THE prohibition by the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board against the public exhibition of the documentary on the life of former President Joseph Estrada is yet another portent of the increasing repressiveness of the present government.
Like many other citizens, I had entertained the hope that Estrada’s replacement by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would usher for us a future cleansed of the flaws of the past administration. That hope has been slaughtered in the disillusionments foisted on the people by GMA since she took over the Palace in 2001.
One may recall that Estrada, out of pique with the Inquirer, imposed a ban on advertising in it by his political supporters, including his friends from the movie industry. But he did this on the strength of his political or personal influence and not officially as the lawful tenant of Malacañang.
It is different in the case of Ms Gloria, who is using her dubious official authority to entrench herself in power. And one of her petty methods seems to be to use the Board to further discredit her predecessor by preventing the exhibition of his life on TV while he languishes helplessly in the custody of the law.
I have no loyalty for Estrada whom I have criticized many times in this column, resulting in his disdaining me as one of his enemies. I am not. But even if I were, I would still be happy to defend him, as I’m doing now, when his rights as safeguarded by the Constitution are disregarded and betrayed.
All he wants to do is tell about his public life from the time he was elected as a municipal mayor and rose to become a senator, vice president and president, until he was ousted over his protest from his high position. Yet he has been denied this legitimate move that is protected by his freedom of expression as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The reason, according to the Board in X-rating the documentary, is that it tended “to threaten the political stability of the State, undermine the faith and confidence of the people in the government, and (be) libelous or defamatory, and (pertained) to matters that are sub judice in nature.”
As a columnist in this paper, I could be charged with similar acts, which I do not consider offenses. Yet, in view of my comparatively insignificant position, I am not (yet) being discriminated against unlike the formidable Estrada. Estrada is being targeted because of his dangerous potential to derail the ambitious designs of Ms Arroyo.
The Board’s decision is based mainly on its shallow argument that the Estrada show is critical of President Arroyo, who has control of the MTRCB.
The right to criticize is part and parcel of freedom of expression. It is in fact more significant than the right to agree or not to disagree. Disagreement makes democracy more vital and meaningful. “Compulsory unification of opinion,” said the US Supreme Court in a famous case, “achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” It is now settled that one of the important functions of freedom of expression is “to invite dispute.”
It is this militant function that the Board would immobilize by banning the Estrada documentary and its indirect criticisms of his successor. It is this function that the Board would castrate because it might impair popular faith and confidence in her erratic and dishonest government. It is this function that the Board has disallowed because it would “threaten the political stability of the State,” which it obsequiously identifies as Ms Arroyo.
Censorship is anathema in the free society, but the MTRCB would blandly claim it like an assignment from a trustful Heaven. Arbitrariness and pretentiousness are not divine gifts for the Board to assert against persons who are slightly “lower than angels.” These dubious powers cannot prevail against the right to criticize as the bedrock of the democratic ambience.
Mr. Cruz ends his column with a plea from Arroyo to remove the ban on the erap video.
I hope President Arroyo will reverse the decision of the MTRCB, even if favorable to her, as President Fidel Ramos before her allowed the showing of “Schindler’s List” and “The Piano” in 1994 without the deletion of the parts considered objectionable by the censors at that time.
Agreed. I myself have made a similar call to maam arroyo. not because I want to watch the Erap Docu on the big screen. I have a pretty good idea kung ano ang nilalaman ng erap video and the story of his life doesn't really interest me at all. I like political docus but this one only got political during the last 3 minutes of the film (at yan rin ang ipina-ban ng MTRCB). i've already seen the last three minutes, and it's pretty ordinary, "pitik sa tenga" stuff compared to what Bush has to endure from fahrenheit 9/11 and the stinging attacks and ridiculing you see daily from Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Jay Leno.
Anyway, read this today... a navy officer is facing court martial proceedings for possessing and distributing the erap video. More info here.
Mabuhay ang Strong Republic.
From the tribune editorial:
If distribution of any CD in the military is now a crime under the military justice system, then it is equally a crime for the AFP leadership to distribute and order the showing of the Malacañang-produced propaganda CD showing the alleged coup plot plan against Gloria.
Gloria’s CD shows the alleged coup plot against her and her government; Erap’s video shows Gloria admitting before a public forum that she had been plotting with at least five military groups to oust then sitting President Estrada, a full year before the actual ouster. So why should a military officer who distributes Erap’s CD be charged before a court-martial while the AFP leadership that ensures the showing, if not the distribution of the Gloria CD, not be charged for the same crime as well?
The double standard being employed by today’s military leadership definitely shows it is engaging in clear partisan politics — and is partisan to Gloria in her political plays.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment