Sunday, April 29, 2012
For the first time, the Embassy of the United States in Manila has partnered with the Philippine Press Institute in conducting simultaneous programs in seven areas for the World Press Freedom Day.
On May 4, various programs will be conducted in Manila, Cebu, Davao, Bulacan, Gen. Santos, Baguio, and Cagayan de Oro with PPI members in said areas at the helm. The main focus of each program is decriminalizing libel which is an offshoot of the two forums on the subject conducted at the University of the Philippines College of Law and Orchid Garden Suites organized by the PPI and the Philippine Press Council. The third leg should build on initiatives from the two forums in providing venues to further discuss libel and other topics that affect the media industry.
Other topics such as the freedom of information act, killings of journalists, ethics, media accountability, right of reply, and press freedom are a host of media-related subjects that can be chosen by each area as attendant or accompanying segment for its own program.
The World Press Freedom Day activity is the first regional initiative following the 16th National Press Forum from April 23 to 24 at Traders Hotel Manila, which among other topics, also discussed libel in the industry forum.
The U.S. Embassy found it an advantage to be conducting the programs in the areas that have American Corners in De La Salle University-Manila, St. Louis University in Baguio, University of San Carlos in Cebu, Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro, and Ateneo de Davao University which are venues for the simultaneous celebrations. Bulacan will have Bulacan State University and Notre Dame University in Gen. Santos as partner-universities.
In Manila, U.S. Embassy press and information officer Tina Malone will give the opening remarks.
On January 31 this year, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) released a resolution declaring the country’s libel law discordant with the provision in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that upholds free expression as a right. The Philippine is the lone signatory of the international protocol in Southeast Asia. The Committee holds the country’s dated and draconian criminal libel law “incompatible with Article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR” or freedom of expression.
( First posted at www.philpressintitute.com)
MALOLOS—Tampok ang decriminalization of libel sa isasagawang talakayan sa Bulacan State University (BulSU) sa Biyernes, Mayo 4 bilang bahagi ng sabayang paggunita sa World Press Freedom Day (WPFD).
Kaugnay nito, ipinayo ng isa sa mga abogadong tagapagtatag ng Center for International Law (CenterLaw) na dapat paigtingin ng mga mamamahayag ang pag-aamyenda sa batas na sumasakop sa paglilitis ng kasong libelo.
Inaasahang aabot sa halos 100 mamamahayag, mga guro at mag-aaral ng pamamahayag sa Bulacan ang lalahok sa pagsasagawa ng talakayan hinggil sa decriminalization of libel
Ito ay isasagawa sa Speech Laboratory ng BulSU na matatagpuan sa ikalawang palapag ng Federizo Hall. Ang talakayan ay magsisimula sa ganap na ika-1 ng hapon sa Marso 4.
Ayon kay Rommel Ramos, pangalawang taga-pangulo ng National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) Bulacan chapter, ang talakayan ay naglalayong maipaliwanag ang kasong libelo.
“Napapanahon na maunawaan ang kasong libel dahil ito ay nagsisilbing hadlang sa malayang pamamahayg,” ani Ramos.
Iginiit pa niya na habang umuunlad ang teknolohiya, dumarami ang mga taong gumagamit ng internet at nagpapahayag ng mga komentong walang pakundangan sa mga social networking sites sa pananaw na walang libelo sa internet.
“Maraming misconceptions sa libel, kaya importanteng makadalo at makapakinig sa talakayan partikular na ang mga guro at mag-aaral ng pamamahayag upang malaman nila kung paano ito iiwasan at haharapin,” ani Ramos na siyang station manager ng Radyo Bulacan at isa ring mag-aaral ng batas sa BulSU Law School.
Para naman kay Maria Bundoc-Ocampo, ang tagapaglathala ng pahayagang Punla, hindi biro ang makasuhan ng libelo.
Iginiit niya na ito ay dahil sa ang kasong libelo ay nasa kategorya pa ng kasong kriminal.
