I.

INTRODUCTION

a.) Presentation of the Case Last August 23, 2010, a dramatic hostage taking crisis took place in the Quirino Grandstand. The said incident, involving around 25 civilians, of which 20 of them were Hong Kong nationals. The said hostage taker, Rolando Mendoza, was a known Top 10 policemen of the Philippines and was with around 17 awards for his years of service. It was only until recently that he was involved in an extortion case and was removed from service. Thus, he was stripped of his retirement benefits. Therefore, he did the hostage taking in order to gain back reinstatement in office. 1 But the said reinstatement did not happen. The office of the ombudsman denied

Mendozas request even in the face of probable international conflict. All that he was promised of was the reviewing of his case.2 On top of this dissatisfaction by Mendoza, he saw his brother on national television, Gregorio Mendoza, being arrested by the police.3 Ten hours after the said drama, the Filipino bus driver who was handcuffed in the bus steering wheel, surprisingly released himself and was able to get out of the bus. Jumping from the drivers side windows, he swiftly sprinted away from the said bus. Running as fast as he could, he was able to escape from the hostage takers hands. As he ran, he shouted patay na lahat (everybody is dead) alarming and further alerting the police and the rest of the viewers nationwide.4 At around 7:37 PM, the SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) team arrived at the said scene, storming the bus, and was trying to break open the windows with a sledgehammer and the doors using ropes. Due to the inability to break it open for an entrance, the SWAT team threw four

tear gas canisters and was successfully able to enter the bus. During this siege, police marksmen were able to take down Rolando Mendoza with a headshot.5 In conclusion, the hostage taking resulted to 9 freed hostages, 1 escapee, 2 civilians injured by stray bullets (an HK reporter and a bystander), 4 slightly injured hostages, 4 critically/severely injured hostages, and 8 hostages dead.6 Hong Kong also marked Philippines under Black label of travel alert. Meaning, the Hong Kong government urges all flights to the Philippines should be cancelled and Hong Kong nationals should leave the country as soon as possible.7 Aside from the said results, grievances from the Hong Kong government and from its country itself can be heard all over the media. The said incident, though an isolated one, surely strained the international relations due to the incompetence and failures that resulted from it.

b.) Involvement of Media

The following are the said involvements of media men that affected the said hostage taking: 1.) Intervention in the negotiations During the hostage taking drama, a certain Michael Rogas of RMN networks intervened in the negotiation process, giving an impression that police negotiators are of no need since everything Mendoza demands of can be heard nationwide through the interview.8 2.) Airing of tactical positions and actual operations of the police force The media, according to the IIRC report, has shown footage of the possible locations or positions of the snipers and the actual movement of the SWAT team. Thus, it made the hostage taker aware of the operations of PNP. 3.) Televising the arrest of Gregorio Mendoza

The media networks, as the brother of the hostage taker was arrested, showed live footages of how Gregorio Mendoza was being handcuffed and taken away by the police. This added more frustration to the hostage taker and eventually led to the death of some hostages.9 c.) Media Blackout Media Blackout can be defined as censorship of news related to a certain issue done voluntarily or is implemented by the state. It is, at peacetimes, controversial for many regard this as violation of freedom of press.10 After the hostage taking crisis, Cebu Rep. Luis Quisumbing proposed a house bill 2737 which aims to impose media blackout during crisis situations.11 This house bill triggered a lot of discussions and reactions, particularly from the media men themselves. In one of the opinion sections of the inquirer newspaper, Nestor P. Burgos, chair of the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines, said Legislated restrictions on media coverage are more dangerous and could pave the way for abuses and excesses by authorities responding to crisis situations. The matter, left unsettled, induces a lot of issues whether or not such precautions should be legalized.

