by Maria A. Ressa
Head, ABS-CBN News & Current Affairs Division
On November 29, 2007, more than 30 journalists were arrested, handcuffed and transported to Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan. 12 of the journalists were from ABS-CBN, detained as “witnesses and suspects,” according to the police. Others were told they would be released as soon as their identities were verified.
Head of Newsgathering, Charie Villa, went immediately to the Peninsula Hotel to identify our people; yet, she was told they would still have to be arrested and brought to Bicutan. We believe this move sets a dangerous precedence and erodes our nation’s democracy.
There are two points I’d like to make about the role of media in conflict situations like the Peninsula siege. First, our democracy rests on the principle that the people have a right to know. Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes “the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.”
Law enforcement and government officials must be accountable to the public, and our history has shown there is no better means to do that during crisis situations than live television coverage. In a 2004 national survey by ABS-CBN, over 90% of adult Filipinos say that during any major event, they look for news, with 87% turning to TV to make sure they’re informed. After the 2007 elections, that increased, hitting 92% in the National Capital Region, according to Pulse Asia.
The clamor for information increases during times of uncertainty, highlighted during nearly a dozen coup attempts and withdrawals of support in the last two decades: in 1986 and 2001, military moves turned into successful people power revolts; while failed attempts were televised during Edsa Tres, the Oakwood Mutiny and the Peninsula siege. Since these three failed, it obviously doesn’t follow that television coverage automatically means success. During all these, 1986 excluded, ABS-CBN reported in a similar and consistent fashion, spurred on by the public’s right to know. In performing our duty, we accepted the risks, including overturned and burned vehicles and the mauling of reporters (not by the police but by a sector of the public we serve).
While the State has the right to protect itself, the public has the right to know – and as we have seen, the Filipino has always made a choice. Focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted by ABS-CBN between December 3-5 reflect that. They expressed an overwhelming sentiment that they want to be kept informed, saying live television coverage should continue. We believe this is critical because an uninformed public makes any democracy unstable; it is in this light that media should be considered partners in promoting democracy rather than the other way around.
It is important that the public has the information it needs to make an informed decision because that is the foundation of our democracy. Yet, by arresting our journalists, authorities effectively shut down ANC’s live coverage of the post-siege situation at the Peninsula Hotel. They tried to confiscate videotapes and equipment from reporters, photographers and cameramen. The police violated their own definition of the “crime scene” by approaching our transmission facilities outside the Peninsula to try to confiscate our videotapes and stop our coverage. This is effectively censorship – at a time when the conflict had all but been resolved. To date, they still have at least one videotape and two radios owned by ABS-CBN.
The second point which has clear ramifications for the future is the role journalists play in conflict situations like Edsa, Oakwood and the Peninsula. On December 5, DILG Sec. Ronaldo Puno called the Peninsula a “crime scene” and said that journalists violated two laws at the Peninsula siege. He cited Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code which has to do with “resistance and disobedience of persons in authority” and PD 1821 for “obstruction of justice.”
These statements have far-reaching consequences because now every journalist reporting on a conflict situation has to worry that he/she may be arrested and charged. Beyond that, if the journalist can be charged so can news organizations. This is no longer a threat but a reality and creates a “chilling effect” for working journalists, who can now be charged like common criminals.
Yet, we believe that the law covering the presence of journalists in conflict situations is very clear and supercedes any legislation cited by the DILG Secretary. Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press.”
“Was there an arrest? Yes,” said Sec. Puno, “Were they charged? No. Why was there an apology? Because all of us feel bad about the way the incident materialized. We are unhappy that our friends in media had to suffer inconvenience.”
In one move, the government trivialized and dismissed a violation of the Constitution as an “inconvenience.”
While we understand the position of the Philippine National Police, by its own admission, it is using “SOPs” created in 2006. PNP Memorandum Circular No. 2006-09-01 tells the police what to do with perpetrators, hostages and witnesses. It has no provisions for journalists, who are part of the landscape in conflict situations. This may be the first time these rules were used. It is also the first time that the PNP has been the lead agency in a political conflict situation – which is how many journalists would characterize the event, not just a “crime scene” complete with overtones of bank robberies and murder. Every other coup attempt or passive withdrawals of support in the past twenty one years were handled by the Department of National Defense. Perhaps this is part of the reason why the rules were changed in the Peninsula siege.