“Yung proseso ng pagsasampa at paglilitis sa libel ay katulad ng sa mga criminal cases, kapag natukoy na may probable cause o malice, kasunod na ang warrant of arrest, at kung wala kang pang piyansa, kulon ka agad,” ani Bundoc-Ocampo na nakaranas na ring makasuhan ng libelobilang isang dating patnugot sa isang pahayagang pag-araw-araw.
Ang talakayan para sa Decriminalization of Libel ay inorganisa ng Philippine Press Institute (PPI), at Philippine Press Council (PPC) sa pakikipatulungan ng National Unionof Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP).
Ito ay suportado ng Embahada ng Estados Unidos sa Pilipinas, bilang bahagi ng pagdiriwang ng WPFD sa Mayo 4.
Una rito, sinabi ni Abogado Joel Butuyan, isa sa dalawang abogadong nagtatag ng Center Law na dapat na lalong paigtingin ng mga mamamahayag ang kampanya para sa decriminalization of libel.
Sa kanyang talumpati sa mga lumahok sa katatapos na PPI National Press Forum na isinagawa sa Traders Hotel noong Abril 24, sinabi ni Butuyan nang kasong libelo ay nakapaloob sa Revised Penal Code (RPC) ng Pilipinas na ponagtibay 82 taon na ang nakakaraan.
Ito ay may sentensiyang anim na buwan at
Ngunit sa kaso ng brodkaster na si Alexander Adonis ng Lungsod ng Davao, siya ay nahatulad at nabilanggo noong 2007 dahil sa pagsasahimpapawid sa kanyang programa sa radyo ng balitang nalathala sa pahayagang nakabase sa Maynila kung saan ay sinasabing si dating House Speaker at noo’t Kinatawan Prospero Nograles ay nahuling tumatalilis sa isang hotel ng hubo’t huban matapos mahuli ng asawa ng kanyang diumano’y kalaguyo.
Si Adonis ay binigyan ng parol noong 2008.
Ayon kay Butuyan, idineklara ng United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHCR) na ang batas na sumasakop sa kasong libelo sa bansa ay lumalabag sa International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) kung saan ang Pilipinas ay isa sa mga lumagda.
Ang deklarasyon ng UNHCR ay kaugnay ng reklamo ni Adonis.
Ayon kay Butuyan, isinasaad ng UNHCR’s General Commentary 34 ang sumusunod, “Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression.”
Isinasaad naman ng paragraph 3 ang susmusunod: “Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights.
“Ang hamon sa mga mamamahayag ngayon ay kumbinsihin ang gobyerno sa isinasaad ng UNHRC vsa pamamagitan ng lehislasyon” ani Butuyan. (Dino Balabo)
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
By Vergel O. Santos
It’s a rather curious theme:
Media accountability and public engagement.
How could we, the newspapers, have managed to make those two things a problem for ourselves, given the very nature of our enterprise? How can we, every time we publish, help not engaging the public and not putting ourselves as well under its audit?
In fact, we did manage it. And if we finally have realized that, we can only hope we have done so before it’s too late.
The pre-eminent medium for the longest time, such that no piece of news or opinion gained full legitimacy and currency until sanctified in it, the newspapers seem to have become so smug as to presume pre-eminence some preordained permanent place for them, which, of course, is not the case, a fact long-enough unmistakable if only we have been looking with the professional quality we’ve always claimed to possess – objectivity. In this case, conspicuously and possibly fatally, that precise quality happens to be absent.
There’s simply no denying, as stark as they are, the radical changes in the media environment, changes driven mainly by technology and increasingly working against the newspapers. We do acknowledge them, but, again, only to a convenient extent, that is, again, to the extent that our place in the hierarchy of media is preserved – if only in our minds.
Fairly clear-eyed to the virtues of technology for our own purposes, we’re not at all averse to using the most modern communication devices and facilities (all manner of computers, the Internet), yet we seem blind to the inexorable encroachments on our territory – thanks also to technology – by other media. We don’t seem to notice, for one thing, that more and more readers are taking to the screen and fewer and fewer to paper – not to mention that there’s less and less pulp available for producing paper.
