility and weight still have to be evaluated by the Committee so that they can be used in proving whatever criminal and administrative charges will be filed before the tribunal or office of competent jurisdiction which have the sole power to authoritatively and conclusively decide on the matter.

Airing the investigation live therefore does not serve the purpose of providing the citizenry access to information of public concern. The people already know more or less what happened on that fateful day as it was also widely covered by media. The juicy details now coming out from the mouth of witnesses are not the kind of information contemplated by the Constitution. They are just personal versions of the various people who have some participation in the incident which only give rise to other theories, speculations and rumors on what really happened. The citizens who heard and saw these witnesses may only be led into forming their own conclusions and arriving at their own “truths” regarding the incident and the persons who are liable. This is really unfair to those who are implicated. Public opinion may find them already guilty without the proper trial.

Actually the Committee’s power is merely fact-finding and recommendatory. It has been formed primarily to come up with a credible report that would repair our strained relations with the Chinese people in Hong Kong and their government whose citizens were the victims of the hostage taker. It may also be useful to our government in drawing up a more efficient and effective plan on how to solve hostage taking crises that may occur in the future as well as help the President in finding out who among his officials particularly cabinet members should be replaced. Of course even other officials of lower rank who do not serve at “his pleasure” but also found responsible by the report may be removed or held criminally liable only after observing “due process of law”. The task of the committee is therefore not as vital to the citizenry as to merit full and unlimited media coverage. In fact right now, the growing public perception is that only the committee members and the witnesses who have “performed” well before the TV cameras are the ones who will reap the most benefits because of daily media exposure. 

Airing the proceedings live only keep the nation and the international community still focused on the incident. It has exposed our country to further embarrassment and shame as more and more shortcomings and blunders are exposed. The longer this incident is kept in the limelight the deeper we sink into the hole we created. This is definitely more damaging to the national interest that has to be protected over and above the citizens’ right to have access to information of public concern. Indeed the clamor to “move on” will never be realized for as long as we remain transfixed on this unfortunate incident.  

The truth is hostage taking incidents have happened before not only here but also abroad. In fact there are many other incidents happening in other countries which are more deadly in terms of lives lost. Suicide bombings happen more frequently abroad. While people in those countries where they occur are saddened by those deplorable incidents, they have somehow managed to get over them wiser and more prepared to face them the next time around.

So let us not allow this single incident erode our faith in the greatness and the goodness of the Filipino. There are definitely many more incidents in the past which deserve to be recalled and to remain in our consciousness longer than this tragic incident. We are indeed sorry for what happened especially because lives were lost. Apologies and expressions of deepest regrets have already been made. And we have shown firm determination to render swift justice for all.

* * *

E-mail us at [email protected]