The Order that Momentarily Froze a Law

Posted on Tuesday, October 9th, 2012 and is filed under Frencie Carreon. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

SYDNEY/09 October 2012 by Frencie Carreon–As a diplomatic person, I say that the Supreme Court’s issuance of a TRO is a manifestation that democracy still rules in the Philippines. While on one hand it may be viewed as a ‘stand up’ against the executive and legislative arms, such move demonstrates a balance in power and draws hope in a recently-shaken Supreme Court that almost lost as an institution its integrity and the respect of some of the Filipino citizens.

As the Acting Chair of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) Zamboanga City Chapter, in one with my media colleagues across the nation in the rally against the effectivity and legal implementation of said law, I see the TRO as what it is for the day: a Restraining Order that is but “Temporary.” Being so, we must not let down our guard, and continue to assail the provisions of the law that restrict our basic rights to free expression. Let us not forget a journalist’s primary responsibilities to society are reporting the facts AND living to share our truth-based opinions to help influence society in making better decisions for the common good.

As a peace and conflict journalist, i urge media colleagues to continue our efforts to delve further–dig deeper–then report to the Filipino people and the world on the benefits that may be reaped by, if not the intentions of, those solons and senators who opted to uncaringly, and negligently if not thoughtlessly oversee those provisions that infringe people’s or netizens’ rights.

As in the olden times, there have been three estates, and media was tagged as the fourth. Let us, for one significant time in our democratic state, remain steadfast in enabling our being in The Fourth Estate.

Until the law–particularly the provision on libel (Sec 4, RA 10175) as defined in Art 355 of the Revised Penal Code– shall have been carefully reviewed by legal experts rather than politically-dressed authors with vested self-interests, let our stand against the unconstitutionality of certain provisions (or the entirety) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act in 2012, unwaver. (Frencie Carreon, The PhilSouth Angle)

Comments are closed.

Photo Gallery