The numbers tell the tale: television, favored by technology itself and able somehow to adapt to the new consumer habits it has created, has cornered 77-78 percent of the advertising money, and radio, suitable especially to an increasingly mobile society as well as to the archipelago’s island dwellers, has bounced back taking 17-18 percent; that leaves a mere 5 percent for the print media, not just the newspapers, to fight over. True, that 5 percent has held for some time, and still constitutes a fair amount of business in peso terms. But the writing is on the wall – it’s all a matter of time.
In any case, we continue foolhardily to cling on to the hope that the numbers would reverse themselves, even as cold reason demonstrates that any changes in prospect are not likely to favor us, perhaps not even television or radio, but the online media.
Few businesses in cyberspace (definitely not in our parts), let alone media businesses, are actually making money, although where money is made it is apparently made big. Anyway, cyberspace enterprises should be positioned well to catch the favors of the fast-arriving future.
We ourselves would seem, on the other hand, poorly positioned, imprisoned as we are in tradition, scarcely able to kick our now unprofitable habits, fading with our market. And with no public to engage and account to, what reason is there for being? What reason is there, indeed, for all this – we coming together to deal with an issue being rendered irrelevant by our own undoing?
In fact, it can all be made timely and relevant if only we come clear-eyed and open-minded enough to change with change. With all the weaponry and wisdom we should have collected through our long and useful years, how can we not have our own competitive advantage today or at any other time?
Never will news become an irrelevant product, or journalism an irrelevant skill. Print may fade but not, in their professional sense, newspapers.
Switch or perish
Indeed, to switch media or not has become a non-issue for us. It has been decided by arrangements beyond our control: to not switch is to perish – in time. The debate has now been ultimately narrowed and confined to when, not if, that time will come.
The anxiety attacking us is perfectly legitimate: the market is taken with sexy and efficient communication devices, while trees, pulp, paper, in that consequential order, are vanishing.
But why should the time-tested, indeed timeless, idea of newspaper vanish as well? However one gets one’s news – whether by reading or by listening or by watching – is, after all, a mere matter of medium. The trick lies with content, with news itself, and, having been at the trick longer than any other news medium, our own medium should have an essential advantage and therefore simply cannot be counted out in the paperless competition: we only need to switch media.
A number of us have in fact positioned ourselves, with separate editions, online, our closest comparable medium, if only because what it dispenses is similarly meant to be read. But let’s not oversimplify. Switching media is akin to removal only in the loosest sense: it entails a far greater expense and effort than packing and moving. Even before the move is made in earnest, its prospects of sustainability should have been determined. As happens, such determination can only be approximated.
Cyberspace is one boundless marketplace, one that has only begun to be explored, although in its mysteries may precisely lie its allure. It has been sucking in all manner of enterprises, as if to be caught out constitutes a sentence of doom, which is, of course, an exaggeration except for the truly courageous – or covetous.
Anyway, while news online is generally conceded to be the emergent logical successor to news on paper, the product and the consuming public to engage and account to remain the same in the succeeding arrangement.
A journalist’s compass
Something ought to be said about “media accountability,” in the meantime, given the misunderstanding that may have been created by our pairing of that phrase with “public engagement.”
Accountability is not something the public needs yet to demand of the media. It’s a sense so fundamental to our profession it requires no provoking in order to make it work. It’s a self-working initiative that operates on the burden of responsibility that every journalist bears with every word he sets down. It’s a sort of compass that sets him right – right by his sworn professional duty to publicize the truth in the public interest with fairness.
Accountability, in other words, has little if at all to do with public engagement: the former is professional sense, the latter market sense.
