Group 5: Human Rights Law - Violation of the Freedom of the Press

Members: Sid Thomas Faelmarin, Marie Antonette Macapagal, Erwin

Mappatao
Foreword: Watchdog of Democracy

The United Nations General Assembly designated every 3rd of May as World Press Freedom
Day. This year’s 30th celebration put into spotlight the freedom of expression as a vehicle for
enjoying and protecting other human rights. Any functioning democracy requires at its core -
free, independent and fair freedom of expression. Freedom of Press is essential for the
protection of all other human rights. We need truthful and unintimidated journalism to fight
corruption, abuse of power, misinformation and disinformation, call the power to account and
check the government when they detour out of their constitutional mandate. A free press forms
a debate based on truth and not based on alternative facts. Making the facts known to the
public is the first step to start redressing human rights. A free press brings civility and respect
back to the conversation, and a return to what is important to us - the death of gossip and
voyeurism, and the annihilation of fake news. Freedom of the press does not just put
journalists into a pedestal to report and comment. Freedom of the press means letting them
do their jobs without any and all forces that will compromise their integrity.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution guarantees the freedom of the press. This freedom is also
highlighted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as provided by Article 19 of the said
agreement. Freedom of the Press is an essential human right for a society to exist and coexist
with its citizens. For countries like North Korea, Russia, and Turkmenistan, this could be a
luxury. But in the Philippines it’s embedded in the very fiber of our being.

In this report, we will discuss the core of the freedom of the press and why it is a basic human
right.

Part 1: Constitutional Right vis-a-vis Human Rights

The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 4 that: “No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the period under the 1935 Constitution, has
recognized four aspects of freedom of the press. These are:
(1) Freedom from prior restraint;
(2) Freedom from punishment subsequent to publication;
(3) Freedom of access to information;
(4) Freedom of circulation.

Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.

Subsequent Punishment is the imposition of liability to the individual exercising his freedom.
It may be in any form, such as penal, civil or administrative penalty.

1. Requires approval of a proposal to publish;

2. Licensing or permits as prerequisites to publication including the payment of license
taxes for the privilege to publish; and
3. Injunctions against publication.
4. Closure of businesses
 RULE: Any law or official that requires some form of permission to be had before
publication can be made, commits an infringement of the constitutional right, and remedy
can be had at the courts.

Types of Restraint
(1) A content-neutral regulation, i.e., merely concerned with the incidents of the speech,
or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and under well-defined
standards; or
(2) A content-based restraint or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on the subject
matter of the utterance or speech. The cast of the restriction determines the test by
which the challenged act is assayed with.

Tests of Validity
A. Content Neutral
A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power
of the Government, if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if
the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the
incident restriction on alleged [freedom of speech & expression] is no greater than is
essential to the furtherance of that interest.

B. Content-Based restrictions,
The government must also show the type of harm the speech sought to be restrained
would bring about—especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm—
otherwise the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its
content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, “but only by showing a substantive
and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on ground.”

In Chavez v Gonzales, It is sufficient that the press statements were made by

respondents while in the exercise of their official functions. Undoubtedly, respondent
Gonzales made his statements as Secretary of Justice, while the NTC issued its
statement as the regulatory body of media. Any act done, such as a speech uttered,
for and on behalf of the government in an official capacity is covered by the rule on
prior restraint. The concept of an “act” does not limit itself to acts already converted to
a formal order or official circular. Otherwise, the non formalization of an act into an
official order or circular will result in the easy circumvention of the prohibition on prior
restraint. The press statements at bar are acts that should be struck down as they
constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free speech and press.

“Freedom of speech can be suppressed by the mere passage of law, in this case it can
also be suppressed by a press conference, the admin threatens business, NTC
threatens closure.”

Part 2: Laws and Policies Protecting Media and Freedom of the Press in the Philippines
and in the Global Scale

In the United States

Broadcast media has been treated differently from the other forms of expression. There are
three reasons why broadcast media has been treated differently.

I. The number of frequencies available to the broadcast media is limited

The limited number of frequencies was discussed in the case of Red Lion Broadcasting
Company v. Federal Communications Commission when the Court said:
 “It quickly became apparent that broadcast frequencies constituted a scarce resource
whose use could be regulated and rationalized only by the Government. Without
government control, the medium would be of little use because of the cacophony of
competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard.”

