The media fights back

Because of the recent political events the government has raised its iron hand and directed it toward the media as well. Are we the enemy?

As I write this, media groups and individuals are in court making a petition for certiorari, prohibition and declaratory relief. Time constraints prevented me from signing the petition but one of the media groups I am affiliated with signed as one of the petitioners.

The decision to file a petition was made after two meetings between the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and media practitioners. The contents of the petition were fully discussed with the parties concerned and substantial changes were made to ensure that the petition addressed the concerns of both print and broadcast journalists.

Rarely do journalists go to court for reasons connected with their work. Why did the media go to court? Here is a technical summary of the objectives. This could be very instructive for those who are not in the legal profession.



-To declare that the Executive Department, represented by the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Justice, the Director General of the Philippine National Police, the Chairman of the National Telecommunications Commission and their officers, agents or other persons acting under their authority or supervision, have no lawful power, authority or jurisdiction to prohibit the publication or airing of news and commentary based upon its contents.

Only a court, with its accompanying due process safeguards, may impose content-based prior restraints, when the grounds therefore are duly proved.

-To prohibit the Executive Secretary, the Philippine National Police, the Department of Justice, and the National Telecommunications Commission from imposing any form of content-based prior restraint on the press, be it formal or informal, direct or in the form of disguised or thinly veiled threats of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution.

The threat of official intervention—in the form of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution—is just as damaging to a free press as the fact of it.

-To annul and set aside the issuances of the NTC that prohibit the press from airing or broadcasting news and commentary that, in the NTC's sole and unfettered discretion, are "subversive," which "tend" to propose or incite sedition or rebellion, or which constitute "rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments, information, interviews and other similar or related materials."

NTC does not have any lawful power, authority or jurisdiction to prohibit these, much less judge what is subversive (when the crime of subversion has long been repealed), what merely "tends" to propose or incite sedition or rebellion (whatever that means to the NTC), and what constitutes "rebellious/terrorist propaganda, comments and the like (whatever that means to the NTC).

The dangers of un-reviewable administrative actions that impose prior restraints on the press are as ancient as dictators. The petitioners seek the intervention of the Court to stop the use of the strong arm of the law to exclude speech as protected by the Constitution.

The petition is not hinged on declaration of state of national emergency; hence lifting of Pres. Proc. 1017 does not in any way affect the nature and objectives of the petition.

The petitioners are media organizations, journalists and broadcasters, and members of the academe.

The respondents are Eduardo R. Ermita, Executive Secretary; Raul Gonzales, Secretary of Justice; Arturo Lomibao, Director General of the Philippine National Police; Ronald Olivar Solis, Chairman of the National Telecommunications Commission.

The venue is the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear petitions for declaratory relief.

FLAG has concerns over the current composition of Supreme Court, most of whose members were appointed by Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. FLAG also has concerns over the outcome of petitions challenging Pres. Proc. 1017.

As the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) explained, the petition asserts media's rights against any censorship or prior restraint that are protected under the Constitution. Whether Pres. Proc. 1017 has been lifted or not the petition proceeds. It holds executive officials Ermita, Lomibao, Solis and Gonzalezresponsible for pronouncements and issuances that seek to impose restrictions on the media.

The petition asserts that "only a court, with its accompanying due process safeguards, may impose content-based prior restraints." The petitioners therefore ask the court to prohibit the officials mentioned from "imposing any form of content-based prior restraint on the press, be it formal or informal, direct or in the form of disguised or thinly veiled threats of administrative sanction or criminal prosecution."

Only the courts, after due process, and not any executive agency, have the right to impose restrictions on media content.

CMFR and other media groups like the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, the Philippine Press Institute, and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines signed as corporate entities. Other media groups and individuals journalists have joined in the battle.

All are one in saying, ``Never again.’’

When media women fought back

The present government that is tinkering with media freedom should learn a few lessons from the 1983 case of women journalists versus military officers filed before the Supreme Court.

The military’s dreaded and intimidating moves at that time against seven women journalists, including myself, may have created a temporary chilling effect but it did not prevent us from making bold moves to make sure it was not going to be done ever again to us or to anyone.