As in the case of a sense of ethics, itself close cousin to a sense of accountability, those who possess it likely don’t need to be reminded, and those who don’t possess it likely don’t care to be reminded.
by the late Isagani M. Yambot, read by Sandy Prieto-Romualdez during the PPI’s 16th National Press Forum, April 23
THERE IS NO DOUBT that in this Age of News and Information, the media is a very powerful institution. In a democracy, the free media plays a very important role in promoting and protecting the public interest. Traditionally the media has taken an adversarial stance toward government and plays a watchdog role as the public’s representative.
American columnist and educator Georgie Anne Geyer said that today the press (the older term for the media) ``is judge and jury, prosecutor and inquisit[or], new reverend and Mother Superior.’’ She recalled that US Librarian of Congress Jamese Billington told her one day: ``The media has replaced the church. It now provides the value mediators for people’s lives. It is the validator of politics. It is where the power is. It is a kind of spiritual power, together with corrosive cynicism.’’
Still sustaining the comparison of the media to the church, Eugene McCarthy said that journalism is becoming no less than the New Religion, complete with inquisitions and infallibility. He said: `` Media power now is acknowledged to have moved beyond the Index to the Inquisition, whereby the media decide who is to be sustained, who is to be rejected, who is to live and die in the public eye.’’
These commentators were talking about the media in the United States and other western countries, but they might as well have been talking about the media in the Philippines. The media also exert a lot of influence in the Philippines. The media can raise some people to heights of power and popularity, or they can bring them down to the mud of ignominy and shame.
The media is the champion of the public interest and public trust; it is a watchdog on government; it is the protector of democracy and the rights that flourish in a democratic society. But, as Juvenal said in his ``Satires’’: ``Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards themselves?) ‘’ To whom will the media be accountable?
An institution that wields so much power must be accountable to some greater institution. ``If we are to pretend to speak in the name of the people as their representatives, we will have to offer the people some proof of our honor beyond what we have,’’ Geyer said. Another journalist, Michelle Salomon, said that ``for the public to know that media acts in the public interest, it must be (voluntarily) accountable to its public. But for media to be accountable, it must be also seen to be accountable, or it becomes meaningless.’’
Media commissions and councils all over the world have called for greater media accountability and ethics in the past 50 years. In 2005, French media ethicist Claude-Jean Bertrand said: `As I studied media ethics off and on for about 20 years…it became evident to me that the survival of mankind is predicated on the generalization of democracy; that no democracy can exist without press freedom; and that press freedom cannot survive if media are unethical.’’
There are two often cited models of media accountability that are seen to work effectively, but some commentators have said that both are ``imperfect and problematic.’’ The first model is the ``economic marketplace,’’ which, based loosely on John Milton’s notion of truth prevailing over falsehood [in Aeropagitica: ``Truth will win out’’], says that irresponsible media would not meet the test of the market and instead turn the public against it.
The other model is the path of litigation: the filing of libel cases, damage suits and similar cases that would seek to impose the penalty of imprisonment or heavy fines, or both, on those who would use the power of the press to damage reputations.
It has also been suggested that citizens’ groups such as voluntary press councils and fair trial-free press committees critique the press. This model was tried in some places in the United States, but it enjoyed limited success and benefitted only a few people. One other way is to appoint media ombudsmen, readers’ advocates or readers’ editors, but they are small in number in the United States, and even fewer in the Philippines.
For many decades now, social responsibility has been a watchword for the media. Recently, the word ``accountability’’ has been added to discussions of the practice of journalism. But all affected sectors have agreed that mandatory controls to enforce media accountability are not appropriate, not acceptable and not workable, and that other processes and methods of self-regulation would be more acceptable.
Two methods or venues of criticism are the press council and the code of ethics. The Philippines, and specifically the Philippine Press Institute, has both. The Philippine Press Council operates under its auspices and for starters, is trying to enforce the rule of fairness among the PPI members. The PPI has also adopted a Code of Ethics for Filipino Journalists and it is the ``bible’’ of all its members. In the Philippine Daily Inquirer no applicant can become an employee of the Editorial Department unless he or she first subscribes to the Code of Ethics. Violations of the Code of Ethics are punishable under the Inquirer’s Code of Discipline.
