Business Circuit

The decision of a regional trial court upholding the arrest by the police of journalists covering the Peninsula incident passed largely unnoticed.

There is very little appreciation of the fact that the ruling is suppression of press freedom.

Members of media who entered the hotel with the rebel soldiers were manacled and brought to a police camp but were eventually released. Media filed a complaint against the police. It lost the case.

It has not occurred to the police that media does not need the protection the police claim it wants to give by refusing them entry into the scene of action. That is suppression.

We are like soldiers. We go to war armed with our pen and ready to die in line of duty.

We cannot be denied in seeking the truth or what we perceive is the truth by preventing us, in fact threatening us, with arrest if we refuse to leave the scene of action.

We will be deserters if we voluntarily leave, cowards who must face court martial if we were soldiers.

We do not exactly relish the thought that warning us to leave the scene of the action is a manifestation of the government's desire to protect our persons. We do not need it. We want to exercise the right the Constitution guarantees us, the right to information at the risk of our lives and limbs, and arrest and consequent imprisonment if the police are allowed their way.

We suspect that if media did not join the military rebels in Peninsula, there would have been a full blown firefight that would not spare the life of any recalcitrant soldier. They were supposed to face trial in a Makati court but proceed to Peninsula instead, hoping probably that their comrades-in-arms who allegedly promised them support would come and knock the leadership out of power.

The effort was a failed coup. The tank rammed the door of the hotel and police lobbed tear gas to suppress the rebels. It was a legitimate move to quell a rebellion.

But nothing was legitimate in preventing media from covering the event. The police made it appear that arresting journalists was a big favor in the sense that they were provided protection.

That is a lame excuse. The rebels would have been felled one by one or in one big blow if media were not with them.

The state would not see journalists dying in the hands of its soldiers. Not because it values their lives but because it wanted to avoid international condemnation. Because media stood their ground, they prevented the massacre of the rebels.

If the state is so concerned with the safety of media in covering events such as the Peninsula siege, no government would allow journalists to cover wars and risk their lives.

But since media, in functioning democracies anyway, is perceived as the Fourth Estate, the state never even tries to prevent journalists from covering wars or rebellions.

What media needs is the right unconditionally guaranteed by the Constitution.

Why should the state be so protective of media in incidents similar to the Peninsula siege when we also field colleagues to cover the side of government or the police?

We do not buy the proposition that media persons might be killed in the crossfire. If we do not know we are taking the risk doing our jobs, we can also die in line of duty.

The police and the military guard the safety of the state. We guard the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution.

SALs of the justices

I have yet to hear who are the richest and the poorest members of the Supreme Court based on their sworn statements of assets and liabilities. We know who these are in Congress and the Executive Branch,.

Their statements are made public or open to anyone who wants to examine them.

Is there a law exempting the members of the Judiciary from disclosing the extent of their wealth or poverty?

The Court will do itself one great service if it could make public or make available their SALs.

Doing so would remove the suspicion that some jurists make themselves poorer being members of the Court while some might be lining their pockets.

If the Court so pleases, I would publish in this newspaper the statements of assets and liabilities of the justices.

All 15 of them at the rate of one a day.