Two weeks before Christmas 2011, allies of President Benigno
Aquino III in the House of Representatives impeached Supreme Court Chief
Justice Renato C. Corona for alleged betrayal of public trust and culpable
violation of the Constitution, anchored on 8 different grounds. Days before the
speedy impeachment of 188 congressmen, President Aquino already gave somewhat a
forewarning to the former Chief Justice when Aquino lambasted Corona during a
Criminal Justice Summit, which was attended by hundreds of judges and lawyers
who treats the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice with the highest regards, being the
repository of the judicial system and law profession in the country. Come
January 2012, the whole nation awaited the first impeachment trial of a sitting
SC Chief Justice. As all of these things happened, where was PH journalism
standing and how did it handle it?
 |
| House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, House Justice Committee Chair and Lead Prosecutor Niel Tupas and other congressmen who impeached former Chief Justice Corona last December 2011 present the Articles of Impeachment. (Photo from congress.gov.ph) |
As everything unfolded: from the filing of impeachment complaint
to the former CJ’s removal from office, journalism played a big role in keeping
the public informed and interested to what some observers call as “Coronavela”
(contraction of Corona and ‘telenovela’) and acting like members of the sloppy
Prosecution Team led by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas (who, unfortunately, is a
product of UP CSSP and College of Law).
Journalism outfits in the Philippines took both the traditional and new
media to deliver pertinent news regarding the historic impeachment, how key
political and social players react, and interpret the legalese into a more
conversational and less formal language that Juan and Juana dela Cruz
understands.
Live coverage and the
legalese
 |
Senator-judges vote on a pending motion. Standing on the left, in white,
is former SC justice and lead counsel Serafin Cuevas. (Photo by Alex Nueva España, Senate Pool/abs-cbnnews.com) |
Huge TV networks (Channels 2, 5 and 7) together with their
counterpart radio stations, newspaper and new media outfits (i.e Inquirer,
Star, Rappler, etc.) provided the public an extensive coverage of the Senate
impeachment court’s proceedings. For broadcast outfits, they provided live,
uninterrupted coverage on television and radio of the impeachment trial. While
for newspapers and new media like Rappler, they provided live coverage through
live blogs and live streaming of the proceedings in the Senate. These media
institutions also provided analyses of the day-to-day proceedings of the court,
the highy-technical legal language that Senate President Enrile uses,
especially when discoursing with the lead Defense counsel and former Supreme
Court Justice Serafin Cuevas. TV and radio coverages incorporated the analyses
of the proceedings and its implications to the fate of Corona before, in
between recesses, and after the proceedings. ABS-CBN and TV5 had their
respective ‘resident legal analyst’ that pretty much provided ‘translation’ of
the proceedings and its legal terms that sounded Greek to the ordinary Filipino
household following the trial, like what subpoena duces tecum is and how it differs with subpoena ad testificandum. With the extensive
coverage and the attempt of journalists to simplify the complicated trial, the
position of being a Chief Justice and the process of impeachment as the best
means of unseating a President/impeachable official gained relevance to the
ordinary Pinoy who rarely gives time about these things unless it’s election
period. But, that’s just one part of the story. On the other hand, PH media
somewhat seemed to be reporting ‘very critically’ against Corona, to the effect
that as if all media outfits were mouthpieces of the Malacanang’s
Communications Team and the House Prosecution Team.
Objective, fair reportage?