Aside from the Code of Ethics, the Inquirer has a set of Canons of Taste for Journalists and a Manual of Editorial Policies which lays down ethical guidelines in dealing with cases involving the professional conduct of the members of the Editorial Department. All these are intended to make the journalists working in the Inquirer accountable to the public.
Everette Dennis of Columbia University says that codes of ethics written by professional societies or editors’ associations are general philosophical statements that promote impartiality, fair play and decency. Codes written by individual media organizations are more specific and more detailed. They are generally intended for internal use and are not distributed to the public and not widely publicized.
Press councils are more public, but not many complaints are filed with them. Probably because not many people know about them. Or probably other people prefer to take the litigation route. Others resort to other, more deadly means, and thus there have been many cases of journalists being killed, some of them because they incurred the wrath of people who felt that their honor and reputation had been besmirched.
Codes of ethics, rigorously enforced, and press councils, more widely publicized, can be useful instruments of criticism as well as venues for the resolution of complaints against the media. They can be used to exact a greater degree of accountability from the media.
The media, particularly in democracies, are very powerful. But with great power goes a great degree of social responsibility and accountability. The media, to continue to enjoy the trust of the public, must be frank and transparent and open to criticism and it should be willing to submit itself to the same level of scrutiny that it subjects people and institutions to.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
|Photo by NUJP's Ilang-Ilang Quijano.|
(Statement on Pres. Aquino’s speech at the 16th National Convention of the Philippine Press Institute)
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” – Thomas Jefferson
And again he whines.
In his speech at the Philippine Press Institute’s 16th National Press Forum, President Benigno Aquino III again grabbed the opportunity to berate the one sector he seems to think is to blame for all the woes our country is facing – his very hosts, the Philippine Press.
We do give credit to Mr. Aquino for the courage of telling us to our faces what he thinks of us.
We do, however, take exception to his portraiture of the Philippine media as the anecdotal crabs bent on pulling him and, to his mind, the country down.
Never mind the pettiness of the actual examples he raises, never mind even that the unfortunate focus on his from regular to zero to sort of regular love life should be properly blamed on his penchant for suddenly blurting out details of what otherwise he insists are private matters.
He accuses the media of trumpeting travel advisories and terror warnings that he says drive away tourists and the millions of dollars they otherwise would pour into our economy.
Dare we ask, Mr. President, who called a hasty press conference at the Palace, complete with an array of government top brass, to announce what turned out to be a non-existent terror threat on the eve of the Black Nazarene procession in January?
Or perhaps Mr. Aquino would like to tell off those pesky foreign embassies that regularly send out the advisories he so hates as well as those in his security services with a penchant for leaks?
But what is truly worrisome about Mr. Aquino’s wholesale depiction of the Philippine media is that it is of a mindset akin to that which shut down a vibrant press in September 1972 and replaced it with mouthpieces dedicated to extolling “the true, the good, the beautiful” life under a brutal dictatorship.
Sure, we sometimes get it wrong. We never said we were infallible.
But Mr. Aquino’s whining about getting a bad press merely shows up how totally bereft he is of a sense of history.
And since he appears to be more enamored with how the foreign press regards us, notwithstanding that, however well-intentioned they may be, they are outside observers looking in and only on one area, he would do well to heed the admonition of Thomas Jefferson.
Mr. Aquino would have us trumpet his administration’s accomplishments, like improved agricultural production and an upbeat economy. How, though, to highlight these over the fact that all too many of our countrymen continue to wallow in poverty and hunger? Should this not rightly lead us to ask why, despite these seemingly glowing achievements, they remain in such dire straits?
Yes, Mr. Aquino, the press you loathe does report on the successes of the police. But how, pray, can this take precedence over the fact that far too many of our countrymen – and that includes journalists – continue to fall prey to crime and, worse, the violations of their human rights at the hands of those supposedly sworn to protect them?
And yes, Mr. Aquino, we do report on the nobility of our public servants who, in their dedication, go beyond the call of duty.
