Poetic justice June 7, 2006
RAUL Gonzalez is pissed off at Time magazine reporter Nelly Sindayen. He has an interpretation for why she refuses to appear before him to reveal the names of those who attended a meeting in Jose Cojuangco’s place last Feb. 24: “I think she’s sympathetic to the other side.”
I am tempted to say that I can understand why Gonzalez does not understand the first thing about journalism since he is not a journalist. But he doesn’t understand the first thing about justice either, and he is supposed to be the justice secretary. His lack of understanding about things has nothing to do with professions, it’s congenital.
It’s a cardinal principle in a democracy that a journalist may not be compelled to reveal his sources or testify against people. He may do so if he wishes, but he may not be compelled to do it. The exercise of his profession demands that he keep certain things secret. He betrays confidentiality, his sources will dry up and he will no longer be able to pursue his story. It is to protect the public’s right to know that democracy protects the journalist’s right to not divulge certain things.
It has little to do with being sympathetic to one side or the other, although journalists, for all their efforts at objectivity, can’t always help but feel sympathetic toward certain things. Particularly when the issues are starkly etched in black and white, in good and evil. The great Ed Murrow did not stop being objective while waging a crusade against the truly evil Joseph McCarthy and was clearly sympathetic to the cause of liberty against an order built on terror and paranoia. I don’t know if Nelly feels the same way, but I know I do. If journalists feel sympathetic to a side these days, it is not their fault. It is the fault of a regime that has made itself utterly unsympathetic.
But far more than that, what in hell is Gonzalez complaining about? There is no law in a democracy that compels journalists to reveal their sources or inform the world about the background of their stories. But there is a law that compels public officials, never mind ordinary citizens, to reveal what they know about wrongdoing. There is a law that says public officials must appear before Congress when they are summoned to shed light on the truth, which is the foundation of law and justice. There is a law—in a democracy, anyway—that says government must be transparent at all times, its existence resting on the sufferance of the people. You may—no, you must—force them under pain of being fired or doing time to tell what they know about wrongdoing. That is a law that exists not just in the statute books but in human hearts.
Yet you do not find Gonzalez demanding that that law be obeyed. You find him demanding that that law be screwed. His boss, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself, has done what no other president before her, including Ferdinand Marcos, has ever done, which is to prevent under pain of prosecution, court martial, or jail, or all of the above, any government official from appearing before the Senate without her permission to talk about wrongdoing under her. Or more to the point, by her.
The Supreme Court has already scrapped that atrocity -- heaven forbid we call it a law -- saying it has as much place in democracy as pornographic pictures in church. The Supreme Court has already rescinded that madness -- heaven forbid we attribute any sanity to it -- saying it belongs only to a country that has barbed wires strung around it. Yet government officials still refuse to appear before Senate hearings. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita says the order is still in force since it has been appealed before the courts, as though the concept of government officials being gagged can possibly have any merit by the ways of heaven and earth.
You do not find Gonzalez irascibly demanding that Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani and Col. Alexander Balutan be allowed -- no, compelled -- to appear before the Senate and tell the world what they know, and that if Arroyo is preventing them from doing so it can only be because she is sympathetic to the other side, which is herself. You do not find Gonzalez thundering forth with a scowl that Gudani and Balutan were by their own admission at the scene of the crime and therefore in an absolute position to name the criminals. We find him instead remembering only that there is a pathetic attempt by his boss to cling to an order she issued capriciously, which the Supreme Court has already junked along with the day’s garbage, because like her very existence it still hangs by the thread of a tenuous appeal.
Is there any reason why Nelly Sindayen should be forced to appear before Gonzalez? No. At the very least she has a journalistic right not to cough up her sources, and at the very most she has a human right not to throw up before such a sight. Is there any reason why Gudani and Balutan should be allowed to appear before the Senate? Yes. At the very least every citizen, not to speak of government official, has the duty to report what is wrong, and at the very most what they have to report is a matter of life and death for the nation.
Is there any compelling need for Nelly Sindayen to shed light on the plot to oust Arroyo? No. At the very least the leaders of the plot are well known to government and have for co-conspirators 65 percent of the population, and at the very most a certified plotter has no business complaining about presumed plots to overthrow a president. Is there a compelling need for Gudani and Balutan to shed light on who won the vote in Muslim Mindanao? Go figure.
