While the focus of the criticisms on the Consultative Commission (Con-com) proposed Charter changes is on the no presidential term cut and no elections in 2007, an even more authoritarian regime to be headed by President Arroyo has been envisioned by the Jose Abueva led-Con-com, as it curtailed the freedoms of the Filipino people by subtly altering the Bill of Rights on the freedoms of speech, the press and the right of peaceful assembly to seek redress of government grievances.
The Bill of Rights, as stated in the 1987 Constitution says: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peace-ably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
But in the Abueva Con-com Bill of Rights, it is stated that “No law shall be passed abridging the responsible exercise of the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
This proviso effectively curtails the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, as the freedoms are now defined by the modifier “responsible exercise” of the guaranteed freedoms, or a clear subversion of the rights of the citizens against government abuse.
Based on the administration's tendency to call Arroyo's critics "destabilizers", should I worry about this?
The Malaya Editorial gets it right:
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."
That’s Section 5 of the Bill of Rights, a provision that that has remained unchanged from the 1935 Constitution which was adopted during the American colonial era to the 1973 Constitution which was adopted at the height of martial law. That provision springs from the fundamental rights of man, and has been hallowed by tradition and remains a powerful check to the abuses of the State.
So if the charter has to be changed, that particular provision – along with the rest which are enshrined in the Bill of Rights – would be the last that should be monkeyed around with, right?
Those "geniuses" handpicked by Gloria Arroyo to propose changes in the 1987 do not think so. They have come up with a proposed amendment that would emasculate the exercise of such right.
The proposal reads:
"No law shall be passed abridging the responsible exercise of 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."
Does that mean then that under the proposed new charter laws may be passed abridging the irresponsible exercise of the freedom of speech, of expression or the press of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances? That’s the only reasonable explanation for that proposal.
And who then would define responsible or irresponsible exercise of such right? Presumably parliament.
A more direct assault on fundamental rights we cannot imagine.
We can understand why the pro-fascist administration of Gloria would emasculate freedom of speech, of the press and of peaceful assembly. Remember the CPR (calibrated preemptive response) policy on mass actions? This administration is deathly afraid of the truth, of criticism and dissent.
What we cannot understand is why those purported "wise men" who had been picked to draft the proposed amendments went along with this throwback to the Malolos Constitution of 1989. (The Malolos charter recognizes these rights, but with the qualification that their exercise "shall be subject to general provisions regulating the same.")
History is said to be the chronicle of man’s march toward freedom. Gloria, through her handpicked architects of the proposed new charter, would seek to reverse history’s trajectory.
She has robbed us of the truth, of our right to elect our leader, of the taxes we pay. She wants to rob us of our freedoms, too?
Now we understand why people find her more execrable than Marcos.
Sheeeeeeeeeet! GOTCHA! Now you know why Freedom House thinks we're less free today than previous years.
And let me just say na if Erap proposed something like this in his cha cha attempt, most civil society and edsa dos people would be up in arms and calling for his head.
But since it's their Golden Girl Arroyo who's doing the tampering with the constitution, tahimik lang sila.
More from Ellen Tordesillas:
Thanks to Ninez Cacho Olivarez’s sharp eye for detail, the proposal of the Gloria Arroyo’s Consultative Commission to trifle with our freedom of expression has been exposed.
Article IV (Bill of Rights), Section 4 of the draft Constitution submitted by the Consultative Commission states" No law shall be passed abridging the responsible exercise of 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."
The 1987 Constitution which is in effect today provides: "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."
The above revision was not contained among the highlights of their recommendations that the Concom released to the media upon completion of their work last month. The complete recommendations were made available only recently (www.concom.ph).
We thought that the postponement of the 2007 elections was the most idiotic of the Con-Com recommendations led by Jose Abueva, who strikes us as being up in the air and whose only concern is to make us laboratory rats to his idea of parliamentary-federal government. He doesn’t care if in making his dream come true, we lose our cherished freedom and basic rights.
But the proposed change in the freedom of expression provision strikes at the core of our basic rights as a citizen of a democratic country. The key change here is in the word "responsible." Who will determine what is responsible exercise of freedom of speech? Who will determine what is a responsible press. Who will determine responsible petition for redress of grievances? Gloria Arroyo?
The proposed change is very Gloria Arroyo. Many times, she has made media the scapegoat of her inability to govern because of zero trust and credibility.
Remember that speech before the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas in Baguio City last November where she called on media to echo only her lies? "Today I call on you: Let us cast aside the ‘bad boy’ image that the press has acquired. Let us restore its glory as the ‘responsible son’ of a democratic nation."
She asked media to forget about the truth and be the unprincipled opportunists she cultivates: "The coverage of kangaroo courts, lynch mobs and witch hunts assails the peace of mind and the hopes of the people…The public wants winners, I know you know that, because you’re always looking at ratings."
The proposed provision, if carried out will legitimize the egregious Calibrated Preemptive Response.