Journalism outfits (whether traditional or new media) may deny this but many people, including myself, believed that up to some extent, PH media has been biased and unfair against ex-Chief Justice Corona. Netizens and bloggers took note and offense from the purported bias of online journalism outfit Rappler and broadsheet Philippine Daily Inquirer. One blogger even wrote:
While we do not begrudge them of their right to take editorial positions, methinks both Rappler and the Inquirer should be more fair. It is quite obvious to the readers that they are supportive of the Corona impeachment, whatever their motives may be.1
Most of the news reports, whether in print or broadcast
media, treaded a very thin line of objective news and its opposite. I can fully
understand how hard it is to remain objective and balanced in terms of
reporting news, especially when you are reporting about an issue/s intertwined
to your own beliefs, ideologies and advocacies. But as journalists, they should
keep in mind the power that they have. They have the power to influence the
mindset of their audience and shape the society’s views and judgments about
certain aspects. One wrong information or even framing of information, it would
be catastrophic to the society. That’s why a netizen/blogger said that the
trial imposed a stiff requirement to journalists that warned it from making
hasty conclusions, otherwise,
they could be wiling or unwilling agents provocateurs, in the sense that they
are directly or indirectly fanning unnecessary and uncalled for premature
public perceptions.2 In this case, impeaching a high official based on correctable
inaccuracies in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN)
should have been weighed properly and this could be done primarily with the
help of balanced, objective and
well-explained delivery of the news.
Some even went to the extent of looking like members of the
Prosecution Panel coming up with possible links and evidences that would
strengthen the case against Corona, like the undeclared Basa-Guidote money and
the family dispute between the ex-CJ’s wife Cristina and her estranged cousins
from the Basa clan over the family business. But such actions by some
journalists were tried to be justified by one veteran journalist:
According to Chay Hofileña, Director of “citizen journalism” for “social news network” site Rappler.com journalists are “neither lawyers nor judges” and are, from the depths of their DNA she claims, hardwired to “look for patterns, inconsistencies and lies, and to point those out”. This, it seems, forms the kernel around which she launches into a mini tome on her view of how the role of the media in society in general is to “connect the dots”.3
But Ms. Hofilena’s statement that
journalists aren’t lawyers nor judges is somehow contradicted by her subsequent
words that “attribute to “journalists” what are really things that judges and
lawyers do do as part of a system that governs just that (impeachment)”4
If we’re to follow this line of logic coming from someone who was drawn to journalism because it allowed
her to write about stories that had the potential to make a difference5
and actually taught Media Ethics, then maybe media outfits should start
recruiting lawyers to become journalists because they have the professional training
in ‘connecting the dots’ in various political and social issues.
Selective watchdog function
In the process of watching and criticizing the unpreparedness
of the prosecution and the hasty crafting of the Articles of Impeachment, some
journalists come out with news reports of other issues and possible evidences
against Corona that the public prosecutors (the congressmen) may have
overlooked or were unable to look for. Through those reports that tend to pin
down Corona on other charges and the absence of media reports about the
administration’s claims that Corona was “a stumbling block to the prosecution
of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo,”6 the public was
deprived of the right to further know and analyze the main reason why P-Noy was
hell bent on removing Corona. How did this deprivation happen? Well, it’s
because most journalists’ chose to undertake a selective ‘watchdog function’ and
only focused on Corona and his responses to the allegations against him, while
simply assuming that the Aquino administration’s main contention against
Corona, as previously mentioned above, is actually true and supported by
concrete facts. As a result, most journalists covering and reporting the Corona
impeachment trial became, up to some extent, ‘attack dogs’ by Malacanang.
I believe that inasmuch as the media having the watchdog
function, especially in these controversial matters, there should ALWAYS be
room for fairness and objectivity for the parties involved, especially in the
news. This fairness should not only be manifested through interviewing both
sides, but also by publishing or delivering news reports that does not slant or
favor a particular party to the case. Also, the media being a watchdog should
not be selective and targetive. It should be a watchdog whether towards the
opposition or administration.
But putting aside the purported bias of major journalism
outfits, PH journalism has done the public a great service for informing the
public about the intricacies of an impeachment, the importance of a Chief
Justice, and highlighting the need for the citizenry to be a participative and
vigilant one.
Note: This article was written/published in this blog in fulfillment of course requirements in Journalism 101 class at the College of Mass Communication, UP Diliman.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment