The final blow
It seems that the practice of “hand washing” among some administration officials has gone beyond its hygenic purpose. The sudden closure of media giant ABS-CBN last week elicited a round of collective “hand washing” that hardly sanitizes the conscience or culpability of the network’s executioners. The swift action highlights one inescapable fact: even in the midst of pandemic, there are those in positions of power who see opportunities to pursue a clearly political project, confident that the existing state of affairs will preclude any expression of outrage outside the realm of social media.
Several administration congressmen have taken offense at what they call an encroachment on their mandate. The chief of the National Telecommunications Commission was even threatened with contempt. He had, after all, promised to give the network a provisional permit — as requested by some legislators — pending approval of the network’s franchise.
But other lawmakers were not impressed. One congressman in particular, Buhay partylist Rep. Lito Atienza, laid the blame on the House and the Speaker himself. “Kasalanan ng Kongreso ito. But more importantly, I would like to say squarely, kasalanan ni Speaker Cayetano ito…Pagkukulang niya ito sa bayan, he will have a lot to explain one day. It may not be today but later on, this issue will hound him because he’s the one who did not do his job,” he said in an interview.
After several days, the Speaker broke his silence with a statement that began with a quote from the Holy Book that speaks of persecution. He then proceeded to extricate himself from the mess in a rather circuitous manner. He blamed a busy congressional calendar, the Taal volcano eruption, the NTC, and the “unconstitutional meddling” of the solicitor general. In short, he blamed everyone but himself. The Speaker’s invocation of the “exclusive Constitutional authority” of Congress on the matter of broadcast franchises sounded more like hollow chest thumping, a limp attempt to assert dominance. As Congressman Atienza correctly pointed out, he could have ordered the approval of the franchise if he was so inclined. But he did not. He took his sweet time, one day dangling the possibility of approval then retracting it with some vague reference to the network’s alleged sins.
The closure has forced a readjustment in the network’s operations. A few days after going off the air, ABS-CBN News was back. This time, they were on social media, the Internet, and on cable television. The metrics reveal that the maiden broadcast of the network’s flagship news program TV Patrol garnered eight million views on Facebook. It was an impressive showing for the network. Media analysts began talking about a major shift in media habits from analog to digital. Defenders of the NTC action even used this to undermine the position that the network’s closure was an assault on press freedom. The network continues to report the news, they say, merely on a different platform. Therefore, the government is not curtailing press freedom.
But they miss one essential point: a significant number of Filipinos who have no access to social media and rely solely on “free television” have been denied access to news and information. Eight million Facebook views hardly approximate the 99 percent of the adult population who rely on “free television” for news. By taking down ABS-CBN, millions of Filipinos have been denied their choice of an information source from which they make personal and political choices.
As to the argument that the network’s closure does not constitute a violation of Constitutional rights, we need only refer to Section 4 of the Bill of Rights which assures and protects freedom of expression. The eminent constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas Jr. explains that the freedom of expression provides two guarantees: a prohibition on prior restraint and a prohibition on subsequent punishment.
Some legal analysts would argue that the closure of ABS-CBN is a form of subsequent punishment. The network has been made to pay severely for news reports and commentaries criticizing government policies, agencies, and personalities. The network was shut down because of a perceived personal slight. And after being browbeaten by high-level officials and scrutinized by various agents of government, the final blow was delivered by a submissive and spineless House leadership.
jcbinay11@gmail.com