(Old)
This is an analysis on Rappler’s coverage of the bombing in Davao city and President Duterte’s declaration of state of lawlessness, from September 2 to September 8.
This is an analysis on Rappler’s coverage of the bombing in Davao city and President Duterte’s declaration of state of lawlessness, from September 2 to September 8.
 |
| Online News Agency Rappler |
Narrative of Davao Blast
In September 2, an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) with 60mm and 81 mm mortar rounds exploded at the massage area of the Roxas Night Market around 10:17pm.
An unidentified man reportedly left his backpack inside one of the stalls after a massage session. Thirty or so seconds had passed, the explosion killed 10 people on the spot, 5 were dead in the hospital, and 70 were injured.
Initially, the government suspected that the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) was behind the bombing, or those who oppose President Duterte’s measures against the illegal drug trade. This was justified when Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) Secretary Martin Andanar speculated by referring to the Jolo clash.
President Duterte deployed 8000 troops in Jolo, Sulu, one of the ASG’s main base. This was triggered after ASG beheaded another one of their hostages. On August 29, 15 soldiers died in an encounter against ASG members. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) claimed it killed 14 ASG members in Sulu, August 26 and 27.
Davao officials and the police had receivedreports of the plan ahead of the bombing, but were unable to prevent the bomb from being deployed. Sara Duterte then announced the relief from service of Davao City police chief superintendent Michael Dubria and Task Force Davao Colonel Henry de Leon.
Because of the bombing, President Duterte had to cancel his trip to Brunei. He eventually declares a ‘state of lawlessness’ in Mindanao. But Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella eventually clarified that "Due to heightened security issues, the coverage of the state of lawlessness will include both Mindanao and the rest of the nation."
Narrative of Declaration
Before President Duterte leaves for Laos, he signed Proclamation no. 55, s. 2016 “State of National Emergency on Account of Lawless Violence in Mindanao.”
The declaration was not, in any sense, near the nature of Martial Law. Duterte said that it was to ensure coordinated efforts between the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
Senate Minority Leader Ralph Recto said the declaration has an indefinite time period. It will end until lifted or withdrawn by the president.
The proclamation allows the AFP and PNP to apply necessary measures to suppress any or all forms of lawless violence from spreading and escalating.
Criminal acts mentioned were murder of innocent civilians, highway robberies and extortions, and assassination of media people.
The following constitutional laws are the extraordinary powers of the president, as reported by Tony La Vina of Rappler.
Section 18, Article VII “Executive Department” of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.”
For a maximum period of 60 days, the president may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or put the Philippines under martial law.
Section 17, Article XII “National Economy and Patrimony”of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.”
Section 23, Article VI “Legislative Department” of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
“The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.”
“In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.”
Treatment of the Issue
WE raise our thumbs up to Rappler for their coverage of the Davao blast event and President Duterte’s initial declaration of the state of lawlessness.
First, they released an article about a history of similar declarations as well as citing a Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) 2006 report. The report was similarly a “brief history of states of emergency in the Philippines.” It was written after then-president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared a state of emergency due to a failed coup attempt against her.
Second, they accorded to section 14 of the SPJ Code of Ethics which states “Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.” They wrote an article with a series of short interviews from eye witness accounts of the incident.
Third, they accorded to section 3 and 4 of the SPJ Code of Ethics which respectively states “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story,” and “Gather, update, and correct information throughout the life of a news story.”
Rappler, on practice, consistently provided short previews of the history of the event at the last parts of each of their news stories. Moreover, they maneuvered the features provided to online news agencies to edit and update their articles every hour or once new information is available.
Fourth, they wrote an article on a history of bombing incidents in Davao City. It was relative to Section 25 of the SPJ Code of Ethics which clearly states “Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provided updated and more complete information as appropriate.”
Doing background research related to the issue is not equivalent to the definition of sensationalism.
In a period of seven days, Rappler was able to seek the truth and report it. They refrained from sensationalizing the individual issues of known personalities who had a say on the issue, like Senator Leila de Lima and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
This positive critic tells that Rappler had done minimal offenses from September 2 to September 8, on the event of the Davao blast and the issue on Duterte’s initial declaration of state of lawlessness.
The screenshot photos below are not equivalent to all articles read by the writer, but the key articles of the week.
©The Pink Merman
Pacific-Atlantis Mermen Journal
Read the Pink Merman's copyright and other reminders.