But should you really expect people to fall all over themselves to praise you for doing your sworn duty? Does this mean then that doing what you promised to is such a rarity that we need to highlight it each time it happens?
Or perhaps you would have us do as you do and look the other way when Ronald Llamas next purchases pirated DVDs, or Jesse Robredo and Edwin Lacierda knowingly defy a lawful court order to give men wanted for murder a headstart to evade justice, or as our colleagues and activists and environmentalists and lawyers and judges and religious and farmers and fishermen and indigenous people continue to be murdered and disappeared and tortured and threatened and harassed?
No, Mr. Aquino, we care about our country and people as much as, perhaps even more than, you do.
This is why we will not be a party to a whitewash, to your Potemkin. This is why we will continue to inform the people as best we can of the true state of our common lives, to question why we continue to suffer despite your promises of justice and good governance, and to hound you for failing to fulfill what you swore our people you would.
Rowena Carranza Paraan
Saturday, April 21, 2012
World Press Freedom Day Celebration
May 4, 2012 (whole morning or whole afternoon)
Half-Day Simultaneous Programs in Manila, Bulacan, Cagayan de Oro, Davao,
Cebu, Gen. Santos and Baguio – A Total of Seven Areas Nationwide. De La Salle University, Xavier University, Ateneo de Davao University, and University of San Carlos, Saint Louis University have tie-ups with the US EMBASSY. They are called American Corners, so automatically they become venues for the forums. The other two in Bulacan and Gen. Santos do not have American Corners but local organizers will have to get in touch with them.
Manila De La Salle University
Bulacan Bulacan State University
Cagayan de Oro Xavier University
Davao Ateneo de Davao University
Cebu University of San Carlos
Baguio Saint Louis University
Gen. Santos Notre Dame University
Decriminalize Libel Now: A Forum
January 31 marked a milestone for the campaign for freedom of expression as the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) released a resolution declaring the country’s libel law discordant with the provision in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that upholds free expression as a right.
The UNHRC, in light of a complaint filed by Davao-based broadcaster Alexander Adonis, upheld that defamation laws "should not … stifle freedom of expression".
UNHRC also ordered the government to provide compensation for the wrongful detention of Adonis, who has been in jail for more than two years now after being convicted on a libel case filed by former House Speaker Prospero Nograles.
The government must act to prevent libel laws from being abused by prevent such violations to happen again, and there is no other way to do so but to review and amend our draconian libel law and push for its decriminalization.
We wish to discuss the implications of the UNHRC resolution and its impact on Philippine media, given that fellow journalists continue to be vulnerable to intimidation through criminal libel. Resource persons are legal experts and leaders from media advocacy groups such as the PPI and the NUJP. They will be joined by some editors and publishers as panelists from the local level. In Manila, PPI trustees and Philippine Press Council editors will be panelists/discussants.
We hope to re-launch the campaign to decriminalize libel in the Philippines and launch the initiatives as presented in the first two forums in Manila (UP College of Law and Orchid Garden Suites.
The Philippine Press Institute and the Philippine Press Council held the first roundtable discussion on the issue of libel and its proposed decriminalization on March 22, 2012 in Manila.
Even before this PPI-PPC forum, the NUJP has already initiated a forum at the UP College of Law to jumpstart the discussions and sustainable advocacy on decriminalizing libel. This prompted PPI to organize one for print.
The PPI-PPC RTD gathered 20 guests representing academe, broadcast media, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the Center for International Law represented by Atty. Harry Roque. Journalists Alexander Adonis from Davao City and Edwin Espejo from Gen. Santos City also shared the libel cases filed against them. The PPI Board was represented by trustees Amado Macasaet, Vergel Santos, Al Pedroche and Elnora Cueto.
“Every journalist should adopt this (decriminalization) as a natural advocacy,” Roque said.
The discussion included a survey of the current international statutes on libel, human rights and the freedom of expression vis-à-vis the journalism climate in the Philippines.