On Feb. 1, 1983, braving martial rule, 23 of us women writers and six male colleagues filed a ``petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction’’ with the Supreme Court. This was to stop the military’s National Intelligence Board (NIB) Special Committee No. 2 from harassing media practitioners and violating our right to freedom of expression and right to remain silent.

Named respondents were retired Brig. Gen. Wilfredo Estrada, Colonels Renato Ecarma, Balbino Diego, Galileo Kintanar, Hermogenes Peralta, Vicente Tigas, Maj. Eleanor Bernardino and NBI Asst. Director Ponciano Fernando—all of NIB No. 2.

A sudden creation of the dreaded Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Fabian Ver, the NIB was composed of high-ranking military officials tasked to ``invite’’ and interrogate the women journalists whom they thought had written unflattering and damaging articles against the Marcos dictatorship.



Those invited for questioning were Arlene Babst, Jo-Ann Q. Maglipon, Ninez Cacho-Olivares, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, Domini Torrevillas-Suarez, Eggie Apostol and myself. Jo-Anne, Domini, Lorna and I were then writing for the Panorama Magazine while Ninez and Arlene were columnists of the Bulettin Today. Tita Eggie was publisher of Mr. & Ms. Magazine.

The military invitation asked us to appear before the NIB in order to ``to shed light on confidential matters being looked into by this committee.’’ The last paragraph threatened: ``Your failure to appear on a specified date and place shall be considered as waiver on your part and this committee will be constrained to proceed in accordance with law.’’

We were interrogated one at a time by a group composed mostly of military officers. The closed-door interrogations were done at a Fort Bonifacio hall and lasted for hours at a time. We were questioned about our motives for writing, writing fees, even our religious faith and upbringing. The military tried to cast aspersions on our motives and to link us to subversive elements.

I was questioned on my magazine feature article on military abuses in Bataan, Maglipon was questioned on her article on military abuses in Mindanao. This was the second interrogation for me, having been previously made to appear, interrogated and chastised (in a packed open hall) by Deputy Defense Secretary Carmelo Barbero on another magazine article about a Kalinga chief killed by soldiers.

(The ``subversive’’ articles, excerpts of the proceedings and other pertinent details are in ``Philippine Press Under Siege’’ Vols. 1 and 2.)

Refusing to be intimidated, we banded together and called on our media colleagues. Twenty eight journalists—23 women and five men—aided by 13 lawyers led by former senator Lorenzo Tanada, Joker Arroyo and law professor Perfecto Fernandez—went to the SC to put a stop to the intimidating interrogations.

Here are excerpts from our arguments. (Pardon the legalese.)``(The military) interrogations imposed prior restraint…in violation of constitutional guarantees on freedom expression; in the course of said interrogations, (the military) respondents communicated emphatically to the petitioners questioned by them, the publications that are objectionable, with specification of the subjects, manner of presentation, and tenor of language, that respondents disapprove of, thereby imposing guidelines and norms to be adhered to by (media) petitioners, apart from and in addition to the norms prescribed by law.’’

We further argued that the interrogations created a climate of fear and a chilling effect on the practice of journalism. We added that this could result in `` curtailment of the free flow of information and opinion, indispensable to the fundamental right of the people to know all matters of public concern’’ guaranteed in the Constitution.

``Political liberty is thus jeopardized, for…the foundation of intelligent political decisions by the people, in the exercise of their right to self-government, is free access to knowledge or information relevant to the matters for decision.’’

The interrogations also ``constituted unlawful incursions or intrusions into spheres of individual liberty and free choice, in violation of constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights…’’

Arguing for the government, Solicitor Estelito Mendoza tried to play things down by declaring that the petition was ``moot and academic’’ as Estrada had ordered that the NIB No. 2 be terminated as he ``was satisfied with the results.’’

Mendoza poo-poohed our complaint by saying ``all that has taken place is plain conversation, interchange of ideas, opinions, perhaps biases and preferences. But there is no charge against, nor any complaint of whatever nature involving the petitioners.’’ Oh yeah?