Sindayen refuses to do as Gonzalez bids? Well, we may not get justice in this country under this justice secretary and his boss, but now and then we can still get some very poetic one.
http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=4039
I am tempted to say that I can understand why Gonzalez does not understand the first thing about journalism since he is not a journalist. But he doesn’t understand the first thing about justice either, and he is supposed to be the justice secretary. His lack of understanding about things has nothing to do with professions, it’s congenital.
It’s a cardinal principle in a democracy that a journalist may not be compelled to reveal his sources or testify against people. He may do so if he wishes, but he may not be compelled to do it. The exercise of his profession demands that he keep certain things secret. He betrays confidentiality, his sources will dry up and he will no longer be able to pursue his story. It is to protect the public’s right to know that democracy protects the journalist’s right to not divulge certain things.
It has little to do with being sympathetic to one side or the other, although journalists, for all their efforts at objectivity, can’t always help but feel sympathetic toward certain things. Particularly when the issues are starkly etched in black and white, in good and evil. The great Ed Murrow did not stop being objective while waging a crusade against the truly evil Joseph McCarthy and was clearly sympathetic to the cause of liberty against an order built on terror and paranoia. I don’t know if Nelly feels the same way, but I know I do. If journalists feel sympathetic to a side these days, it is not their fault. It is the fault of a regime that has made itself utterly unsympathetic.
But far more than that, what in hell is Gonzalez complaining about? There is no law in a democracy that compels journalists to reveal their sources or inform the world about the background of their stories. But there is a law that compels public officials, never mind ordinary citizens, to reveal what they know about wrongdoing. There is a law that says public officials must appear before Congress when they are summoned to shed light on the truth, which is the foundation of law and justice. There is a law—in a democracy, anyway—that says government must be transparent at all times, its existence resting on the sufferance of the people. You may—no, you must—force them under pain of being fired or doing time to tell what they know about wrongdoing. That is a law that exists not just in the statute books but in human hearts.
Yet you do not find Gonzalez demanding that that law be obeyed. You find him demanding that that law be screwed. His boss, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself, has done what no other president before her, including Ferdinand Marcos, has ever done, which is to prevent under pain of prosecution, court martial, or jail, or all of the above, any government official from appearing before the Senate without her permission to talk about wrongdoing under her. Or more to the point, by her.
The Supreme Court has already scrapped that atrocity -- heaven forbid we call it a law -- saying it has as much place in democracy as pornographic pictures in church. The Supreme Court has already rescinded that madness -- heaven forbid we attribute any sanity to it -- saying it belongs only to a country that has barbed wires strung around it. Yet government officials still refuse to appear before Senate hearings. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita says the order is still in force since it has been appealed before the courts, as though the concept of government officials being gagged can possibly have any merit by the ways of heaven and earth.
You do not find Gonzalez irascibly demanding that Brig. Gen. Francisco Gudani and Col. Alexander Balutan be allowed -- no, compelled -- to appear before the Senate and tell the world what they know, and that if Arroyo is preventing them from doing so it can only be because she is sympathetic to the other side, which is herself. You do not find Gonzalez thundering forth with a scowl that Gudani and Balutan were by their own admission at the scene of the crime and therefore in an absolute position to name the criminals. We find him instead remembering only that there is a pathetic attempt by his boss to cling to an order she issued capriciously, which the Supreme Court has already junked along with the day’s garbage, because like her very existence it still hangs by the thread of a tenuous appeal.
Is there any reason why Nelly Sindayen should be forced to appear before Gonzalez? No. At the very least she has a journalistic right not to cough up her sources, and at the very most she has a human right not to throw up before such a sight. Is there any reason why Gudani and Balutan should be allowed to appear before the Senate? Yes. At the very least every citizen, not to speak of government official, has the duty to report what is wrong, and at the very most what they have to report is a matter of life and death for the nation.
Is there any compelling need for Nelly Sindayen to shed light on the plot to oust Arroyo? No. At the very least the leaders of the plot are well known to government and have for co-conspirators 65 percent of the population, and at the very most a certified plotter has no business complaining about presumed plots to overthrow a president. Is there a compelling need for Gudani and Balutan to shed light on who won the vote in Muslim Mindanao? Go figure.
Sindayen refuses to do as Gonzalez bids? Well, we may not get justice in this country under this justice secretary and his boss, but now and then we can still get some very poetic one.
http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=4039
posted by dqfan06 @ 10:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home