Thesis Question: Should Media Blackout then be legalized? Thesis statement: Media Blackout, should not be advocated as an option in trying to resolve crises. Full restriction of Media personnel from a crime scene would defeat the very ideals which our constitution espouses such as freedom of speech and press. But then again, due to the results of the Hostage Taking Crisis, better implementation of existing media guidelines should be provided in order for media men to distinguish truth service from compromising of national security.
II. LIBERALISM

Liberalism, rooting from its latin root word liber meaning free, is the political paradigm which espouses importance of the individual and his rights in the society. It intends to create a free society, a kind of setting wherein individuals may exercise utmost freedom within the bounds of laws.12 Ideology and Politics mentions that Liberalism includes individual choice, individual rights, and limiting of state power. 13 Thus, I will discuss how Liberalism would be in favor of the rejection of Media Blackout as a mandate for the future crises through its most basic principles. a.) Politics of Rights The politics of rights can be defined as the key concept of Liberalism which advocates the basic liberties of a person. It seeks to protect these basic liberties and aids them in their development. In the book, Ideology and Politics, it states that It is the self development of the individuals that is seen as the chief and over-riding value which is to be fostered in a free society.14 It continues by saying that A truer picture of liberalism, as a broad philosophy of politics, is obtained by seeing it as oriented around the fundamental concept of self development, the ability of the individual to become in reality what individuals are in society autonomous, self determining, and in control of ones own life and plans.15 Thus, in this case, we can clearly see how liberalism espouses the importance of the individual, his own life and his own choices. It seeks to further aid these individuals in whatever path in their lives they are going to take within the bounds of the laws. Politics of rights, therefore, implies that there is a certain concept of individualism. Kymlicka mentions that According to criticisms, liberals base their theories on notions of individual rights and personal freedom, but neglect the extent to which individual freedom and well being are only possible within the community. This therefore gives us a sense of what Hobbes and Locke were accused of by Rousseau as promoting individual freedom over civic

virtue. True, in the case of liberalism, such concepts are advocated. For instance, capitalism is a widely accepted practice within the liberal states. This therefore means that the politics of rights weighs heavier than the politics of common good, or the good of the society as a whole. In relation to the Hostage Taking crisis, this key concept of liberalism would be in favor of rejecting the said house bill 2737 which intends to impose Media Blackout because it values our individual rights, such as right to know, freedom of press and freedom of choice, more than common good, which in this case, is the national security. It gives heavier weight to the importance of journalism and news reporting than of the lives of the hostages and the possible international conflict that can be generated out of the said hostage taking drama. b.) Neutral State The neutral state can be defined as a state which values individuals views of a good life over than a collective singular view which will be imposed to many. Kymlicka notes that a Neutral state does not justify its actions on the basis of intrinsic superiority or inferiority of conceptions of good life, and which does not deliberately attempt to influence peoples judgments of the value of these diff conceptions.16 This means that a neutral state does not intend to classify, evaluate, and choose from the different views of individuals of what is a good life. An individual is free from guidance of the state to decide what path he is going to take. He is not bound to a certain set of rules by the state which would, then, limit his freedom and defeat the purpose of a libertarian society. Thus, this neutral state therefore implies a state of lesser intervention. The only way to operationalize this idea of a neutral state is to impose less control and more freedom to the individual. The reduction of control serves as a leeway to the choices of the individual and what was mentioned above in the political rights.

Though the Hostage Taking Crisis does not directly tackle a neutral state in relation to a good life, it does touch the concept of less control of the state. The reason behind this is that advocating freedom of press requires less control from the state. In fact, the IIRC report mentioned that When news reporters and their supporting crew, i.e., camera men, communication links etc. are sent to cover an event, their basic mandate is to get as much news worthy information, footage, voice clips and sound bites as they can.17 Meaning, media men are actually have this mandate of gathering as much as they can. IIRC continues by saying The decision on what goes on the air is not of the reporters. There were footage that were taken from various locations and covering various situations connected with the incident that were not aired. The decision on what goes on the air is made by the producer(s) and/or director(s) in charge of the coverage who are located at the station not the site and, to a certain level, the anchor person. This line therefore represents the neutral state leaving to the directors, producers, or news anchors the decision on what to expose and what not to. Somehow, it touches the idea of a good life for it exemplifies decisions of these persons on what should be better police advantage or relaying truthful news to the country. Moreover, the more important point here is that it shows how a neutral state should advocate less control, even in such trivial matters such as the hostage taking crisis. Thus, this idea of neutral state is then in favor of rejecting the said house bill 2737 which advocates Media Blackout. It supports freedom of press by advocating less control in such situations. It does not seek to compromise freedom of choice for state security.