We journalists are by no means perfect. Some of us can be arrogant at times and that is how we have been portrayed by the police in this instance. But the reason we need to hold the line is simply because if we give in, we would have contributed to weakening our democracy by depriving the public of the information it wants and needs.
Having reported from numerous combat zones in Southeast Asia and around the world, I am very aware of the risks we face as journalists. In Indonesia, I barely survived a cross-fire between government troops and protestors. In Aceh, my team and I were detained but that’s to be expected given the authoritarian regime then. In East Timor, Pakistan, India, China – despite the dangers and restrictions, you calculate the risks and always make sure the odds are high that you will survive to tell the story. What I have learned from experience is that every situation is different, and what you do depends on the system of government you’re operating under, i.e. you would not make the same decision under a democracy that you would under a dictatorship.
Every journalists’ and news organizations’ assessment of risk varies. That is why I find it slightly ludicrous for the PNP to quote the Ethics Manuals of the CBC, BBC and ABS-CBN to bolster its point that all journalists should have left when requested – that there is a one-size-fits-all response. All these codes do in these instances is give guidance – the philosophy of the organization – but in the end, the judgement call and the decision to stay or to go – as well as the risks that entails – falls with the journalist. We balance the fear for personal safety with the duty to report the truth.
The police claim we were being used because they said some Magdalo soldiers changed clothes and put on press passes. Everyone tries to use us, including the police and military intelligence agents who were pretending to be journalists. During the crisis, we did not report that because we did not want to compromise their work, but their presence increased the danger for us. Those agents could have easily told their superiors who were the real journalists and who were only masquerading.
We categorically state that at no instance did any journalist “obstruct justice” at the Peninsula. Mere presence and reporting the news is not obstruction of justice. Recordings made by the police of our live coverage are now being used by authorities as evidence against those it charged in court. The police even acknowledged that there was a failure of communication within their organization. They mobilized only after they were “informed” of the event through TV and radio coverage. It is clear the police benefited from us doing our job. We cannot be both obstructing and helping justice simultaneously.
Our fear is that the arrests of journalists may herald a new, more dangerous time ahead. In recent years, many developments have eroded press freedom in our country. In 2003, there were more journalists killed in the Philippines than in Iraq, and today – despite pressure from the international community – the extrajudicial killings of journalists and leftist leaders continue with virtual impunity. Intimidation tactics, indirect pressure and libel suits have been used to attempt to control journalists. In 2006, Proclamation 1017 severely curtailed press freedom after authorities threatened to shut down news organizations and stationed tanks outside tv networks.
Last year, Freedom House, an international group which conducts an annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, downgraded its rating of the Philippines from FREE to PARTLY FREE.
Given this context, the arrests of journalists is extremely alarming, especially since it has now been elevated as policy by Sec. Puno, who warns journalists that the police would do it again. To add insult to injury, after authorities apologized for the arrests, they began to publicly question the motives of our journalists. Officials maligned us by implying we were working with Trillanes’ group despite the absolute lack of evidence for these statements. Now they say they will look at the franchises of television networks. All this only points out that the attempts to intimidate and harass journalists continue.
While it is inconvenient for law enforcement officials to have to contend with media in conflict zones, it is a necessity guaranteed by the Constitution and a check and balance of a vibrant democracy.
On November 29, the journalists who chose to stay and report on the Peninsula siege displayed tremendous courage and risked their safety for the public they serve. A colleague from the Foreign Correspondents’ Association of the Philippines captured the spirit of our thoughts: “if someone else can deliver the Truth better, we would give way. If we chose to leave at the request of the PNP, then we would have to swallow the PNP version of the Truth because we chose to give up the access we already had.”
That would be a disservice to the public we all serve.
Very articulative on, “the public has the right to know versus the State has the right to protect itself”.
The press as in Manila Pen can always test the limits of their rights (anchored on public to know) and the state to draw the line to be able to do its functions.
d0d0ng Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 1:17 am
– – – – –
Very interesting! Ellen’s article was posted at 7:00 am but your reply is SIX HOURS earlier. You must be watching Ellen’s computer very closely – too close for comfort.