II. As a medium, it is pervasive.

In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation the Court
said:

“The broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of
all Americans.xxx the broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out, prior
warnings cannot completely protect the listener or viewer from unexpected program
content.”

III. Broadcast media can be easily accessed by the children.

In the Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation and the United
States Supreme Court said:

“Broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read.xxxThe

ease with which children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the
concerns recognized in Ginsberg, amply justify special treatment of indecent
broadcasting.”

In the Philippines

The test commonly applied to content-based regulation is the clear and present danger test,
which is also applied to print and broadcast media. The difference between print and broadcast
media lies in the “regulatory scheme applied to broadcast media that is not imposed on
traditional print media, and narrowly confined to unprotected speech (e.g., obscenity,
pornography, seditious and inciting speech), or is based on a compelling government interest
that also has constitutional protection, such as national security or the electoral process”.

The Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans discussed the
difference between broadcast media and print media. The Court for future reference discussed
it and said:

All forms of media, whether print or broadcast, are entitled to the broad protection of the
freedom of speech and expression clause. The test for limitations on freedom of expression
continues to be the clear and present danger rule, that words are used in such circumstances
and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent.

Broadcasting has to be licensed. Airwave frequencies have to be allocated among qualified

users. A broadcast corporation cannot simply appropriate a certain frequency without regard
for government regulation or for the rights of others. All forms of communication are entitled
to the broad protection of the freedom of expression clause. Necessarily, however, the
freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom
accorded to newspaper and print media.

The broadcast media have also established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all
Filipinos. Newspapers and current books are found only in metropolitan areas and in the
poblaciones of municipalities accessible to fast and regular transportation. Even here, there
are low income masses who find the cost of books, newspapers, and magazines beyond their
humble means. Basic needs like food and shelter perforce enjoy high priorities. On the other
hand, the transistor radio is found everywhere. The television set is also becoming universal.
Their message may be simultaneously received by a national or regional audience of listeners
including the indifferent or unwilling who happen to be within reach of a blaring radio or
television set. The materials broadcast over the airwaves reach every person of every age,
persons of varying susceptibilities to persuasion, persons of different I.Q.s and mental
capabilities, persons whose reactions to inflammatory or offensive speech would be difficult to
monitor or predict. The impact of the vibrant speech is forceful and immediate. Unlike readers
of the printed work, the radio audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate analyze, and reject
the utterance.

The clear and present danger test, therefore, must take the particular circumstances of
broadcast media into account. The supervision of radio stations-whether by government or
through self- regulation by the industry itself calls for thoughtful, intelligent and sophisticated
handling.

The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of
public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the
case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men
in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged
with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference
to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual
be exalted. (7) Broadcast stations deserve the special protection given to all forms of media
by the due process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution. [Citations omitted]
“On the other hand, the transistor radio is found everywhere. The television set is also
becoming universal. Their message may be simultaneously received by a national or regional
audience of listeners including the indifferent or unwilling who happen to be within reach of a
blaring radio or television set. The materials broadcast over the airwaves reach every person
of every age, persons of varying susceptibilities to persuasion, persons of different I.Q.s and
mental capabilities, persons whose reactions to inflammatory or offensive speech would be
difficult to monitor or predict. The impact of the vibrant speech is forceful and immediate.
Unlike readers of the printed work, the radio audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate
analyze, and reject the utterance”. It is interesting to note that in the cited case, the Supreme
Court differentiated print and broadcast media. Also, the Supreme Court said that the freedom
enjoyed by broadcast media is lesser in scope as opposed to print media.

Part 3: Limitations on the Freedom of the Press

Where do we draw the line

The Press is given enough legroom to comment on current news and cover them in line with
their editorial policy. But this freedom needs working traffic lights to stop rights clashing at
each other, and prevent more violations. The Press is not almighty. There’s always bad press.
Here is a list of some rotten tomatoes:

1. Shooting from the hip - writing or reporting without basis or verified facts.
2. “The Source” Story - no source at all or the source is not legitimate or the expert on
the issue.
3. Poetic license - using tools to convey another message out of the facts.
4. Manufactured stories - lies after lies after lies.
5. Conflict of interest - compromise credibility of journalist
6. Misquoting - inaccurate conveyance of actual message
7. Labeling - prejudicial reporting ie. race, religion, sexuality
8. Yellow journalism - sensationalized stories for viewership or readership purposes
9. Envelopmental journalism - paid stories
 10. Politicians - politician commenting on politics