III. COMMUNITARIANISM

Communitarianism, a political paradigm that is being embraced by the east, particularly by countries like Russia and China, is the paradigm whose main focus is the community, not the individual self. It seeks to achieve equality between individuals and development which is not

individualistic but instead, communitarian. It is a planned society, controlled by a party acting for the interest of all, presiding over a society of equals in which deep divisions of class conflict had been removed by collective ownership.18 Thus, it seeks to give more importance to the community as a whole rather than the individual itself. The book, Ideology and Politics even mentions that the conflict between the west and the east roots from the differences in ideologies.19
a.) Politics of Common Good

If the Liberals promote the politics of rights or individual rights, Communitarians on the other hand advocate politics of common good. This is their key concept which is grounded in equality and betterment of the society as a whole. According to Kymlicka, in a communitarian society, common good is conceived of as a substantive conception of a good life which defines the communitys way of life. This common good, rather than adjusting itself to the pattern of peoples preferences, provides a standard by which those preferences are evaluated. 20 Basically, this conception of the common good is grounded on the idea of equality between individuals which would remove a so called caste system. In particular, it is one of the known critiques of what is being advocated in liberalism which creates differences and levels between people capitalism. They are directly against capitalism mainly because it unfairly distributes power, the power which is being held solely by those at the top of the financial ladder. 21 Thus, this key concept of communitarianism seeks to address such problems by creating a collective notion of a good life, and forcefully implements it in order to create an equal society. This theory, therefore, implies that communitarian societies, under their key concept politics of common good, would at times; sacrifice individual perception for the common good that it may bring. Clearly speaking, I am not classifying them as utilitarians. Rather, communitarians,

in their attempt to enforce a generally agreeable concept of a good life, affect individuals. As Rawls states, essential interests are harmed by attempts to enforce a particular view of a good life.22 Moreover, this politics of Common Good seeks to encourage individuals to adopt to the majorities way of life, while discouraging conceptions of the good that conflict with it.23 This, therefore, implies a certain restriction of the kind of life an individual should take. In relation to the Media Blackout, I would say that this key concept of communitarians would vote in favor of the house bill 2737. The basic reason is because in the said hostage taking drama, life is clearly in serious danger. Since in that case, media is being a hindrance in trying to achieve the conception of many which is to successfully save the lives of the hostages, then this communitarian concept would clearly be in favor of any means possible, such as media blackout, in order to save the lives of the people inside the bus. Aside from that fact, if we view how perilous and controversial that event was, this communitarian concept would advocate media blackout if it means effective rescue of the hostages. Knowing how trivial this crisis is, communitarians would clearly advocate media blackout knowing what dangers it might bring to the international relations between China and Philippines.
b.) State Paternalism

State paternalism, a vital concept of the communitarian paradigm, means a certain limitation to freedom which is based on the grounds that if the limitation is imposed, it would make an individual better-off than not.24 For instance, when children go swimming, they are not allowed to swim if lifeguards are not present. In that case, the limiting of the freedom of children to swim when lifeguards are absent disallows the compromising of the childrens safety for their own freedom. It seeks to protect individuals from harm by putting a limit to their autonomy. It is like a father-son relationship, wherein the state is the father and the citizens are its sons. For

