> Of
freedom and power
After appearing before the Municipal Trial Court of Tiaong, Quezon
Friday noon last week I had to rush back to Naga City in order to
honor an invitation of ABS-CBN ANC News Channel for a nationwide
special program via satellite, which planned to feature some media
practitioners who got detained during the Marcos-imposed martial
law in 1972, including those from this region.
After the lapse of 34 years, it turned out that only Tony Carpio
and I still remain alive out of the eight media personalities
placed “under protective custody” by the military at Camp Canuto,
Sagurong, Pili, Camarines Sur. As you know, Carpio, after EDSA I,
held the position of NBI national director. He did not last long
because when President Cory proposed to transfer him as director
of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, he resigned instead.
I did not get any appointive position, but in the l988 local
elections I got elected as member of the Sanggunian Panglalawigan
of Camarines Sur. As to my journalistic career, as a broadcaster,
I am now retired. I prefer playing tennis and practicing my
profession as a lawyer. And, my passion is food production. The
rest—Louie General, Jr., a prolific writer and a principled
lawyer; Alfredo Tria , a crusading journalist - lawyer; Nonong
Trivino, publisher-editor of “Balalong”, exponent of Bikol
Republic; Sitong Palmiano , of the “Borobentot” radio program
fame; Eli Compuesto, a policeman-turned publisher; and Ramon
Brilliante, of the “Ang Katipunero” column—a well-known coach in
oratorical contests, particularly of the Voice of Democracy, are
now all dead.
The ABS CBN staffer who contacted me explained that the program,
to start at nine o’clock that night, was supposed to be beamed via
satellite, interlinked with the other stations of the same
network, where some other journalists detained during the martial
law were to be guests too.
On my way back, I got a text message. The program was aborted by
the network. No reason was given, but apparently the network got
wind of the earlier announcement from Malacanan that Presidential
Proclamation 1017 had already been lifted. In plain, from the
point of view of the network management, the intended program’s
objectives, must have become moot and academic.
Too bad. It should have been pushed through, because as it is now,
there is yet no categorical indication that the state of national
emergency is over. In fact, it seems it is just unfolding,
depending on which side you are with. Such being the case, the
insight of those who have detained, particularly those from the
media profession, could be of valuable input for purposes of
assessing the true state of the Fourth Estate in these
contemporary times, as compared to its situation during the Marcos
dictatorship.
They differ a lot
To begin with, when Marcos imposed martial law via Proclamation
No. 1081, there was a complete media clamp down. In broadcasting,
only those chosen by the dictatorial regime were allowed to
continue airing. Here, in Camarines Sur, it was only DZGE. Only
one newspaper was off the press. After a few months, some other
radio stations were permitted to go on air, provided they were
supportive of the regime. Even the type of music—particularly in
reference to lyrics, were subjected to censorship. Then, there
came a point when every station was compelled to hook up , in
simulcast, the government program “Pulong Pulong sa Kaunlaran,”
which proved to be very boring, so much so that the people opted
instead to shut off their radio sets.
Anybody giving an opinion or information not palatable to the
dictatorship was censored and faced the risk of being detained for
“rumor mongering.” In the conduct of interview with government
officials, questions had to be submitted in advance, in writing.
No live interviews were allowed. Many were “invited” for
questioning, some of whom never reappeared, and their whereabouts
are still a mystery until now.
Arrests were made and yet the subjects have never been charged.
They just continued under detention.
In the case of the “Stalag I” occupants, until now—34 years since
their placement “under protective custody,” no reason yet has been
given for their detention. This only proves how baseless the
imposition of martial law was.
Personally, my 31-day detention was of far reaching effect. I was
then in second year law only. My detention started in the last
week of September. I was released in the last week of October—when
final exams for the first semester were about to start. As a
consequence, I had to cram in my studies, just to chalk up a
passing grade, unsure even of my future. I was treated like a
hansenite among local media circles. It was only sometime in 1976
that I got a break again. Still, there were so much missed
opportunities. One of them was a study grant abroad in the field
of broadcast journalism, which I failed to enjoy because the
powers-that-be then would not give me a clearance to leave the
country.
That and many other painful experiences under the dictatorship are
water under the bridge. Today and tomorrow matter more.
There is actually no crackdown yet on the media as a whole. The
Daily Tribune case is an isolated one. Besides, assuming that the
raid conducted by the police authorities was under a cloud of
doubt, at least the consolation is that a case had already been
filed, so that issues may be ventilated by contending parties
before the judiciary, which is the proper forum.
Now, as to the irresponsible pronouncement from certain government
quarters that the media practitioners are now under constant
monitoring, it should be realized that such practice has been
going on. That is part of the professional risk. One should accept
the fact that as a journalist, he has a target audience, so that
being “monitored” is in fact a complement, not a threat. Imagine,
broadcasting or writing to no end, without any listener or reader!
What a boring job. The natural law of compensation applies
especially in the noble yet risky field of journalism. The more
you assert, the more you are recognized, but the more you get
exposed too. Journalism is not tailored for cry babies. Those who
play it too safe—like those fond of resorting to blind items, are
no journalists at all. They are plain intriguers.
Do not get me wrong. I am an ardent believer in the saying that “I
may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend your right to
say it.” Take note however that saying something is a mere right,
not a power. Freedoms of the press, speech, assembly and even of
belief, are just that—FREEDOMS.
They are not a power. This point bears more emphasizing, given the
situation we are in now. Truth to tell, some media practitioners
now tend to confuse freedom and power. This is particularly true
in freedoms of speech and the press. Instead of being mere
chroniclers of events, some of them become participants in the
event itself. And when they fail to get what they want, they
either cry foul or impose their will on others.
This goes true also in the freedom of belief. While it may be true
that one is free to believe in anything, and yet, it should be
understood that freedom of belief is different from freedom of
doing what one believes. Imagine, just to say a prayer, some
quarters have to gather right in the middle of the road—which
actually has an specific use, but not certainly for worship. Come
to think of it, is this not violative of the Ten Commandments?
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain!
This is precisely what is wrong with our society today. Freedom is
equated to power. To cite an example, watch some media
practitioners conduct interviews. The questions are longer than
the answers. Too often, anchor persons raise opinions, not
questions. At worst, they sulk when interviewees do not share
their views. Along this line, let it not be forgotten that power
corrupts. This is true in government as it is in the other
segments of the society and even in people power itself.