Irresponsible journalism does not only post danger but is also fatal. To attract readers or
viewers, journalists indulge in exaggerated reporting presented as hard facts. The poison is
more prevalent now with social media as the main source of news for most Filipinos. In
Facebook or in Twitter (now X), mere rumors are blown up as actual facts, and memes and
doctored photos go viral waving as the truth. In the past as it is today, we accuse the Western
media of wrongly depicting the state of the nation. They always highlight that the Philippines
is always on the brink of civil war clouded by the climate of uncertainty. We also accuse the
media of drowning the urban news as they always concentrate on what they call “Imperial
Manila”. Primetime news puts crimes, violence and entertainment on the A-block leaving the
most important ones at the bottom. The military almost always assert that the media always
lean with the communist evidenced by their heavy coverage on them.

From the Martial Law era until this date, lack of journalistic professionalism hunts the media.
Amid the freer atmosphere now than it was during the era of the dictator, stories are so shallow
that it casts doubt on their authenticity.

“The law of overruling necessity”

Because the media is not a perfect fourth estate, the state had to exercise its inherent Police
Power by regulating liberty and freedom for the promotion of the general welfare. A valid
exercise of the state of its power allows it to pierce the constitutionally protected rights of press
freedom.

One of the limits put by the state is the need for broadcast media for franchises. The United
States case of Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission laid
down the basis for the special treatment of broadcast media.

1. Broadcast frequency is a scarce resource which requires regulation and rationalization

only by the Government. This is applied in the Philippines by mandating broadcast
media to apply for legislative franchises. They have the power to grant or deny these
franchises. Case in point the losing of media giant ABS-CBN it’s franchise during the
Duterte administration. This case will be discussed at length in the latter portion of this
report. Airwaves have to be allocated among qualified users. The state has to
appropriate certain frequencies with regard to government regulation and the rights of
others.

2. The pervasive presence of broadcast media contents without prior warning cannot
completely protect the listener or viewer from unexpected contents. In the Philippines,
there’s the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) which is
a quasi-judicial government agency under the Office of the President responsible for
the review and classification of television programs, movies and publicity materials.
They also issue permits for movies and its material shown to the public.

3. Easy access of broadcast media by the children amply justify the special treatment of
indecent broadcasting. The MTRCB classifies movies and televisions, and imposes
penalties when shown to restricted ages.

The clear and present danger test as discussed earlier applies to print and broadcast media
as discussed in Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v Dans. Their difference lies in the “special
regulatory scheme” applied to broadcast media not imposed on other media. However, the
Court backpedaled in JBL Reyes v Bagatsing explaining that the clear and present danger
test does not lend itself to a simplistic and all-embracing interpretation applicable to all
utterances in all forums.

Full discussion of public affairs

The freedom of radio, television and print media should not cross the line that violently
overthrows or incites to throw the government. The state has to be protected from content use
to organize rebellion or a signal of widespread uprising.

The flip side of this is the right of the people to be informed. So the court stressed in the 1918
case of United States v Bustos that freedom of the press comes with it the freedom to comment
on public affairs and not just present the facts as bland as they might be. Journalists are given
the complete liberty to comment on the conduct of the public officials but they are limited to
the issues being discussed and not beyond it. The code of professional ethics for journalists
prohibits below the belt commentaries even with government officials.

Libel and Cyberlibel

Section 360 of RA 1289 states that “Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the
publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible
for the crime of libel. And cyberlibel is governed by the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
These laws that criminalize libel is another limitation of the Freedom of the Press.

In 2022, a Quezon City Regional Trial Court convicted Baguio City journalist Frank Cimatu for
cyberlibel over a Facebook post made in 2017. He was penalized with a minimum jail time of
six months and a maximum of five years, five months and eleven days plus damages of
P300,000.00. The facebook post of journalist Cimatu questioned the conduct of then
Agriculture secretary Manny Pinol during the bird flu pandemic

Maria Ressa, the first Filipino Nobel Laureate was convicted in 2020 of the same crime for an
article that was published way before the Cybercrime Law was enacted. This conviction made
Maria question whether freedom of the press still exists in a country where democratic
institutions are already being weakened by state policies against journalists.