Must be his dayoff?
Lets not worry much about those tapes. ABS-CBN, et all will should not confirm those tapes so the military cannot enter those as evidences against any participant of the Penn visit. The rebels should have smart lawyers, though.
While the State has the right to protect itself,…..
******************
That hackneyed argument again? The State’s right to protect itself is implied; there is nothing in the Constitution that says so. The freedom of the press is express. Between the express and the implied, the former always prevails.
As Anna observed, the State is not Gloria.
Re Alitaptap’s comment:
Maria Ressa’s article was originally posted (time-stamped)at past 9 p.m., Dec. 13 .I was already sleepy.
This morning, I thought that it should be put up front for discussion. Together with my statement and that of Charmaine’s.
This is a vindication of EDSA III? Kung ang media lang eh sumuporta sa EDSA III eh dapat si GMA tapos nang maghasik ng lagim, pero baligtad ang sitwasyon, nagtengang-lipya ang karamihan sa mga taga-media at identified ang marami sa kanila na anti-Erap.
Na wika ko ito, sapagka’t 2 nites akong nasa EDSA shrine at that time at dito ko napagtanto na iba ang kanilang ibinabalita sa Sambayanang Pilipino.
Hinangaan ko ang NET25 sapagka’t sila ang nagkaroon ng lakas ng loob to air the event sa EDSA noon, pero nasaan ang magigiting nating media ngayon? WALA. Di ba pinagbuntungan ng galit ng Erap suporters ay ang ABS-CBN kasi naging partisan sila noon at nawa this time nagsisi na sila sa pagsuporta kay GMA.
Eh balik-tanaw lang ito sa EDSA III at ngayon naman sila ang biktima ni GMA. Eh napapanahon na taga-midia na lumagay tamang lugar at dapat ang kanilang gampanan eh magbigay ng tunay na kalatas sa taong-Bayan.
Till now, ang The Daily Tribune at Malaya eh talagang naging maka-Bansa at di nasindak ni GMA.
Hoping na ang taga-media ngayon eh matuto na sa pangyayaring ito na naganap.
Ang sama ng loob ko noong EDSA III, kasi po dito ko naranasan ang sabihan ng gobyernong Arroyo thru media na ang mga dumalo sa rally noon eh amoy lupa at walang “K”.
Maling-mali ang kanilang paghusga, sapagka’t within 2days lang napuno ang EDSA shrine unlike noong EDSA II almost 5days in the making bago ito napuno ng tao, at kung di pa tinawagan ni Cardinal Sin ang mga estudiante sa Kamaynilaan eh konti lang sila.
Pero ang EDSA III in 2days lang eh grabe ang dami ng tao at tuloy-tuloy ang pagbuhos ng tao sa ibá’t ibang antas ng buhay.
Subali’t puro kasinungalinan ang ibinalita nila (print o Mass media outlets), kaya ganoon na lamang ang galit at sama ng loob ng Masang Pilipino sa kanila isa na rito ang ABS-CBN di ba sinunog pa ang kanilang van at equipment.
Sa print media naman eh isa yang PCIJ at iba pa. Well, patas na ang laban at ngayon naman ang biktima eh ang taga-media at hayon nanggagalaiti sila sa ginawa ni GMA.
Lesson ito na dapat na ikorek. At ang payo ko sa mga taga-media eh kung gusto nilang igalang ang kanilang karapatan eh dapat ipaglaban nila ang ating Konstitusyon na ngayon ay sinalaula ni GMA at iba pang kinauukulang laban kay Erap.
Ang pagpapalit ng liderato eh dapat naaayon sa ating Saligang-Batas at mayroon naman tayong proper forum na dapat ito pag-usapan.
Eh ngayon wala ng institutions ang gobyernong Arroyo na pwedeng pagkatiwalaan, ang lahat ng ito eh walang ng kredibilidad.
Pasasaan naman tayo nito, kundi sipain si GMA by hook or by crook.
Dito masusukat ang katapatan ng media na suportahan ang Masang Pilipino sa labang ito.
balweg Says:
December 14th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Ang sama ng loob ko noong EDSA III, kasi po dito ko naranasan ang sabihan ng gobyernong Arroyo thru media na ang mga dumalo sa rally noon eh amoy lupa at walang “K”.
**
Di bale, Balweg, ginto naman ang iyong adhikain para sa buong kapinuyan. 🙂
Pinagpapala raw ang madudumi,marurungis at mahihirap. Lahat naman ng tao ay amoy lupa! Si Gloria nga ay hindi lang amoy lupa kundi maantot pa at mapasing, and smells of pork urine, heheh!
Habang meron tayo sa media na tulad ni Ellen, NCO at Ka Mentong ay mapapaikot natin ang tumbong ni Gloria sa takot. Suportahan natin sa abot ng ating makakaya ang mga journalists na ang laban ay para sa katotohanan at hustisya. At ignore natin ang mga jukebox journalists.
Shalom Chi,
A million thanks sa iyong pang-unawa, kailangan ka ng sambayanan Masang Pinoy.
Ang pinaghihimotok ng aking kalooban like others Makabayang Pinoy eh ANG PAGYURAK NILA SA ATING KONSTITUSYON.
Akala ng marami nating kababayan eh PRO-ERAP ako, ayon sa himig ng aking pangangatwiran. Pero sa totoo lang ang aking ipinaglalaban eh ang ating Saligang-Batas na niyurakan ng mga nakaupo sa Malacanang.
Si Erap e part lang ng labang ito sapagka’t sinipa siya di ayon sa batas. Datapwa’t i symphatize Erap kasi maling mali ang kanilang ginawa sa pobre. Di makatarungan!
After EDSA I, i supported tita Cory, FVR and i do belived na ito ang simula ng pagbabago ng ating Bayan pero pag-upo ni Erap eh naghudas na itong si FVR.
Sipain ba naman si Erap palabas ng Malacanang. Illegal ito ayon sa ating Saligang-Batas.
Pero nagpatuloy sila sa kanilang kahibangan at heto halos lahat ng institusyon sa ating Bansa eh sinira at niyurakan na nila.
Ang media na lamang ang ating pag-asa kung sila eh magkakaisa ng adhikain tulungan ang Masang Pilipino sa labang ito. Di kasali those some civil society groups kasi pakawala sila ni GMA kasi po eh mostly of them are Elitists.
compañero,
“Between the express and the implied, the former always prevails”
really? a person may be denied of liberty and property as long as there is due process of law. police power is implied, yet when exercised by the state it can limit freedoms, including ‘freedom of the press’
yes, the State is not gloria. the rest of the citizenry who do not sympathize with these media cry babies form part of the state.
as if trillanes and guingona are not enough. didnt you know that 98% of all media coverage on the Manila Pen circus are on ‘media arrests’ than on trillanes and guingona?
ASIII
really? a person may be denied of liberty and property as long as there is due process of law.
********************
Hindi ba express ang requirement of due process of law? No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law…
ASIII
police power is implied, yet when exercised by the state it can limit freedoms, including ‘freedom of the press’
**********************
Last time I checked, the provision stated:
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
The limit is established by judicial interpretation, not executive fiat.
The provision says No law shall be passed….
So if no law is passed, what is the executive executing? Hindi ba ang basis for the excuse is a police circular? Police SOP?
May legislative powers na pala ang PNP.
“Between the express and the implied, the former always prevails.” -atty36252.
Only if press freedom is found by the High Court as violated in sedition case in the raid of We Forum office. Unfortunately, there is no case on violation of press freedom in Manila Pen pending in Judiciary. The press has chosen its venue in CHRP instead of regular court who can better address legality.
“As Anna observed, the State is not Gloria.” -atty36252.
This is debatable on the basis that Gloria Arroyo’s acts during her presidential term is covered by immunity provision of the Constitution.
Santamaria purisima!naging trial court na itong blog ni Ellen,puro legal argument na lang ng walang katapusan.Sidebar muna,compantero,companyera!inaantok na ang mga wetness at nagwokowt na ang mga fans ni Trillanes.
“So if no law is passed, what is the executive executing? Hindi ba ang basis for the excuse is a police circular? Police SOP? May legislative powers na pala ang PNP.”
-atty36252.
Even Marcos PDs are executory unless repealed. Why the press don’t bring the legality issue of the basis of police power including SOPs with the court (who can give them straight answer)?
Even Marcos PDs are executory unless repealed. Why the press don’t bring the legality issue of the basis of police power including SOPs with the court (who can give them straight answer)?
*****************
Marcos had legislative power, based on Amendment 6 of the 73 Constitution, so the PDs were actually laws.
A police circular is not a law.
hi d0d0ng,
RE: Why the press don’t bring the legality issue of the basis of police power including SOPs with the court (who can give them straight answer)?
Sandigan (Bayan) ni GMA, Oh GOD! forgive us. GUILTY agad ang hatol.
Korte Suprema, wala namang itong moral ascendancy. Ang mga justices dito eh tuta ni GMA.
Sec. Goonsales, ipakulong pa sila sa Munti.
Hi atty35252,
If Marcos had legislative power? GMA have goons in white uniforms with sec. goonsales their bosing.
GMA is the rule of laws in our land. The number 1 violators of our Constitution.
She did not respect the rights of our people and NEVER in her vocabulary to stepdown for the sake of our nation.
She did not respect the rights of our people and NEVER in her vocabulary to stepdown for the sake of our nation.
***********************
Don’t expect her to step down. The people should force her to step down. Somebody should file the people’s initiative posted earlier.
Gusto ko sanang umuwi. But there are bills to pay, mouths to feed; and miles to go before I sleep.
Pasensya na Robert Frost, for the paraphrasing.
“A police circular is not a law” -atty36252
The better reason the press can take it down in court. Again, why not the court? Balweg’s claim of sweeping generalization of court faltered with Judge Elmo Alameda Makati Regional Trial Court of Branch 150.
I think our private media companies should be be registered in Panama so they will not be at the mercy of the self-serving small prints of the Philippine license.
dodong says:
“As Anna observed, the State is not Gloria.” -atty36252.
This is debatable on the basis that Gloria Arroyo’s acts during her presidential term is covered by immunity provision of the Constitution.
Wag na natin pagdebatehan, WE WILL CONCEDE.
Gloria IS THE STATE!
Ha!Ha! Ha!
compañero,
“Hindi ba express ang requirement of due process of law? No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law…”
nandun na yung ‘implied’ freedom of the state to protect itself.
“Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances”
true.
“The limit is established by judicial interpretation, not executive fiat”
that is, if someone challenges the executive fiat. the executive branch can always invoke presumption of regularity
“The provision says No law shall be passed….
So if no law is passed, what is the executive executing? Hindi ba ang basis for the excuse is a police circular? Police SOP?
May legislative powers na pala ang PNP.”
for sure that theory will be tested. PNP will claim regularity of functions. if the media people will claim that they are arrested, the PNP will counter with the rule on warrantless arrests – the people (still inside Manila Pen) claiming to be media members could be well be Magdalo members, equally committing acts of rebellion with trillanes.
for the police, there is really an occupational hazard in dealing with media cry babies
“and NEVER in her vocabulary to stepdown for the sake of our nation”
its because yung mga nanggugulo tulad nina trillanes ay hihinto lang if gloria will step down. ang panggugulo ay di galing kay gloria
“ng panggugulo ay di galing kay gloria”
dahil si gloria ang dahilan at umpisa ng gulo!
he PNP will counter with the rule on warrantless arrests – the people (still inside Manila Pen) claiming to be media members could be well be Magdalo members, equally committing acts of rebellion with trillanes.
******************
The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government…. Art 134 Revised Penal Code.
You cannot rebel with a camera or mike in your hands.
Hi atty36252,
RE: The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government…. Art 134 Revised Penal Code.
You cannot rebel with a camera or mike in your hands.
In reference to the above, our Constitution overruled this provision as clearly stated in Art. III, section 4, “No law shallbe passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the people peacebly to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Also in section 7, “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”
Sec. 12:2, No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.”
GMA 100% violated the above provisions in our constitution.