A few months later, editor Torrevillas-Suarez and I faced a P10-million libel suit filed by Brig. Gen. Artemio Tadiar who claimed he was maligned but who was not even mentioned in my Bataan article. We had a battery of lawyers, among them, Joker Arroyo, Saklolo Leano and Rene Saguisag. The case was dropped in 1986.)
The Marcos military was not about to back off. But the media women were bold, if not as bold as ever, helping set the stage for the dictatorship’s eventual downfall.#

Howard Dee, man for peace

``Today the flames of Edsa are flickering, peaceful reform is dying on the vine and our democracy is threatened again.’’

Thus spoke a humble and spiritual man of action whose quest for peace and progress for the poor has been unceasing.

Howard Q. Dee, peacemaker, social development worker, friend of the poor and indigenous communities, former ambassador to the Vatican and businessman, was honored last Monday in simple rites as the sole recipient of the 2006 Aurora Aragon Quezon Peace Award.

Persons from both sides of the political, ideological and social divides came to fete this simple man whose name has become synonymous with peace and development especially in strife-torn and poverty-stricken communities in the country.

``My heart is filled with gratitude yet I feel no sense of triumph,’’ Dee told the small crowd. ``I feel no pride of achievement in the face of so much injustice and widespread poverty that condemns so many of our people to a life of subhuman existence.’’

But just as quickly, Dee lifted spirits by quoting a French philosopher who said: ``The important thing is not be a success. The important thing is to be in history bearing witness. This is not the time to lose heart. Rather, it is in the darkness that our lamps should be lit and our hearts set ablaze.’’



Bearing witness has in fact been a way of life for the 75-year-old Dee, be it in the realm of his Christian faith or concerning his country, family and a myriad of concerns. He talks softly but walks briskly toward a goal especially if it involves those who suffer in the margins of society. And just as zealously, he has worked hard to address, in ways he knows how, the roots and causes of poverty and unpeace.

Dee was born in Tondo in 1930. He attended San Beda College and the University of the East where he finished management accounting. He later took graduate studies in economics and public finance. Dee is married to Betty Marie Dee with whom he has four children and a caboodle of grandchildren.

Drawing inspiration from the Italian saint Francis of Assisi who embraced poverty and simplicity, Dee founded the Assisi Development Foundation in 1975 as his way of responding to the crying need of many. Social development, he believed, was a channel through which the poor could be empowered and raised from penury.

Dee has been active in development groups such as Tabang Mindanao, Pagtabangan Basulta (Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi) and the Philippine Business for Social progress, as well a church-related ones like Bahay Maria and the Family Rosary Crusade. In 2004, he helped establish ASA Philippines in partnership with the Benigno S. Aquino Foundation for micro-finance services for the poor. He was the driving force behind last year’s launching of the Hapag-asa Feeding Program of Pondo ng Pinoy in the archdiocese of Manila.

Dee even found time to be in government service. He served for 16 years under four presidents. He was ambassador to the Vatican and Malta from 1986 to 1990 then became lead convenor of the 1990 National Peace Commission. He was chair of the Panel for Peace talks between the government and the insurgent communists from 1993 to 1996. In 2002 he became Presidential Adviser on Indigenous Peoples’ Affairs.

Dee also found time to write books--``God’s Greatest Gift’’, ``Mankind’s Final Destiny’’ and ``Living the Beatitudes with St. Joseph’’—all about living the Christian faith.

Having been involved with projects in Muslim Mindanao, Dee has deep understanding of the Muslim-Christian conflict and continues to work in bridging the divide.

At the awarding rites, individuals who knew Dee up-close gave their testimonials. Inquirer president Alexandra Prieto-Romualdez called Dee ``a living saint…a gifted person who was not afraid of problems, who was not afraid to dream’’ and always sought opportunities to do more. Undersecretary Rene V. Sarmiento of the OPAPP described him as ``a man fully alive for peace and for God.’’

Commissioner Reuben Dasay A. Lingating of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples-North and Western Mindanao lauded Dee specially cited Dee’s efforts to seek freedom for members of indigenous groups who were in jail because of cultural misunderstanding and lack of representation in the mainstream judicial system.

Bishop Antonio Ledesma of Ipil called Dee ``a man for Mindanao’’ while Archbishop Quevedo of Cotabato called him ``an authentic peacemaker.’’ Former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita Q. Deles, described Dee as ``among the most transparent beings I have ever met.’’