These are setbacks to the freedom granted to the press especially in a country where
journalists are already being bullied no less than by the top officials from the Malacanang
Palace and even branded them as “not exempt from assassination.”

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan said
in 2022 that, “The criminalisation of journalists for libel impedes public interest reporting and
is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression. Criminal libel law has no place in a
democratic country and should be repealed.”

Part 4: Philippine vs International Media

On a global scale, broadcast media remains as strong, if not even stronger than digital media
but the widespread use of the internet declined the popularity of print media.
From Marcos to Facebook

Up until August 21, 1971, when the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. controlled the freedom
of the press and filtered information, the Philippines was considered the freest in Asia. The
Martial Law tarnished that image. Then came Google, Youtube and Facebook which disrupted
the traditional media to a more liberal and accessible one.

Philippine mass media today may be described broadly in the following terms:
1. They are privately-owned and pursue their objectives independent of the government
control in terms of content and editorial policy. The leading media giants right now are
the ABS-CBN owned by the Lopez Group, GMA by the Duavit’s and TV5 by Manny
Panglinan’s Metropacific Group.

a. All of the 21 daily newspapers and 100 or so community papers are privately
owned.
b. All of the 16 leading magazines and about a hundred other magazines sold on
the newsstands are privately owned.
c. Of the 18 television stations in the country, only one or two are government
owned.
d. Of the 245 or so radio stations, only half a dozen are run by the government.
e. Only the Philippine News Service is the sole domestic news agency.
f. All of the 24 book publishers in the country are private entities but the
government has one printing arm - the Bureau of Printing.

2. They are multilingual. Primetime mainstream news is mostly in Filipino or Tagalog like
ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol and GMA’s 24 Oras. Radio stations are mostly based on their
regional reach but those in Metropolitan Manila are mostly in Filipino as well. Print and
other digital media are mostly English with big major newspapers like the Philippine
Daily Inquirer, Philippine Star and Manila Times. The Philippine Mass Media Directory
lists 1,193 print journalists - 986 write in English while the remaining in other Philippine
languages and dialects.

3. They are Manila-centered and need to be developed in the provinces. The giant media
companies are all based or have headquarters in Metro Manila. With ABS-CBN’s
license not renewed, they used to have the most extensive reach as they had regional
presence on both TV and radio.

a. The 17 dailies in Manila circulate 60% in the greater Manila area while the
remaining is split to the rest of the archipelago.
b. Of the 18 TV stations in the country, half of it is located in Manila.
c. Of all the mass media, only radio is perhaps the more evenly diffused
throughout the country

4. They are politically free (until August 21, 1971), but are controlled by big businesses.
The Philippines enjoys great political freedom, in theory. In practice however, such
political freedom is limited, for instance the government can withhold news from
newsmen or block access of information to the media. Press Secretaries are paid to
practically keep away unfavorable news from their principal and feed the public with
those who are kind to them. Another way of eroding the freedom of the press in the
Philippines is through economic control of big businessmen with political interests.

5. They lack professionally trained people, and are beset by problems of ethics.
Especially during this digital age of the internet, journalists are being bombarded with
criticisms left and right with one side, the government aiming its guns on the members
 of the Fourth Estate. Two aspects affect this - economy and professionalism. Both are
at the mercy of the owners, publishers or editorial board.

Media with NO borders

The emergence of technology such as the internet, mobile phones and satellites have
contributed to removing the borders that separates countries by bodies of water and distance.
Transnational media networks and news services such as CNN, BBC World News, Fox News
and Al-Jazeera have entered and transformed the global media landscape. Global
broadcasting corporations not only provide people with better understanding of global politics,
they also offer new journalistic styles and give rise to new horizons for political identity.
However, this seemingly smaller world for journalists is criticized by HafezK of Polity Press,
UK. He argued that there is not enough empirical evidence of a media system that could
accurately be described as global. He further explained that international exchanges of images
and information do not guarantee global intertextuality in news, and for an increased
complexity of world views in the mass media.

World Press Freedom

According to the 2023 World Press Freedom Index, after 180 countries and territories were
evaluated, the situation is “very serious” in 31 countries, “difficult” in 42, “problematic” in 55,
and “good” in 52 countries. On a broader scale, the environment for journalism worldwide is
“bad” in seven out of ten countries and only 3 or 10 is satisfactory.

