‘… NUJP chair Jonathan de Santos noted “unintended consequences like threats of retaliation against journalists, the risk of being cited for contempt for missing court hearings, and being implicated in irregularities in operations.”’
ONE irritant for reporters is a practice among some police units coercing journalists to be present at anti-drug operations. The officers’ basis stems from a 2002 law requiring “a member of the media” to witness the inventory of seized drugs. Section 21(4) of Republic Act No. 9165 (the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”) reads:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.” [emphasis mine]
As of 2013, reporters are no longer compelled to do so. Republic Act No. 10640 amended that provision, specifying that the witnesses be “the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.” [emphasis mine].
Yet, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines noted in a 2018 manifesto that “colleagues throughout the country report that law enforcement units continue requiring them to sign on as witnesses, often as a condition for being allowed to cover operations.”
During the 19th Congress, party-list Representatives France Castro (ACT), Arlene Brosas (Gabriela) and Raoul Manuel (Kabataan) filed House Bill No. 572 seeking a more explicit exemption of media from a non-editorial role in anti-drug operations, by placing the phrase or the media in brackets: “[or the media].”
Unfortunately, their proposal did not sail past the House committee on dangerous drugs. Also, none of them is a member of the current Congress, although the ACT Teachers and Kabataan party-list groups still hold one seat each.
Representatives Bernadette Barbers (Surigao del Norte) and Richard Gomez (Leyte), on their first day in the 20th Congress, respectively filed HB 74 and HB 371, which seek to amend the 2002 Act.
Unlike RA 10640, they are not specific to Section 21(4). However they are one in their suggestion that members of the media “may be invited to join/cover anti-drug operations of the government for journalism purposes only.”
Worse, the NUJP claimed in their 2018 Sign Against the Sign manifesto that “there are reports that they are made to sign even if they did not actually witness the operation or the inventory of seized items.”
In an email last Friday, NUJP chair Jonathan de Santos noted “unintended consequences like threats of retaliation against journalists, the risk of being cited for contempt for missing court hearings, and being implicated in irregularities in operations.”
The language of Barbers’ and Gomez’ proposed provision may not be as direct as that of former HB 572, but unless a similarly explicit exemption is filed, we can support HBs 74 and 731 as regards Section 21 of RA 9165.
As of this writing, close to 3,000 bills have been filed in the House of Representatives of the 20th Congress although not all of them are already downloadable. This column takes a particular interest in proposed legislation that could affect local journalism. The Senate is also updating its collection of new bills. As mentioned previously, there are some bills we hope to see, and support, in the current Congress. In addition, we will also look into those bills pertaining to freedom of information, libel, fake news, and related topics.
