Manila Pen case: Gov't justify restrictions on media

MANILA, Philippines - Government lawyers on Wednesday justified the restriction of mediamen at the height of the Peninsula Manila incident saying that freedom to cover an event is not greater than a state's right to defend itself. "The right to freedom of expression, including the right to freedom of the press, is not absolute but subject to the limitation of the police power of the state," the lawyers said. "The incidental restriction on media people's freedom to cover an event is not greater than the right of the state to self preservation," they added in a 52-page consolidated comment filed before the Supreme Court. In it, the Office of the Solicitor General asked the High Court to dismiss the consolidated petitions for amparo and prohibition filed by a group of journalists in connection with the arrest of mediamen at the height of the Peninsula Manila hotel standoff in Makati City on November 29. The suit was separately filed by the group of ABS-CBN senior reporters while a second petition was filed by other journalists from the broadcast, radio and print industries. The two cases were subsequently consolidated by the SC. Named respondents in the case were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno, Armed Forces Chief General Hermogenes Esperon Jr, Police Director General Avelino Razon, Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro, PNP-NCR chief Director Geary Barias and PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group chief Asher Dolina. Assistant Solicitor General Amparo Cabotaje-Tang, the lead government lawyer for the case, told the high court that press freedom to cover an event must yield when it obstructs lawful police operations, pointing out that petitioners have no constitutional right of special access to a crime scene. Tang also said that the petitioners cannot use the limited Philippine amparo to declare an arrest illegal or enjoin future prosecutions, even executive issuances done in accordance with law. "If petitioners are questioning the legality or illegality of their detention or arrest during said incident, their proper recourse may be any or all of the following - filing of a criminal case against the apprehending officers or an administrative case against them, but not through a limited writ of amparo," said Tang. The government lawyers also maintained that there was no harassment or violation of petitioners' rights and that policemen and soldiers merely to sought to ensure petitioners' safety when they directed mediamen to vacate the hotel, an order which was not heeded by some. The government lawyers also claimed that petitioners did not sustained any imminent injury by reason of the media advisory issued by public respondents. Thus, they added, there is no actual case or controversy that would warrant judicial intervention. - GMANews.TV