Added Deles: ``I guess it comes from the clarity of knowing where to stand in the many shades of gray between black and white. And we know it comes from living a truly spiritual life from day to day, where the light and wisdom of our Lord shines through.’’ Dee, she said, is `` a moral compass and often the lone voice in the wilderness that clears the noise within and paves the way to truth, reason and compassion.’’

After all the accolades, Dee could only say, ``What can I say? I am ready to die.’’ Turning serious, Dee paid tribute to his ``four mentors:

``Cardinal Jaime Sin in the joy of our faith; Fr. Francisco Araneta SJ in the cause of social justice and human development; Presidential Peace Adviser Haydee Yorac in the nobility of public service; and Justice Cecilia Munoz-Palam in the ways of peace and nationhood.’’ Dee called them ``giants in our history.’’

Stressed Dee: ``I have achieved nothing but by God’s grace. Serving was a privilege, service is its own reward.’’

In this age of instant stars and dazzling upstarts, Dee quietly stands out as a man apart, a man for others, a flame braving the tempest.

Caricature

My fertile imagination went full throttle and couldn’t help conjuring up a World War III scenario being sparked by print journalism in a small European country of a few million people. Straight out of a futuristic novel? The possibility is there if we go by the extreme rage that resulted from a few pen and ink strokes.

Much has been written about the Islamic outrage across the world that resulted from newspaper cartoons depicting Islam, one of which shows the prophet Muhammad with a turban shaped like a bomb. This was supposed to portray those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam. Another one supposedly shows the prophet surrounded by two women fully covered from head to toe, their eyes peering out of an oblong slit on their black chadors while the eyes of the prophet are covered with an oblong band. This was supposed to show Islam’s blind spot when it comes to women’s freedom.

Besieged Denmark was not wanting in supporters. Several European newspapers published the same cartoons to show defiance.

For Muslims, to depict their prophet Muhammad in any visual way--even in a benign way--is blasphemy. But Jesus Christ, whom Muslims consider also a prophet, has been visually depicted in a million and one ways and for so many purposes and it is mostly okay.



Blasphemy or freedom of expression? What is blasphemy for one may not be blasphemy for another. What is taboo for you may not be taboo for me. How far can we go with what some consider sacred? Is it necessary to provoke? Must we always refrain from challenging the sacred and taboo?

But violent outrage when the sacred is touched is another thing. Muslims shouting ``Death to Jews and Christians!’’ do not resolve the matter.

What is more deserving of outrage, those pen-and-ink doodles of the prophet Muhammad (offensive they may be to the Muslims) or the killing of thousands of innocents by terrorists who wrongly invoke Islam? Where is the worldwide Islamic outrage over the latter?

Frankly, I did not know that depicting the prophet Muhammad in any visual way, even in a positive way, was considered blasphemy, a grave offense deserving of severe punishment.

To be honest, I was a bit scared when last December I ran in this column the Koran account on Mary’s maternity and Jesus’ birth that I found so colorful and interesting. Would Muslims take offense that I, a Christian, so happily quoted their scriptures? Would I be stalked and forced to apologize? You never know.

The very day that piece came out I received email from Muslims here and abroad expressing their gladness and appreciation. (But a Christian reader castigated me.) I heaved a sigh of relief and ran a Part 2 quoting the letters.

To go back to the topic of cartoons and caricatures, I quote Bob Staake, caricaturist and author of ``The Complete Book of Caricatures’’, an immensely informative and entertaining book. ``Indeed, for many caricaturists, reaction—either pro, but especially con—validates the caricature itself. Particularly for a newspaper editorial cartoonist, the lack of response can be perceived as a pretty good indicator that the cartoonist may be missing the mark. On the other hand, a pile of hate mail, a barrage of obscene phone calls, even a death threat or lawsuit attest that the cartoonist is fulfilling his mission. You can generally gauge an editorial cartoonist’s effectiveness by the number of people he’s able to enrage.’’

The case of the cartoons first published in Denmark is an unprecedented scenario straight out of a caricaturist’s nightmare. Staake couldn’t have foreseen that.

Staake’s book has hundreds of caricatures of famous and infamous persons and situations created by geniuses of pen and ink scattered over five chapters of essays and interviews with caricaturists.