On top of the list is Norway followed by Ireland, Denmark and The Netherlands. While the last
three spots were Asian countries with Vietnam on the 178th rank followed by China and North
Korea. The Philippines improved at 132nd but still among the world’s most dangerous
countries for journalists as seen most shockingly by the infamous Maguindanao massacre
who murdered 32 reporters. As of January 2023, per record of Reporters Without Borders
(RSF), 1 journalist was killed and 2 are behind bars. Globally, as of May this year, 7 journalists
and media workers have been killed. Since 2000, per RSF, 1,795 have been killed and some
568 are imprisoned.

RSF also highlighted that the increased aggressiveness from autocratic governments and
some other democratic - coupled with massive disinformation and propaganda campaigns has
caused the situation to go from bad to worse. Also 118 out of the 180 countries in the Index
reported that “political actors in their countries were often or systematically involved in massive
disinformation or propaganda campaigns”.

Part 5: Current State of the Philippine Media

To recall, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “No law shall be passed abridging
the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances”. In addition, Sec 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human rights (UDHR) states that “Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media
and regardless of frontiers.”

Our country has amassed notable events that showcase the Filipinos' fight for freedom
of speech, information and of the press. Some of these are witnessed during the
Martial Law and Duterte Administration.
Freedom of the Press during Martial law

A free press, together with free circulation of formation, is one of the key features of a
democracy. Forms of media like television, radio, and newspaper play an important role in
ensuring that the news and important information reach the masses., The media serves as
the intermediary between the government and the people. They help bring awareness to the
current issues of society. They educate the people and develop their critical thinking by asking
impactful questions. More importantly, freedom of the press allows freedom of information
which also entails the freedom to criticize. The facts they share allows the people to make
sound choices, and even challenge the government to perform its duty better inorder to serve
the people.

On September 28, 1972, then President Marcos Sr. issued Letter of Instruction No. 1 which
authorized the military to take over the assets of major media outlets such as ABS-CBN
Network, Manila Times, Manila Bulletin, Channel 5, and some radio stations. Marcos was well
aware of the role that the media played in the society. With this, Marcos controlled the people’s
access to the kind of information they would be receiving from the press. By silencing the
media, Marcos was in control. As a justification for the issuance of the letter, Marcos cited the
involvement of the media to the communist movement that can prevent the use of privately-
owned mass media to go against the government. Marcos’ order said the networks have
“actively engaged in” or “allowed the use of its facilities and manpower in the broadcast and
dissemination of subversive materials,” as well as “slanted,” “overly exaggerated news stories
and commentaries,” “false, vile, foul and scurrilous statements and utterances.”

Consequently, the Department of Public Information (DPI) issued Order No. 1 requiring all
media publications to get a clearance from the DPI, and Order No. 2 which prohibits printers
“from producing any form of publication for mass dissemination without permis-sion from DPI.”
On this day, the Philippine Daily Express restarts publication.. Then Marcos issue Presidential
Decree (PD) 33 which “penalizes the printing, possession, and distribution of leaflets and other
materials, and even graffiti which ‘undermine the integrity of the government.’” Further, Marcos
issued PD No. 36 canceling the franchises and permits of all mass media facilities allegedly
trying to topple his government. The decree created the Mass Media Council which has the
power to grant certificates of authority to newspapers, radio, and TV. And on January 6, 1973,
Marcos issued PD 90 penalizing rumor-mongering. Rumor, according to the decree, is “false
news and information and gossip which undermines the stability of government.” According to
the reports from International Press Institute and Press Foundation of Asia, during that time,
almost 10,000 people lost their jobs. In 1980 – Marcos issued several presidential decrees
that curtailed freedom to information such as PD No 1737 or the Public Order Act which
allowed him to hold down on “subversive publications or other media of mass communication”
and “ban or regulate the holding of entertainment (or exhibitions) deemed ’detrimental to the
national interest.’. However, on January 23, 1981, the government abolished the print and
broadcast media councils. It was then the right to publish without having to obtain prior license
was restored.