instance, our own father advises us to wear seatbelts when driving. Same is done by the state to individuals wherein they encourage them to wear seatbelts, even if it compromises their own freedom not to wear seatbelts, for their own safety. Thus, state paternalism is an essential component of communitarianism in order to effectively serve its purpose which is for the betterment of the society as a whole. State paternalism, therefore, implies a certain idea of authority over an individual which is given to the state. This authority operates, given the condition that whatever will be imposed will surely be for the benefit of the individual. But this also implies that the power to distinguish and impose which are beneficial and which are not rests in the hands of the state. Therefore, it implies a certain control over the freedom of its constituents. In the case of media blackout, the concept of state paternalism would support the house bill 2737. It would support media blackout because if we try to examine the situation, media is a hindrance in the police operations. It indirectly aided the crime being done by Rolando Mendoza. In that case, State Paternalism would therefore seek to ban media as it has observed it rightful to do so because lives of the internationals are at risk. Advocating media blackout would be similar to disallowing a kid from swimming in a pool without the lifeguard. It would value more the life of the kid, in this case the life of the hostages, than of the freedom of the kid to swim, in this case the freedom of press or speech, in order to protect lives. Thus, State paternalism will certainly be in favor of Media Blackout.
IV. MIDDLEGROUND

The two contrasting views, Liberal and Communitarian, basically holds truths that are different from each other but certainly bears a value in it. Another thing is that as they hold certain truths that are justified, their ideologies also bear certain faults. But as Aristotle would say, The

proportionate balance produces good while the excess produces bad just as the person who fears everything and flees is a coward and a person who fears nothing becomes rash. In my opinion, same is true for this case of whether or not Media Blackout should be advocated. In one hand, being too much liberal in this issue generates too much freedom which may also result to abuse. For instance, in this case, media men basically did not follow their own code of ethics as news reporters. On the other hand, being too communitarian would break the very essence of being man which is to be free. Complete seclusion of actual events such as crises, as journalists noted, may bring forward abuse on the part of the police since no one and no proof can be testified against their acts. Therefore, our aim here is not to side with either view as the absolute solution to the hostage crisis. What we are here for is to create a middle ground wherein we would be able to advocate their ideologies at a certain extent and remain balanced. In that way, both sides may not fully exercise their ideologies but for certain, none of them will be compromised. One middle ground that we can consider in this situation is the police line. It is defined as a secured perimeter wherein nobody aside from the police is allowed to enter on it. 25 This police line is intended to create a limit to what extent media men could venture on. But the problem is that media went beyond what they are authorized of. As the IIRC report stated, It is founded on the principles that while media has the task or responsibility of informing the public, in the case of crisis situations, media coverage could be restricted in the interest of preventing loss or injury to life.26 This principle perfectly displays a conjoining of liberal and communitarian ideologies. Media is able to exercise freedom of press and inform the public but not to the point that they would indirectly aid the hostage taker and thus, endanger the lives of the hostages. Another middle ground found in the IIRC report is stated on the on-air footages section. IIRC states While the general rule is media could air information that is normally accessible to the

public, there are exceptions to this rule. It is when the information or footage might potentially endanger lives. This is because of the presumption that the hostage taker (or perpetrator in other types of crisis situations) has access to what is being aired by media outlets, particularly television and radio, which has an element of immediacy (live) as distinguished from print media which is day after news. That the Hostage Taker in this instance was watching television, and the channel he was viewing, was not just presumed but was a fact known to the police authorities. In this case, again, liberal and communitarian ideologies are being espoused at the same time. If live footages endanger the lives of the hostages, then it is necessary to delay the news, for instance, by utilizing print media or purposely delaying the T.V. coverage. In this instance, we can see therefore, how freedom of media is being allowed within the bounds of police operations. This also means that media should be selective of what they show on T.V. True, their task is to relay the information to the Filipinos but to do it at the cost of the life of the hostages would make their efforts futile. IIRC notes that the incident involving Gregorio, made vivid to the Hostage Taker through television, indicates that seeing what was being done to his brother on television appeared to be the tipping point that led the Hostage Taker into shooting the hostages. The Hostage Taker was heard shouting for the police to release his brother and giving deadlines for the release. He was also heard asking why his brother was being treated like a pig. It was while this incident was taking place, and immediately thereafter, that the shooting of hostages took place.27 For what is the delivery of the news if the main objective of capturing the hostages alive is being compromised? This signifies a balancing of the liberal concept of politics of rights which sacrifices lives of human beings. Thus, in this chapter, we have seen that middle grounds in the hostage taking situation are feasible. What I can comment on in this situation is that this middle ground has been there, present all the time. It was the media that breached this middle ground by going beyond their limitations,