I spotted one that could offend religious sensibilities. Singer Madonna of ``Like a Virgin’’ fame, is portrayed as Our Lady of Perpetual Help carrying the baby Sean Penn (by Ori Hofmekler).

God speaks after three former US presidents and Gerry Brown utter their mouthful about their God experience. Says the frustrated God through Edward Sorel’s cartoons: ``The devil gets H.L. Mencken, George Bernard Shaw, Sam Clemens, Billie Holiday, Gershwin, Porter, Schubert…and…and I…I keep getting dreck like this!!!’’ Dreck means…

Caricature could also entertain, illustrate a point, depict a reality. Cartoonist/sculptor/animator Gerald Scarfe says: ``It proves to be a rallying point around which other people who feel the same way can gather. I don’t think a caricature can change the world, but it can cause people to say, `That’s the way I feel.’’

Going over Staake’s book I couldn’t help but realize that caricature is an art form in itself. The variety of styles is amazing. Stark clean lines or countless dots (like that of a nearly cross-eyed Cory Aquino by Mike Ramirez), puppet caricatures or air-brushed images, squiggly lines or photo-like portraits, bulbous noses and pointed beaks, tremendous teeth and drooping eyes. But this is not just about faces, this is also about actions and situations. Nixon as Godzilla, Reagan as Dracula about to dig into Liberty’s neck, Karl Marx thinking aloud, Woody Allen as a satyr. Even the smallest detail could say it all.

Writes Staake: ``British caricaturist Ralph Steadman has a proclivity for attacking his subjects with vicious caricatures that lack any iota of subtlety…(His) caricatures are the by-product of his frustration. `There is despair in me of the human condition. You just don’t compromise if you are going to draw about it. Caricature isn't a business, it's a cause. It's the next best thing to shooting somebody.’’’

``Wowowee’’ Pied Piper-ed the poor

Here are some of the quotes I remember well in the aftermath of the ABS-CBN ``Wowowee’’ stampede last Saturday that killed more than 70 persons and injured hundreds.

``I was not even aware that ``Wowowee’’ was having its first anniversary.’’-Gina Lopez, head of ABS-CBN’s Bantay Bata Foundation, speaking as guest at ABS-CBN’s ``Straight Talk with Cito Beltran’’

``Ayan, namatayan ako ng anak.’’ (There, now I have lost a child.) –a father, after finding out that his young only daughter whom his wife insisted on taking along, was crushed to death

``Nagkanya-kanya, basta maka-una lang.’’ (It was each man for himself, trying to get ahead.) –Sen. Richard Gordon, head of the Philippine National Red Cross

`` I saw something very wrong, very, very wrong’’ - Police superintendent Vidal Querol, his voice almost cracking, after he saw people stepping over the dead and clamoring for raffle tickets.

``Gusto lang namin sila mapasaya.’’ (We just wanted to make them happy.) -``Wowowee’’ host Willie Revillame.

``Even with all the dead around, many people were still asking for raffle tickets.’’ –a paraphrase of what TV producer Marilou Almaden told the fact-finding committee investigating the tragedy



Sure, there was a lot of compassion and generosity that burst out of people’s hearts after the tragedy, but before that the worst had to take center stage. And the worst thing of all was that this had to happen among the mostly poor and the innocents who were there for the thrill.

Watching the fact-finding committee’s investigation, I couldn’t help noticing that the line of questioning focused mainly on where, when and how the tragedy happened, the security lapses, the physical layout of the place, the numbers. It was all about crowd control.

No one was asking about the nature and essence of the ``Wowowee’’ show, its history, purpose, sponsors, audience. Did the show even remotely realize that it was playing Pied Pier and might be leading innocents to a tragic end? For the investigators it seemed enough that they knew that it was some kind of daily game show that raffled off oodles of prizes in cash and in kind.

If a senate hearing is going to be conducted ``in aid of legislation’’ I hope the parties concerned would look into the nature of TV shows. This is not in order to curtail media freedom, but so that the interest of viewers and the live participating public could be protected.