In a report published in 1985 by a New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, a total

of 12 journalists have been killed since 1984. The National Press Club, on the other hand,
says that 19 were killed and one has been missing since 1976. In an article by Index
Censorship Magazine, Thousands of journalists, editors, radio and television personnel were
arrested and thrown into jail without due process in 1978. Some of the prominent figures were
Teodoro Locsin Sr, publisher of the Philippine Free Press, was arrested and imprisoned for a
week; Chino Roces, a journalist; and ABS-CBN owner Eugneio Lopez Sr. was also imprisoned
and arrested. It was evident that during the martial law period that the Philippine media was
silenced and controlled, while the information was censored and regulated for the benefit of
the Marcos Administration
State of the Media under the Duterte Administration

In 2021, President Dutere was named a “press freedom predator” by Reporters Without
Borders, an international media watchdog organization. It said that his predatory method is a
total war against independent media. It was also during his administration that the ABS-CBN
Franchise renewal was denied. Numerous doubtful charges were filed against Maria Ressa,
the CEO of Rappler, who is also a critic of the Duterte Administration.

The government data shows that under the Duterte administration, at least 23 journalists and
media workers were killed as of April 2022. There were also at least 32 recorded incidents of
media workers being red-tagged or accused of having communist links. This also included the
death of 427 activists as of December 2021 and 6,252 individuals in police anti-drug
operations as of May 2022.

According to the World Press Freedom Index of 2021, the Philippines ranked 138th out of 180
nations according to the level of freedom given to journalists in a particular country. Reporters
Without Borders (RSF) report stated that there were continued attacks of President Duterte
and his administration on the media, including online harassment and red-tagging - labeling
journalists as communists or terrorists - which caused them to be perceived as enemies of the
state. The Malacanang dismissed the report calling it baseless and has no merit.

The administration has been alleged to back the spread of false information. In a study
published in Oxford Academic, it described key drivers of digital repression in the Philippines
- focusing on social manipulation and disinformation strategies deployed by Duterte’s
administration. One of the most controversial issues was the attempt to take down Rappler, a
news and social media website. Duterte accused Rappler as spreading fake news and it was
in violation of laws of foreign ownership. Rappler is the latest target to have taken on Duterte
and found itself subjected to various forms of scrutiny initiated by political allies. According to
the report by the guardian, the Foreign press organizations and human rights groups have
rallied behind Rappler, joining a chorus of domestic outrage among the media and political
opposition. It also cited Amnesty International, calling the harassment of the media “an
alarming attempt to silence independent journalism”, describing Rappler as “fearless in
holding those in power to account”. Human Rights Watch said the foreign ownership
allegations “masked a vendetta” against Rappler and the decision “suggests a sinister use of
state regulatory processes to stifle critical media voices”. Duterte also lashed on the Philippine
Daily Inquirer accusing them of evading tax. Neither the newspaper nor its former owners have
responded to Duterte’s allegation.

The Rappler CEO, Maria Ressa, was accused of libel. In June 2020, the Manila court issued
a guilty verdict against Ressa. Human Rights Watch (HRW) claimed that the ruling created a
devastating blow to media freedom in the Philippines. In addition, the report stated that the
verdict stemmed from one of several cases that the administration of President Rodrigo
Duterte instigated to stifle Rappler’s critical reporting on the government, particularly its
murderous “war on drugs” which has killed tens of thousands of people since July 2016. In
addition to this case, Ressa and her colleagues face other cases in various courts for which
she was arrested and detained, and posted bail. In March 2023, the Philippine court acquitted
journalist Maria Ressa and news outlet Rappler of tax evasion, in a move hailed as a win for
press freedom.

In a paper from (HRW) stated that the campaign against Rappler occurs in the context of
worsening media freedom and freedom of expression in the Philippines. Journalists from other
media groups have suffered intimidation and attacks online and offline. Recently, the
government began targeting social media users who posted comments critical of the
government, mainly on Facebook. The government has investigated dozens of social media
users and arrested several for violating the country’s “fake news” regulations during the Covid-
19 pandemic.

Red-tagging and Killing of Journalists

In every corner of the country, freedom of the press is under siege. The truth is being
threatened by the spread of wrong information, popularly known as “fake news”. The
misinformation creates a cloud over fact and fiction. Meanwhile, journalists and media workers
are being targeted on-cam and off-cam as they carry out their work. They are intimidated,
detained, imprisoned, harassed, or even killed.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) said a total of 197 journalists have
been killed in the Philippines since democracy was restored in 1986. As reported, the killing
of journalists typically occurs in areas far from Metro Manila. The victims are mostly radio
broadcasters known for their critical commentary on local politics, current issues, and most
especially, corruption.

