Low moment
Much has been said about the P1,000 budget that the House of Representatives voted to give the Commission on Human Rights last Tuesday. Like many others, the act of the congressmen had me scratching my head in disbelief of the sheer immaturity and folly of those who actively sought for the miniscule budget for the CHR and the servility of those who went with the decision.
My only comfort is that my own district's representative, Congressman Raul Del Mar, defended the larger and sensible proposed budget for the CHR, and thus went against the wishes of the ruling coalition in the House.
That was, I think, a shining moment for the veteran congressman which brought back personal memories of the time my father put up a del Mar campaign poster at the back of our family van when del Mar first ran for Congress in 1987.
Politicians, of course, have their high and low moments, depending in large measure on how popular or unpopular their decisions are. But last Tuesday's vote in the House was a low point by all angles – ethical and legal.
While the "power of the purse" belongs to Congress – meaning it is the only branch that can appropriate the national budget – such power does not give Congress the license to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. Congress cannot by any means, constructively or directly, abolish an office that the Constitution has created and has directed Congress to operationalize.
While the CHR is not on the same level as the Constitutional Commissions inArticle IX of the 1987 Constitution (Commission onAudit, Comelec, and Civil Service Commission), the CHR is still a creation of the Constitution. The power of the purse cannot be abused in order to circumvent a Constitutional directive.
But that may be arguing too soon. The annual appropriations bill still has to go through the Senate which may still amend it or overhaul it. Then it goes through the bicameral conference committee before landing on the desk of the president.
I'm sure the Senate will carefully and more independently study the appropriations bill. Key House members behind the P1,000 CHR budget have even conceded that they merely just wanted to make a statement against the CHR. They know that their antics won't survive Senate and bicameral conference scrutiny.
In any case, if Congress really has legitimate beef against the CHR including the scope of its current mandate and functions, the Constitution itself allows Congress to provide for "other cases of violations of human rights that should fall within the authority of the Commission on Human Rights."
***
Tomorrow is the start of the annual celebration of the Cebu Press Freedom Week. Cebu's working media will once again show their unity in commemorating how we once lost and then regained press freedom, and in tackling the challenges that the press face in today's media landscape.
Media and communication students are also looking forward to the various educational forums that are lined during this week. I'm sure there are many issues to talk about in today's interesting political climate. Continuing dialogue among stakeholders – especially between and among citizens and government – always creates a space for democracy to mature.
The changing media landscape brought by the Internet, however, has threatened to pull apart the glue that accountable and judicious community conversations have once put together. This was the takeaway from last Wednesday's forum on "The Challenge of the New Media Landscape" which was organized by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.
In the forum held in Cebu City, CMFR's Melinda Quintos de Jesus recalled before an audience of media practitioners from around the country the beginnings of journalism. She said journalism began as conversations in small places where people converge about the significance of public affairs and the issues affecting everyone. These conversations connected everyone and later created a community.
In recent years, the evolution of such model has been challenged. De Jesus, however, cautions against blaming the situation entirely on the trolls and the messengers of fake news in the Internet. It has also something to do with the accountability of mainstream media which have to contend with the three Cs commercialism, corruption and competence.
Indeed, while the political economy is the reality that bears upon journalism, media consumers are still looking for and are willing to pay premium for trust, credibility and competence.