For TV networks it is no longer just a ratings game. It is also a crowd drawing game, with the crowd size, queue length and shrieking decibel used as gauge of the affair’s popularity, the better for advertisers to notice. And who to draw in to the queue if not the masa? They who have simple dreams and simple joys, they who seek momentary relief from life’s travails, so easy to please, so easy to satisfy.

But must poverty always be the scapegoat? Those who keep pointing to the people’s poverty and nothing else as the cause of tragedies such this recent one are also using the poor. They are not very different from those who use and entertain the poor for marketing gimmicks. It’s as if the poor have nothing else except their hunger, not unlike infants that must be made to thrive on baby food. To underestimate the poor is to sin against the poor.

Sure, many survivors of the tragedy who were interviewed pointed to their poverty and hopelessness as having pushed them to try their luck in ``Wowowee’’. But of course, because there was a creation named ``Wowowee’’. Remember the saying from the movie ``Field of Dreams’’--``If you build it they will come.’’ And so they came, made like innocents marching to the mesmerizing music of the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

But what made the ``Wowowee’’ crowd different from a Pied Piper-ed throng was that when the crunch came the throng did not act as one organic mob. It was, as Gordon said, each one for him/herself. Survival of the fittest. But this was not even about survival, as in, say, a sinking overloaded ship (which the Philippines has had lots of). This was about getting ahead of the other person, of getting first crack at the raffle tickets that might not even turn out to be lucky ones. Even as bodies lay limp and lifeless. Even as screams of pain were being heard. This was the ugliest thing that emerged from this much-invoked, over-blamed poverty. Blame poverty? Blame the money a rich network wanted to throw in order to make more money and higher ratings for themselves.

You have to know the nature of the crowd, Querol kept stressing. The Pope’s visit, the SEA games, Pacquiao’s homecoming, mammoth protest rallies, the Black Nazarene procession—each one is a security nightmare unto itself. You make a master plan for contingencies--earthquakes, cyclones, bomb threats, hostage crises, among them.

ABS-CBN’s Bantay Bata (which works for the welfare of children as well as tax deduction for the Lopezes) should have known about the presence of children in the ``Wowowee’’ throng. ABS-CBN might pay much in taxes, but this did not mean the police would have to baby-sit their guests for several days, and were expected to call the shots when the crowd ballooned to 30,000 just before the stampede at the gate. And don’t expect security guards to learn crowd control right there and then either. There has to be planning and coordination. Sadly…

There will be a lot of blame-throwing in the days ahead. It behooves those whose money-making job it was to work up the crowd, to listen and not project the pa-awa feeling that the entire weight of the tragedy is being hurled on them for their destruction. They should be brave and take some on the chin.

best lessons are the most painful.

Like the wrath of God

Here is something that could serve as a historical footnote to the latest statement of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) on the current political situation issued a few days ago. As we prepare for the 20th anniversary of the EDSA Revolt three weeks from now, I thought I should do a rewind and see parallels between the bishops’ move now and the bishops’ move 20 years ago.

I dug up the long feature story I wrote on the CBCP statement on the fraudulent 1986 snap elections shortly before the EDSA uprising. (``Like the Wrath of God’’, Feb.21-27, 1986, Mr&Ms. Special Edition, the daring and frisky weekly published by Eggie Apostol and edited by Letty J. Magsanoc, now Inquirer editor in chief.) I remember we were camped out at the CBCP compound waiting with bated breath for what the bishops had to say. That damning CBCP statement helped create the groundswell that led to the toppling of the Marcos dictatorship a few days later.

Take a trip down memory lane. Excerpts:

Finally things snapped. Out of the silent halls of the Catholic Church the voice of the hierarchy crackled. The post-election statement of the CBCP came down like the wrath of God.

Valentine’s Day 1986 would be long remembered as the day the bishops came out to condemn a political exercise. Lifting up their hemlines, they at last waded into muddy waters to cross the moat and lay siege on an impenetrable fortress.



The statement was, by far, the most scathing and the most pointed ever released by the CBCP. It outdid all previous pastoral letters, statements and exhortations and although nowhere in the statement was it mentioned who was guilty in the elections described by them as ``unparalleled in the fraudulence of their conduct’’ there was no mistaking who the bishops meant. As former hostage Bishop Feredico Escaler SJ (Zamboanga de Sur) exclaimed: ``Marcos will be boiling mad!’’