Why is she resorting to this? Simple: To hide her crime of cheating in the 2004 elections which was exposed by the Hello Garci tapes.
It’s one crime after another that she is committing against the Filipino people. She is now tampering with the Constitution. This has to stop.
UPDATE: La_flash from Pinoyexchange comments:
errrr, paki-explain naman po kung paano makakaapekto ang pagdadagdag ng salitang "responsible" sa freedom of speech?
Who defines what is "responsible?" Arroyo's SC? Arroyo's police (when applying CPR)? Arroyo's DOJ? Arroyo's allies in parliament? Mrs. Arroyo herself?
There's no need to put the word "responsible exercise" there because it's not necessary, and this will only be abused by the administration in power to censor "bad news".
Here's my view on censorship: I may not agree with with the ku klux klan about their racist views and i find them abhorrent and irresponsible, but I will defend their right to say it.
The best way to counter the "negative" news against arroyo is by telling the truth. besides, there are already enough laws to protect people if one feels slighted.
When that Bill of Rights, enshrined in the every Constitution — except that of Abueva and his traitorous ilk — says no law shall be passed abridging these freedoms, it meant just that — that government cannot abridge these freedoms. This means that government cannot exercise prior restraint. What is acceptable to the press is the recourse that one who feels slighted by news reports, can take action, which is for one to sue for libel, and even in this, there is already that age-old doctrine that government officials and public personalities, being in the public eye, cannot claim to be libeled by the press.
If we had arroyo's constitution, the reporting on GLORIAGATE and her illegitimacy proplems would be deemed "irresponsible" and criminal-- because we all know naman na GMA is the "real president", and to say otherwise would mean you're a "destabilizer".
And this admin has a disturbing habit of calling it's critics "destabilizers".
The last thing we need right now are fake and unnecessary "reforms" whose only purpose is to distract people from Arroyo's illegitimacy problems. this is one of the reasons i never took arroyo's charter change seriously.
Update from Ellen:
Mapapansin nyo yung mentality ng mga CON COM delegates kung bakit nila gustong ibahin yung Bill of Rights natin on free speech, free press and free assembly (na previous constitutions since 1935 have valued and protected.)
In last night’s “Strictly Politics” ANC, hosted by Pia Hontiveros (disclosure:I’m editorial consultant for the show) the topic was this particular Concom provision. Guests were former Rep. Serge Apostol and Atty. Romela Bengzon, both members of the committee on Bill of Rights, Atty. Adel Tamano, professor of law at the Far Eastern University, and Vergel Santos, columnist of Businessworld and director of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.
Bengzon said the word “responsible” was put there to “enhance and focus”. She talked about investments not coming in, because investors always read bad news. We should give more tiem and space for “good news”, etc. etc., the usual Malacañang line although she denied that the Concom was inspired by GMA’s tirade on media and the opposition.
Apostol asked what’s the problem of of the word “responsibility” when media people themselves invoke that word all the time.
Apostol said soemthing shocking: proof that media can sometime be irresponsible is the high number of journalists being killed.
Tamano said changing the wording of that provision and adding the word “responsible” abridges freedom of expression.
He said that provision is part of the basic rights that gives substance to democracy and that has not been touched, tampered with for decades , in the American Constitution to which our Constitution is patterned. Our own Philippine Constitution has undergone several changes since 1935 but the framers respected and preserved that particular provision.
He said tampering with provision will create more confusion and disagreement.
Santos said there is no such thing as good news or bad news. There is only news. It’s good or bad depending on who views it.
Apostol and Bengzon said the word “responsible” is merely a guide. Santos and Tamano said there are enough laws to check abuses of freedom of expression.
Santos said the Concom’s set of recommendations is putting the cart before the horse because they were appointed by a presidentcy whose mandate is doubtful.
More:
My own take on Apostol’s comments that proof of media’s irresponsibility is the high number of journalists killed:
It’s possible that some of the killings of journalists are not related to their work as journalists or some may not have really been responsible journalists. But as Vergel santos said, that’s no justification for murder.
It also cannot be denied that some of those cases were work-related. Like in the case of Marlene Esperat. To attribute their killings to ‘irresponsibility’ is adding insult to injury. Pinatay ka na nga, ininsulto ka pa.
If we are to believe Romela Bengzon, then we should ban the media "bad boys" from reporting "bad news" like her illegitimacy problem and the ISAFP wiretapping scandal because investors are not coming in. That's why we need to generate "good news" by messing with the constitution instead. Now why didn't erap think of that while he was president, hmmm?
Apostol said soemthing shocking: proof that media can sometime be irresponsible is the high number of journalists being killed.
ohhh i see, mr. apostol. so kasalanan pala ng mga journalists kung bakit sila pinapatay. i'm sure there are irresponsible journalists around. kahit sa US meron yan. but the proper response against them is to take them to court. not kill them, mr. apostol.
and haven't you considered of the more likely possibility na kaya sila pinapatay is because they have exposed the corrupt ways of powerful politicians and policemen and the rotten deals inside gov't? i think that is the most likely the situation in most of these cases.
btw, isn't Apostol parroting Mike Arroyo and Reynaldo Wycoco's line about dead journalists?
WHEN the First Gentleman tells the Bacolod Press Club that the reason those who are killing journalists have killed no member of the BPC is that the members of the BPC are responsible journalists who are well behaved, Mike Arroyo is telling the world that the killers of journalists are in the right.
In effect, he is telling us that he agrees that those who, in his mind or in the mind of those ordering the killings, are irresponsible journalists, ought to die. It is only right. After all, what purpose do these irresponsible journalists serve if not to "destabilize" his wife’s government? They make themselves the enemy when they act irresponsibly. And, who are acting responsibly? Those who agree that Gloria Arroyo is the greatest thing that has ever happened to this country.
This is how dangerous journalism has become in this country. All that has to happen is for someone like Mike Arroyo or some local satrap such as a governor or a mayor to identify some writer or broadcaster as a "destabilizer" and that journalist’s goose will soon be cooked. In other words, he’s dead! That is the reality.
The sad part is that if even Mike Arroyo, the husband of Her Excellency feels this way, why would anyone – policeman or government functionary — go out of his way to protect journalists or to find out who killed them?
Imagine, too, that the head of the NBI also came up with advice to journalists to the effect that because these are dangerous times, journalists ought to go easy in what they write or broadcast and how they write or speak. The onus for the killings is, in the mind of NBI director Reynaldo Wycoco, on the journalists, rather than on the killers.
The victim is at fault. If he did not write or talk about the corruption, the cheating, the mistakes of those who govern and their profligate ways, then, he would not have been killed. It is as simple as that. It is as though he willed himself to be killed. Because he did all those forbidden things, then, naturally, he has to be killed. Do we actually expect the crooks in government to allow just about anyone to write any which way about them?
Who gave journalists the right to write or talk about these irregularities? Who told them that they could do those things that they do that make the powerful uncomfortable and that shame them before the people that they are supposed to be serving but whom they are victimizing by their incompetence and avarice?
How can anyone be doing a good job of reporting when he does not support Gloria Arroyo with the devotion of a lapdog?
The serious answer to these questions is of course to be found in the Constitution: "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."
Of course, as we all know, the second part of this provision is no longer honored by the present government. The present rule is "No permit, no rally!"
Thus, even if no law has been passed abridging any of these freedoms, the fact is that we can no longer exercise many of these freedoms. As for journalists, the hard fact is that the Constitution does not guarantee the journalist’s freedom to live.
UPDATE: I also noticed na if Arroyo's Constitution were passed, it would legalize CPR and "No permit, no rally".
Meaning, magiging constitutional na yung pag-ban ng "GLORIA resign" rallies sa mendiola, makati, and edsa -- unlike in the past. ang pwede na mga rallies ay yung mga pabor o harmless sa admin at yung mga parades para kay manny pacquiao at mga beauty queens.
And like I said previously:
if we had arroyo's constitution, the reporting on GLORIAGATE and her illegitimacy problems would be deemed "irresponsible" and criminal-- because we all know naman na GMA is the "real president", and to say otherwise would mean you're a "destabilizer".
reporting on GLORIAGATE and on the ISAFP wiretapping scandal could be hazardous to a reporter's health. Baka matawagan ka pang "destabilizer" at kasuhan ka ng administration.
Delikado ang PCIJ at NUJP dito dahil hindi ba tinawagan ng Arroyo administration (thru ISAFP) na "Enemies of the STate" sila?
From Gandhi:
Hindi ka na pwedeng sumigaw ng "Sunog!" sa sinehan kasi gusto mong makaupo.
uh, don't we have laws against this already? yan kasi ang problema sa "reform" ni arroyo eh--they are not only unnecessary, but counterproductive as well and can be easily abused by a corrupt and desperate administration clinging to power.
Anyways, ito lang ang gusto kong sabihin sa Arroyo admin at ang mga kaalyado nito -- TAKE YOUR DIRTY HANDS OFF MY BILL OF RIGHTS!!!
From greenwitch of PInoyexchange, defending the Arroyo's version of our Bill of Rights:
Guilty kaya nagre-react. With freedom comes responsibility, whether or not the word responsible is added. It's just that they don't trust a word alien to their vocabulary.
Heh. Responsible naman ako ah by getting my facts right about GLORIAGATE and this bogus president.
OTOH, I don't know what this administration's definition of "responsible exercise" is.
Just because it's an anti-ARroyo rally calling for GMA's resignation, hindi na siya considered na "responsible exercise" of free assembly and free speech by the arroyo admin?
Kaya lahat ng mga GMA resign rallies ay gustong i-ban? Napaka-self serving naman nyan.
ano, puro pro-admin na lang ang mga rally natin katulad ng nangyayari sa North Korea, sa Iran at China?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment