‘There are so many news outfits and news organizations in the Philippines that the Comelec could partner with, so why choose to do so with one that is under a cloud of suspicion — of foreign ownership in particular…’
THERE is a presumption in law that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. It is an important presumption — although it is often a presumption more honored in the breach — because it protects a very important element of a free and democratic society, individual liberty, which can be fragile when subjected by attack from stronger forces such as the State.
Someone, in fact, even said that it was better to risk setting 10 guilty men free than to mistakenly incarcerate an innocent man. At least that was what it was in the 1760s, at the time of the English jurist William Blackstone (to whom the saying is attributed), when mass murder wasn’t so easy to commit.
This principle of law comes to mind when I mull over the recent agreement between the Commission on Elections and Rappler. The agreement has been praised by some quarters and attacked by others, with the latter citing the legal woes Rappler finds itself embroiled in, stemming from it apparently being a foreign-funded (if not owned) media organization.
I am not sure if the actual agreement has been made public — or maybe I haven’t searched enough — but I have to admit that on surface the agreement leaves me uneasy. Because I do not think the legal principle I’ve cited above applies in this case.
Think about it. There are so many news outfits and news organizations in the Philippines that the Comelec could partner with, so why choose to do so with one that is under a cloud of suspicion — of foreign ownership in particular, something that is dangerous to play footsie with, in relation to the process of ascertaining the sovereign will of the people?
The legal issue is pending in the CA and no final decision has been handed down, we are told. Hence Rappler is “innocent until proven guilty,” citing Blackstone. This is where I disagree.
What if the decision is in favor of Rappler? Then the agreement with Comelec raises no dangers. But what if it goes against Rappler? And what if, by that time, the agreement has been implemented and a foreign influenced if not owned entity has been given a participatory role in the electoral process and all?
At the very least shouldn’t the Comelec require a final decision on the matter that is favorable to Rappler as a precondition to an arrangement with the media outfit?
Anyway, what other media outfits has Comelec entered into similar agreements with for the 2022 polls? I’ve not heard of any — and I definitely have not seen any PR releases about the Comelec and other media agencies. So, is it just Rappler?
From where I sit: when the sovereign will of the people is involved, national security is at stake. And when national security is at stake, Blackstone’s presumption is reversed.
To use a COVID analogy: anything short of a negative RT-PCR test makes you a suspect case, and for as long as you are a suspect case your movements need to be restricted.
Let me repeat: when the sovereign will of the people is involved, national security is at stake. And when national security is at stake, Blackstone’s presumption is reversed.
Unless one proves clean hands, the clouds of suspicion should be enough to disqualify you.