for instance, by not following the said ethical guidelines. The real score here is not the implementation of Media Blackout. Instead, it is the discipline that media men should have possessed as they very well know that whatever they show on television can tremendously improve or worsen the said situation. Enrile even mentioned Maglagay ka ng police line. Puwedeng arestuhin ang lumabag doon. Kaya marami pa ring lumalabag doon dahil nga hindi sila ikinukulong. May batas ka nga, pero wala namang ginagawa ang mga police. The law cannot enforce itself.28 Thus, the problem here is just the implementation not the revision of guidelines.
V. CONCLUSION

After all that has been said and done, what we can claim as true here is that there is no need of espousing media blackout as solution to further hostage taking crises. By identifying and comparing liberal and communitarian views on the matter, we were able to directly pinpoint the root of the house bill 2737. But as we ventured its middle ground, we also proved it not necessary to employ such a house bill for it would be deterrent to our society as well. Thus, as stated above in my thesis statement, I can say that the problem is not in the implementation of Media Blackout. The problem is with the implementation of the existing guidelines, which are actually mediators of the ideologies and key concepts of liberalism and communitarianism. No matter how much effort we apply to find leeway for mediations of such, if people do not coordinate, it will still be the same old story. Here, we found out that it is the case. We are provided of guidelines which allow us to exercise utmost freedom within the bounds of security but refuses to do so. Therefore, after all this talk, I guess we were just too liberal to the point of what Aristotle mentioned as excessive.

1 2

wikipedia ^ "Policemans demand for reinstatement nixed". Philippine Daily Inquirer (INQUIRER.net). August 23, 2010. http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20100823-288413/Negotiatorsdeliver-letter-from-Ombudsman. Retrieved August 23, 2010. 3 "Dismissed cop kills most of Chinese hostagestourist bus driver". INQUIRER.net. August 23, 2010. http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20100823-288425. Retrieved August 28, 2010. 4 Driver escapes, says 'hostages all dead'. (August 23, 2010). ABS-CBN News., "Bus driver: Hostagetaker got mad after brod's arrest" 5 "Manila Hostage Drama: During and After Story and Pictures". ALLVOICES.com. August 23, 2010. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6580162-excop-holds-tourist-bus-passengers-hostage-inmanila. Retrieved August 23, 2010. 6 wikipedia 7 "Hong Kong bans Philippines travel after hijack deaths". BBC News. August 24, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11067310. Retrieved August 24, 2010. 8 http://www.gov.ph/2010/09/17/first-report-of-the-iirc-on-the-rizal-park-hostage-taking-incident/ 9 http://www.gov.ph/2010/09/17/first-report-of-the-iirc-on-the-rizal-park-hostage-taking-incident/ 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_blackout 11 http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20100910-291569/Mediablackout-bigger-threat 12 wiki 13 Ideology and politics p,51 14 Ideology and politics p.51 15 P.55 ideology 16 Kymlicka, introduction. P.217 17 http://marichulambino.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/iirc-report-hostage-taking-for-the-media-iirc-didnot-cite-criminalcivil-law-but-the-kbp-code-of-ethics-on-sniper-posts-hostage-taker-interviews/ 18 Ideology and politics p.8 19 Ibid., 20 Kymlicka 220 21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Criticism 22 Kymlicka 217 23 Kymlicka 220 24 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/ 25 http://www.gov.ph/2010/09/17/first-report-of-the-iirc-on-the-rizal-park-hostage-taking-incident/ 26 Ibid., 27 Ibid., 28 http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/25/10/enrile-sees-no-need-%E2%80%98anti-usisero %E2%80%99-bill Do not cite Wikipedia sources as these are not scholarly work. Refer to Chicago or Turabian for proper format of citation, footnotes, endnotes and bibliography.