Scoring the systematic disenfranchisement of voters, the widespread and massive vote-buying, the deliberate tampering with the election returns, intimidation, harassment, terrorism and murder, the bishops took issue with ``a government in possession of power’’. Signed by CBCP president Ricardo Cardinal Vidal…the statement said: ``If such a government does not of itself freely correct the evil it has inflicted on the people then it is our serious moral obligation as a people to…(Sorry, the bottom page didn’t come out in the photocopy).

``We are morally certain that the people’s real will for change has been manifested,’’ said Bishop Teodoro Bacani. Bishop Claver said: ``The mandate for change is very clear. You make up your mind what that change means.’’

Although the bishops did not go into specifics on the action to be taken, they prescribed ``active resistance of evil by peaceful means—in the manner of Christ’’. Their call would later see shape in Ms. Corazon Aquino’s seven-point program of civil disobedience laid out at the ``Tagumpay ng Bayan’’ rally at the Luneta where she called for a boycott of the crony banks, media, corporations and delay of payments to the government. The bishops’ presence at the rally lent legitimacy to Ms. Aquino’s claim to victory in the elections.

They’ve come a long way, the monsignores. Since martial rule was imposed in 1972, there was nary a whimper of protest from the CBCP….(It was the rank-and-file that fought and suffered with the masses.)

Before the February snap elections the CBCP released an exhortation ``We Must Obey God Rather Than Men’’ calling on the faithful ``not (to) passively surrender to the forces of evil and allow them to unilaterally determine the conduct and results of these elections.’’ Cardinal Sin and the auxiliary bishops of Manila wrote one last December while Cardinal Vidal also issued one for Cebu. Several other bishops issued letter for their respective dioceses.

Coming out with the post-election statement was not all that easy. As Bishop Antonio Fortich of Bacolod said: ``It is 90 degrees Fahrenheit.’’ Closeted at the CBCP complex in Intramuros, several times retreating into silence to pray and discern, the 66 bishops (of the more than 100, several of whom are retired) divided themselves into groups and presented their reports on the elections. Namfrel’s Jose Concepcion, Vicente Jayme and Jose Feria also came to give reports.

Not to be outdone, Imelda Marcos did a Nicodemus and came in the dead of night to reportedly convince the bishops not to come out with the statement. Ms. Aquino came too, two hours before the bishops’ press conference to ``assure Cardinal Vidal of my non-violent course of action….’’

Last Sunday there were ``staged’’ walkouts while the letter was being read. The government TV crew was not far behind to shoot. Labor Minister Blas Ople would later take issue with the bishops while Comelec chairman Victorino Savellano would stop going to church even as the Pope expressed confidence in the bishops’ judgment. One thing was sure though—no one walked out of the CBCP conference contrary to what Marcos would later say at a press conference…

There were two drafts to choose from. The bishops voted for the stronger one…According to Escaler, four theologians helped in the drafting. They were Frs. Antonio Lambino and Pedro Achutegui, both Jesuits, Fr. Fausto Gomez of the Dominicans and Fr. Miranda of the SVDs...

While many bishops emerged from the conference beaming with satisfaction, there were a few who reportedly abstained from voting for the letter. ``Don’t ask me the names,’’ said Escaler. ``But there were three or four who kept putting up objections…But it was all done in an open spirit. We said, look, you’re not telling us we’re liars but that is how we perceive the situation—there is enough basis. We were practically unanimous.’’

Pacquiao, Onyok, Ali and life

I am not a boxing fan but I did wait with bated breath for Manny Pacquiao’s Sunday confrontation with Mexican legend Eric Morales. And I did let out some expletives with some punches from either side.

The closest I have been to boxing is in our weekly taebo sessions at the Inquirer. When our trainer John Q yells ``Attack!’’ we demolish imaginary foes and when it is ``Defense!’’ we duck under our fists. You have to be fully focused and cannot allow the mind to wander otherwise you’d get lost in the footwork. It is during the post-taebo crunches and push-ups that I do my out-of-body flight that helps me make it (arrrgh!) to the last count.