In October 2023, Percival Mabasa, known as Percy Lapid, was shot by a “riding in tandem”
hitmen while he was inside his vehicle. Mabasa was a broadcaster who is known for his
commentary on criticizing former President Duterte and his “war on drugs” and President
Marcos Jr. He also tackled the fake news circulating in Facebook. As shared by the Committee
to Project Justice (CJP) in 2022, journalist Frenchiemae Cumpio was detained for more than
two years on an illegal firearms charge. The said allegations are repudiated by colleagues
saying that the charges were fabricated by authorities to silence her reports on the Philippine
military’s operations against communist rebels and associated human rights issues. In another
report by Philippine Star, Baguio Correspondents and Broadcasters Club president Aldwin
Quitasol survived an attack by two unidentified assailants in Baguio City. In 2020, Randall
Echanis, a land rights activist and human rights defender was murdered in his hometown.
Before his death, he was a critic of the Anti-terrorism Act.

Violence and intimidation against journalists was also evident in acts of red-tagging. Case
studies done by the Human Rights Foundation show that over the years, the Philippine
government has targeted human rights activists, journalists, the LGBTQI+ community,
indigenous groups and labor unions through red-tagging campaigns. The NUJP recorded 32
incidents of red-tagging and at least 23 journalists were killed between 2016 and 2022
because of this.

In December 2018, former President Duterte issued executive Order no. 70 which launched
the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NFT-ELCAC) throughout
the country in 2020. The Task Force is seen as the primary factor for red-tags in government
press releases, conferences and social media posts. The NFT-ELCAC uses its facebook page
to regularly publish red-tagging posts. The NUJP noted that NFT-ELCAC openly called several
journalists as communist allies that led to a series of online harassment and threats against
social media workers. In 2022, President Marcos Jr. continued the red-tagging campaign with
the congress allocating Php 10 billion to the task force despite a strong opposition.

According to the US State’s Department's annual country report on human rights practices in
March 2023, the report showed that the physical attacks against journalists continue and
several cases from previous years have remained unresolved. The report highlighted that
there is continued harassment of and physical attacks on journalists, usually by government
officials and powerful individuals. In the report, the State Department also said that red-tagging
has been used to intimidate political opponents. The report noted that the media generally
remains free, active, and able to voice criticism of the government, despite the trauma caused
by the killings of journalists and political pressure on specific major media organizations.
ABS-CBN Franchise Renewal

The ABS CBN was first ordered to be shut down during the Martial law with Letter of
INstruction No 1-A. Marcos Sr. Ordered the military to specifically sequester facilities of ABS-
CBN Broadcasting Corporation and Associated Broadcasting Corporation. It included the
radio stations DZMT and DZTM, provincial radio stations in Davao, Cebu, and Dagupan, and
Channel 5 and its sister TV stations in Davao and Cebu. According to the reports, He said the
owners and officers of ABS-CBN and ABC “are engaged in subversive activities against the
government” and are “participants in a conspiracy to overthrow the government”. As history
repeats itself, after 48 years, the network encountered similar fate under the Duterte
Administration after the network failed to secure a franchise renewal from the Congress.

In July 2020, under the Duterte administration, the House Committee on Legislative
Franchises voted 70-11 against ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal application. In effect, an
estimated 11,000 people lost their jobs, and the network’s free TV and radio stations
nationwide were banned from using their assigned broadcast frequencies. According to
Rappler, the network had enjoyed a 25-year franchise valid until May 2022. A day after the
franchise lapsed, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) ordered ABS-CBN to
cease its television and radio operations. The network continued broadcasting its shows via
alternative platforms, prompting the House to look into its alleged “dummy” operations. A
month after ABS-CBN’s shutdown, the NTC also ordered the closure of ABS-CBN’s Sky
Direct, and TV Plus channels.

According to Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), Before Duterte’s term
was over, the closure of ABS-CBN made it possible to assign the network’s frequencies to two
political allies: Manny Villar, owner of Advanced Media Broadcasting System Inc. (AMBS) and
Apollo Quiboloy, who owns Swara Sug Media Corporation (SSMC) also known as Sonshine
Media Network International (SMNI). Neither one has experience in the media industry; but
they pose no threat as presidential cronies.

As shared by multiple sources, the journalists and various media groups have long argued
that the ABS-CBN’s shutdown is an attack on press freedom, which has long been under siege
since Duterte took office in 2016.