Journalists’ Privilege Gone Wrong

First, a recap of events (many thanks to Philippine Commentary for keeping me up-to-date). Just before the Senate Blue Ribbon investigations into the NBN/ZTE deal were adjourned last week, a certain piece of information was prevented from reaching the public with the former NEDA Chair Romulo Neri’s invocation of the Executive Privilege. In this sanctuary provided by EO 464, cabinet officials are allowed to decline answering questions that when answered would otherwise reveal confidential/classified information to the public (as these would presumably damage the Executive Branch or its critical functions). The EO was issued by GMA previously after “inquiries in aid of legislation” and the summoning of cabinet members holding critical positions became the norm in the Senate.

And so Romulo Neri was summoned last week to a closed-door meeting between himself and the investigating Senators (plus other officials), where he could reveal whatever information he is holding without the scrutiny of the public eye, or the danger of him being targeted by those who will be affected by his revelation. Neri allegedly told someone previously that the information he knew could lead to the downfall of the President; and, the point when Neri invoked the Executive Privilege during the televised inquiry was when questions were already leading into the knowledge of the President of the bribery deals between Neri and former COMELEC Chair Abalos.

In the middle of the session, however, his much-awaited revelation was foiled allegedly with a motion from administration stalwart Joker Arroyo to allow the entry of Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya into the meeting, an action which was seen by many to have stopped Neri who was already on the verge of doing a tell-all.

How do we know this? (given that this was supposedly a closed-door meeting?), Inquirer reporter Juliet Labog-Javellana reported so in her article last September 30 (“Neri Was Ready to Talk About ZTE”), where she outlines what her sources told her about what happened inside the Executive Session. The subsequent events demonstrate a stand-off between Senators and the press: Senator Arroyo calls for an investigation (yet another one, this time by the Ethics Committee) into who among those present in the meeting violated the secrecy laws of closed-door sessions; the Inquirer meanwhile writes an editorial standing by the Sotto Law, or the law protecting witnesses of the press by allowing the reporters to refuse revealing the identities of their sources (the Journalists’ Privilege); Senator Enrile threatens to curb press freedoms by repealing the Sotto Law, citing that this spying is endangering national security.

In assessing what has become of the issue, it is important to recognize first that, in essence, the standoff resulted because of a common want by the Senate and by the press to protect their witnesses and their investigative powers. The meeting was a closed-door meeting not merely because of the gag order issued by Gloria, the secrecy is also intended to protect Neri (or any other witness in a closed-door meeting for that matter) from being subjected to physical (or other) harm as a result of a sensational revelation.

This is also the principle of the Journalists’ Privilege. Not only is it an ethical standard among reporters, it is also practical in that it seeks to protect sources from being identified and exposed. The protection of sources also renders greater investigative power to these institutions, as more witnesses are encouraged to surface because of the allowance for anonymity or secrecy. As such, both the Senate and the press have use for closed-door meetings and close-mouthed reporting.

It is not understandable therefore, why, for the sake of acquiring a sensational news item, the Inquirer would resort to an action that could cause danger to arguably the most important witness in the ZTE investigations. If indeed the protection of sources forms the cornerstone of press freedom (as the Inquirer editorial writes), then it should be easy for reporters of Inquirer to recognize that their intrusion into the meeting violates their own cardinal rule. Inasmuch as there was no bombshell dropped during the Executive Session, the whatcouldve’s and possible scenarios had there been a revelation are all immensely problematic.

Moreover, Neri has clammed up indefinitely. Whatever information he has is now locked away from the prying eyes of both the public and the Senate. If previously it was the prodding of Andaya that discouraged Neri from spilling the beans, his present gag can be attributed to a fear for his life that is definitely heightened by the knowledge that closed-door meetings are not really very secret after all. And this can be expected of future attendees of closed-door sessions as well. The credibility of the Senate as an oversight body, and its capability as an investigative body, are both much diminished by the recent events.

In the end, the public is much farther from the truth now than it was before… all because of an overzealous, “fearless” search for that perfect news item.