The last time I wrote about boxing was 10 years ago when Mansueto “Onyok” Velasco Jr. won the silver at the Atlanta Olympics. (Onyok is Ilonggo endearment for Junior.) The Inquirer's banner photo of our champ on the podium waving a Philippine banderita and wearing that gentliest of smiles brought tears to my eyes. I remember that look that outshone his silver medal. After having been brutally battered by the judges (but not by the Bulgarian) Onyok emerged unbowed, with a countenance so serene, so beautiful, so gently Ilonggo. That photo spoke a thousand words.

That is why I wrote about it. The human side of it, not the brutal sport. But how does one separate the two? Our sports guru Recah Trinidad will tell you, you can’t. And where is Onyok now, I want to know.



Boxing is the sport of the underdog. I have yet to know of a boxer who was born rich. But they could die rich, that is, if they use what they know of boxing in navigating through later life.

Like boxing, long distance cycling is also for the anak pawis. Although every other rich kid now owns a mountain bike, I have yet to know of one that would want to join The Tour. In boxing and long-distance cycling, one has to have a high threshold for pain. They are not for the faint of heart. In golf (which also needs discipline), you take your sweet time walking and you have to have lots of money too, unless you are a caddy with access to the green.

Much has been said about Pacquiao, how he made the nation rise as one in jubilation. What he said, thought and felt; what he wore and ate and his hopes for this fractured nation. Pacquiao’s famous victory quote: “Sana magkaintindihan na tayong lahat.” (Literal translation: “I hope we would now understand one another.”) But we all know that magkaintindihan (from entiende) means more than just understanding, it means settling differences and living in peace and harmony.

Being mainly a feature writer, I am interested in knowing more about the so-called “Pacquiao Team” that got a little of the limelight. Who are they, what are they?

I have kept all these years the April 25, 1988 issue of the Sports Illustrated magazine with “(Muhammad) Ali and His Entourage” as cover story. It is about “The Greatest” and the people who waited on him when he was the greatest. The story by Gary Smith is a great one. “The champ and his followers were the greatest show on earth, and then the show ended. But life went on.” The gleaming black-and-white photographs by Gregory Heisler are probing. It is a story about greatness and decline. It is also about moving on.

Here again are the men and woman who doted on the champ long after the show had ended. All together, they paint a portrait of Ali, even as they paint a portrait of themselves.

Of Ferdie Pacheco, the doctor: “The first signal of decline was in Ali's hands. Pacheco began injecting them with novocaine before fights, and the ride went on. Then the reflexes showed, the beatings began, the media started to question the doctor. And the world began to learn how much the doctor loved to talk...The slower Ali spoke, the more frequently spoke the doctor.”

Of Gene Kilroy, the facilitator: “He has covered the walls of his rec room with 50 Ali photos. He reminisces every day. He watches videos of old Ali interviews he helped facilitate....”

Said Lana Shabazz, the cook: “I call him, ask him what he's eatin'. People ask me all the time how he's doin. Know how that feels, when people ask you how's your child, and you don't know what to say?”

Of Luis Sarria, the masseur: “I remembered (those hands), working endlessly up and down the smooth ripples of Ali's body until he drifted off to sleep. His hand I remembered, but I could not remember him.”

Of Pat Patterson, the bodyguard: “(He) had to sit on the corner stool and watch helplessly when his man needed protection most, in the ring when the end was near. `Watching him get hit was like watching someone stick my mama with a knife.'”

Of Herbert Muhammad, the manager: “His dream of building 49 more mosques like this first one, using the money Ali and he could generate, was drifting further and further from his reach. Ali slurred words and shook and didn't want to be seen on television.”

Of Drew (Bundini) Brown, the motivator: “...the ghetto poet who motivated Ali and maddened him, who invented the phrase, `Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee'...who licked Ali's mouthpiece before sliding it in but never said a yes to him he didn't mean; who could engage the champion in long discussions of nature and God and man, then lie in the hotel pool before a fight and have his white woman.”

Despite his immense wealth, Ali remained trapped in a ghetto.

The world of boxing is a surreal world, a gold mine for stories. Consider the many movies (``The Champ’’, ``Raging Bull’’, ``Million-Dollar Baby’’) and novels--Norman Mailer's among them. I don't like boxing but I like boxing stories.