At the end of the roundtable discussion, the following proposed actions were identified to provide a framework moving forward the decriminalization of libel. This was imperative in view of the national and local elections in May 2013.
1. Build database on libel suits filed against journalists.
2. Intensify campaign for decriminalization of libel, both in national and international levels:
Lobby with Congress and Malacañang
Build unity among news organizations
3. Educate members of media (particularly those in broadcast) about libel – the law, related international standards/instruments, as well as journalism ethics.
4. Strengthen accountability mechanisms:
In-house or internal mechanisms: ombudsman, correction and apology
Geographical: Press Councils
Thru press organizations: PPI, NUJP, etc.
Thru monitoring groups: CMFR, academe, CSOs
5. Conduct research on how criminal libel impacts on press freedom and free expression rights in the country.
6. Build a network of lawyers that will address press freedom related cases, including criminal libel. (Similar to Media Legal Defense Inc.)
7. “Know your rights” campaign:
Know who to contact – lawyer, NUJP hotline, editors/publishers/station managers
Have bail money ready
Have form for posting bail ready
In some areas, find out the operation of the night courts
8. Monitor media bills being filed in Congress. (Check Escudero bill – full decriminalization)
9. Training on libel defense with the help of UP College of Law
10. Use the social media for campaigning
Embassy of the United States of America
Philippine Press Institute as Project Implementer in cooperation with NUJP-Manila and the Center for International law with Regional Members in said areas as Partners for Local Initiatives in collaboration with local KBP and NUJP chapter members
Mobilization, Technical Expertise, Call for Action, Center for International assigning a legal expert in each area (this means spending for transportation of the expert), NUJP assigning one person too in each area
American Corners and/or Partner-Universities
Media Leaders from the PPI, National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Local Press Clubs and Press Councils and Editors/Publishers, Legal Experts from the Center for International Law (optional)
PPI Members (Print), Broadcast members of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP), Members of Press/Media Organizations, Some educators and teachers of Journalism Schools, Advocacy Groups (Non-Media) such as Civil Society Organizations and NGOs
It will be a mixed of community stakeholders attending the forum. Since the school venue has already a target audience, attendance should have more media practitioners.
Speeches/Presentations and Open Forum/Ceremonial such as candle-lighting, holy mass, prayer rally
Keynote in Manila: Official of the U.S. Embassy
Main Peg: Decriminalization of Libel (cognizant to the Aquino administration's centerpiece advocacy on fighting corruption and in the light of media re-examining themselves). As a pressing issue now, the advocacy campaign aims to heighten awareness on it and make known the proposed plan of actions from the first two forums held in Manila. In relation to this, the FOI bill also has to be an accompanying topic.
Attendant Topics/Segments (to be chosen as part of the program): Killings of Journalists, Media Accountability, Media Re-examining Themselves, Ethics and Civic Journalism (Engaging the Public), Threats to Press Freedom, Freedom of Information
Even if the forum is localized in the six areas outside Manila, each program will have libel as the main focus where all the underlying or related topics will have to be based on. Depends on the program schedule, all attendant topics can be accommodated. But owing to the unique media landscape in each area, the local organizer should be able to tweaked the program to render more relevance and local impact.
Press Releases and Written Activity Report
Venue, Meals, Administrative Costs, Honoraria for Speakers, ‘Bulk’ Amount for the Local Programs for invitations, printing of programs, kits if there are any, LCD projector for powerpoint presentations from speakers, modest honoraria for speakers, photo and reportorial documentation; other excess expenses shall be borne by the organizer as counterpart
Manila – PPI Head Office
Bulacan – Dino Balabo, Mabuhay Newspaper
Cagayan de Oro City – Allan Mediante, BusinessWeek Mindanao
Davao City – Jess Dureza, Mindanao Times
Cebu City – Cherry Ann Lim, Sun.Star Cebu
Baguio City – Jane Cadalig, Baguio Midland Courier
Gen. Santos City – John Paul Jubelag, Mindanao Bulletin