'Election fairness' law stymies
Philippine media By Miriam Grace A Go
MANILA - He claims to have investments in
different continents, yet when a television reporter
asked him what his net worth was, he replied,
bewildered, "What's a net worth?" He boasts of having
US$2 billion in assets - enough to put him on the Forbes
billionaires list - yet he couldn't pay his hotel bill
in one of his campaign sorties in the provinces, and the
hotel personnel had to lock him up until he could
produce the money.
Wearing heavy foundation, an
often dislocated wig, and bright Muslim-inspired outfits
when presiding before followers of his alleged cult,
Philippine presidential candidate Eddie Gil is
considered by many political observers to be a joke. A
campaign strategist of one of his rivals, President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, can only shake his head at the
sight of this tail-ender in popularity surveys. "I can't
understand why the Comelec [Commission on Elections]
would allow a clown to run," he said.
This
"clown" is covered by the media, not for a one-time
"human interest" story nor because they take him
seriously, but because they have to. Not giving Eddie
Gil the same coverage they accord the more serious and
worthy candidates (that is, his five rivals, namely the
incumbent president, actor Fernando Poe Jr, Senator
Panfilo Lacson, former education secretary Raul Roco and
evangelist Eddie Villanueva) could earn journalists a
jail term of one to six years.
For getting into
this tight fix, the media industry has a three-year-old
but little-explored election law to blame. Republic Act
9006, or the Fair Elections Act, has provisions that
critics say encroach on editorial judgment in the
coverage of elections.
Section 6 of the said law
dwells specifically on registered political parties and
candidates being guaranteed "equal access to media time
and space", both in terms of news reports and
commentaries, and paid political advertisements. This
section is so specific in fact, it in effect sets
guidelines for reporters and editors on how they should
handle the information they gather in their everyday
coverage.
Melinda Quintos de Jesus, executive
director of the Center for Media Freedom and
Responsibility, said this is tantamount to "impeding on
electoral coverage. The enforcement [of these
provisions] lies on the Comelec, which has no sphere of
confidence in determining editorial integrity." The
center, a non-governmental organization (NGO) that
monitors media issues, recently sponsored a forum called
"Fair Elections Act: Is It Fair to the Media?"
For instance, Paragraph 6.5 says: "All members
of media, television, radio or print, shall scrupulously
report and interpret the news, taking care not to
suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by
omission or improper emphasis. They shall recognize the
duty to air the other side and the duty to correct
substantive errors promptly."
Many media
practitioners are afraid this provision might be
interpreted liberally and invoked by candidates who have
nothing substantial to say but want coverage
nevertheless. This may be especially true with candidate
Gil, who threatens every other person, including
journalists, who questions him that he'll see them in
court.
Political analyst Benito Lim said of the
authors of the law - foremost of whom was presidential
candidate Roco, when he was still senator - "in trying
to guarantee equal opportunity, they [overlooked] a lot
of other factors". He said "the simple fact of
incumbency" was one of the things the lawmakers didn't
understand.
"Nobody will challenge that [Arroyo]
is always in the news" because of her activities as
president, he pointed out, so should the media be
obliged to give her rivals the same attention in the
news even if they don't have government duties to
perform and are not worth covering?
Another
provision, Paragraph 6.4, acknowledges the "right of
broadcast entities to air accounts of significant news
... and views on matters of public interest", but it
also prohibits broadcast stations from "scheduling any
program", whether produced by the stations or sponsored
by outsiders, that may manifestly favor or oppose any
candidate. The gauge set by the law on whether a
candidate is supported by the program is when his name
is unduly or repeatedly referred to in the program.
Under this provision, talk shows and comedy
series (where members of the cast often do ad-libs or
where candidates sometimes play bit roles as themselves)
appear to be instantly liable.
The law goes a
step further and also prohibits movie houses, television
stations, or even sponsored public forums from
exhibiting any movie or documentary portraying the life
story of any candidate. They also cannot play any movie
or documentary that features an actor who's running for
public office in real life, as is the case with Fernando
Poe Jr.