Sa tingin ko mali kayong lahat.. the real issue is the RATINGS of the media. why. kung walang ratings ratings na yan, di pursigido ang media na yan, RATINGS means more viewer, more viewer means more customer, more customer means more MONEY. money is root of all evil. Trillanes walked out of court, why no Money, Erap ousted maraming Money. Kaya si GMA matatag sa pwesto bigay niya gusto ng tao Money. Pili kayo kung sino gusto sa kanila. Ako kay Among Ed galit sa MONEY.
compañero,
“The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government…. Art 134 Revised Penal Code.
You cannot rebel with a camera or mike in your hands.”
how sure are you that the ‘media people’ there only had a camera and/or a mike?
too bad all of us who were not inside Manila Pen never had a “Big Brother” view of everything. lets not make the mistake of deeming the media coverage of the Manila Pen circus as a ‘Big Brother’ view.
“dahil si gloria ang dahilan at umpisa ng gulo!”
tama ka dyan. si gloria nga ang dahilan kaya nagawa ni trillanes ang Manila Pen circus/stupidity/lunacy/idiocy.
ang galeng. human nature talaga – its always someone else’s fault. ‘he/she made me do it!’
bakit, sino ba ang nanloloko sa mga tao?
sino ang naglulustay ng kaban ng bayan at namumudmod ng suhol upang huwag isulong o suportahan ang impeachment?
sino ba at kaninong mag-anak ang sangkot sa mga katiwaliang “labas na ang ulo” ay patay tanggi pa rin?
human nature nga. ayaw imulat ang mata sa katotohanan at alisin ang mukha sa pagkakasubsob sa puwet ng tiwali upang makita ang lahat ng kabulukan.
“bakit, sino ba ang nanloloko sa mga tao?”
isa na dyan si trillanes. niloko ang mga 11 milyong taong bumoto sa kanya
“sino ang naglulustay ng kaban ng bayan at namumudmod ng suhol upang huwag isulong o suportahan ang impeachment?”
wow tinanong mo pa. isa na si erap dun
“sino ba at kaninong mag-anak ang sangkot sa mga katiwaliang “labas na ang ulo” ay patay tanggi pa rin?
wow tinanong mo pa. isa na si erap dun
“human nature nga”
see, inamin mo din!
“ayaw imulat ang mata sa katotohanan at alisin ang mukha sa pagkakasubsob sa puwet ng tiwali upang makita ang lahat ng kabulukan”
mulat na ako, salamat. ikaw, mamulat ka rin sa katotohanan na di solusyon ang isa pang people power/EDSA. sa katotohanang marami kang maitutulong sa bayan kahit nakaupo pa si gloria. sa katotohanang walang pagbabagong maganda kung mapatalsik man si gloria bago 2010, kungdi kaguluhang malaki (dahil for one thing, magci-civil war ang mga opposition dahil unahan kung sino uupo. buti sana kung si Lacson ang uupo, eh napaka-ambisyoso nitong si @#$%$#@!!! trillanes! war of the PMA grads! at least si Lacson, future Lee Kuan Yew. Eh si Trillanes? Musharraf or Hugo Chavez!!!)
how sure are you that the ‘media people’ there only had a camera and/or a mike?
******************
The “processing” does not contain an inventory of confiscated guns did it? None were found in the Pen either. There is not even any such allegation from the police in that “processing” report.
compañero,
again, how sure are you that the ‘media people’ did not just discard ‘other things in their possession’ when the PNP let them know that they will be ‘held for questioning?
how did you know that none were found in the Pen? and no allegation from the police in the ‘processing report’? from ‘media’? of course those cry babies will say that. it supports their cause.
anyway, these are already questions of facts. we will just be speculating.
two rights are clashing here – the rights of the PNP to perform its duties, and the rights of the cry babies to ‘perform their duty’ also as ‘journalists’
how did you know that none were found in the Pen? and no allegation from the police in the ‘processing report’? from ‘media’? of course those cry babies will say that. it supports their cause.
***************
If they had the evidence,they would have adduced it in court to prove probable cause against the civilians. They did not because there was none.
The court found that mere presence of the civilians does not suffice to sustain a finding of probable cause.
If the presence of the civilians, who had no business being in the area, unless they were supporters, cannot furnish probable cause, then with more reason would there be no probable cause as against the media people, who did have business (literally) to be present in the Pen.