It even goes to the extent of setting
ethical parameters in handling the news, when, observers
say, these are matters normally left to the judgment of
the editors and subject to internal newsroom policies.
There are also codes of ethics observed by members of
various journalists' organizations, such as the
Philippine Press Institute (for print media
practitioners) and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa
Pilipinas (Association of Broadcasters in the
Philippines or KBP, for broadcast journalists).
For instance, the law requires media
practitioners who are candidates themselves or who are
doing campaign work for a candidate or political party
to resign or take a leave from their media work during
the campaign period. Notwithstanding the requirement for
them to resign, the law still specifies in a succeeding
paragraph that these same media personalities "shall not
use his/her time or space to favor any candidate".
This provision doesn't accomplish anything,
because journalists who adhere to ethical standards will
take a leave or resign from work when they know their
political work is in conflict with their journalistic
responsibilities. On the other hand, corrupt journalists
- those who sell their newspaper space and broadcast
programs for "legitimate" news featuring their political
patrons - are not ones to divulge this conflict of
interest.
The most celebrated feature of the
Fair Elections Act is its lifting of the ban on
political advertisements after several elections. Even
this, however, is considered "a very flawed
legislation", de Jesus said.
It sets for
candidates for national positions a limited size of
newspaper advertisement to appear at limited
frequencies, and a limited number of minutes of air time
on radio and television for the entire campaign period.
Broadcast stations have been complaining these space and
time allotments are "inadequate" for a campaign period
of 90 days: one-fourth of a page in broadsheets thrice a
week, one-half page for tabloids thrice a week, 180
minutes on radio and 120 minutes on television.
The law also sets the advertising rates that
media entities should impose on these political
advertisements: the rate three months earlier, and then
discounted by either 30 percent (TV), 20 percent (radio)
and 10 percent (print).
Emily Abrera, president
of McCann Erickson Philippines, doubts whether the media
will "get excited" about these legislated discounts on
their advertising rates for political placements. "In
truth, the political ads are business for us," she said.
She also pointed out that advertising agencies
already find it difficult to monitor the TV guest
appearances of candidates and the airing of their
infomercials, which, technically, are not classified as
political advertising. "Is the Comelec equipped [to do
the monitoring]?" she asked.
Abrera was
referring to the requirement in the law for broadcast
stations to "submit to Comelec a copy of its broadcast
logs and certificates of performance" so the poll agency
can "review and verify [the] frequency" of a candidate's
political advertisements. It even requires "all
mass-media entities [to] furnish the Comelec with a copy
of all contracts for advertising" against which the
Comelec could check if broadcast stations are following
the limits on air time set by the law.
If any
media practitioner is found violating this law, he or
she shall be considered as having committed "an election
offense" and should be meted out the punishment under
Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code, which is
imprisonment of one to six years. Foreign journalists,
meanwhile, found guilty of not giving equal coverage to
candidates "shall be sentenced to deportation, which
shall be enforced after the prison term has been
served".
The question remains, however, why did
this version of the bill get past the media's supposedly
tight watch - or, in journalistic parlance, how the hell
did the media get scooped on this one?
Rey
Hulog, president of the KBP, said the final version of
the bill was "passed in the last day of Congress" in
December 2000. It was the time Congress was busy with
impeaching then-president Joseph Estrada. Hulog said
"many of our suggestions were not followed" by the
legislators.
Or, possibly, because the KBP
"pushed [only] for the lifting of the political ad ban",
which was expected to give television stations the big
bucks, and forgot about the provisions that might in
effect impinge on press freedom.
In late January
2001, Estrada was ousted; two weeks later, on February
12, President Arroyo signed the Fair Elections Act. It
was just two weeks before the campaign period for the
senatorial and local elections, and the media didn't
have time to study the new law. It was also apparently
too overwhelmed by the income brought about by the
political ads.
Clearly, the industry three years
ago missed on one of the most important qualities it has
always been assumed to possess: vigilance. And it's
suffering the consequences now.
(Copyright 2004
Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
