Thumbnail by Ericka Villaseñor

By Kate Quiambao

On September 1, 2023, former Inquirer.net US bureau chief Rene Ciria-Cruz tendered his resignation in response to the removal of an article concerning Speaker Martin Romualdez’s supposed donation to Harvard University from the Philippine news outlet’s website. The said article initially published a story on Romualdez’s $1-million contribution to support Harvard’s first-ever Filipino language course. Subsequently, the article was deactivated on the orders of the owners, who are apparently related to House Speaker Martin Romualdez, as reported by The FilAm, a US-based magazine that had a content partnership with Inquirer.net. 

As stated by The Harvard Crimson, the daily newspaper of Harvard University, Romualdez was identified as a major donor to the institution’s first-ever Filipino language course, committing $2 million, which equates to Php 113.4 million, to fund the language preceptor position. This incident raised questions concerning censorship, transparency, and bias within the realm of news reporting in the Philippines. It then begs the question: Do media outlets still stand fearless in the face of potential repression, steadfastly dedicated to upholding the truth for the benefit of the Filipino people?

A Recurring Pattern?

This wasn’t the first time Inquirer.net has faced an issue of article takedown. In 2018,  there were reports that the news outlet took down articles related to the controversial rape case of Pepsi Paloma upon the request of former Senate President Vicente Castelo Sotto III. Days after Sotto took his oath as Senate President, it was disclosed that he had written to Inquirer President Paolo Prieto, requesting the removal of three articles: “The Rape of Pepsi Paloma,” “Was Pepsi Paloma murdered?”, and “Tito Sotto denies whitewashing Pepsi Paloma rape case.” Shortly after the request, these articles, which Sotto claimed negatively affected his reputation, were taken down. 

On the other hand, Philstar.com removed a 2002 article on businessman Wilfredo Keng after Keng raised the possibility of legal action. The article, titled, “Influential businessman eyed in ex-councilor’s slay,” had reported on Keng being considered as the prime suspect in the ambush-killing of former Manila councilor Chika Go. This article had been referenced in a 2012 story published by Rappler, which was subsequently used by Keng to file a cyber libel case against the researcher, Rey Santos Jr., and executive editor Maria Ressa. On February 13, Ressa was arrested in connection with the cyber libel case but posted a Php 100,000 bail the following day. Consequently, the Philippine Star article gained significant attention after Ressa’s arrest and remained online until February 15 before getting removed. This action drew criticism from Vergel Santos of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, who argued that the news outlet still had the option to stand its ground in defense of truth but chose to retract in response to a mere threat.

However, the Philippine Star defended its decision to remove the 2002 article in a statement, explaining, “Although laws are not supposed to be applied retroactively, the scope and bounds of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 are still unexplored and the takedown was seen as a prudent course of action.” This drew the attention of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), who believe that the news outlet’s decision to take down its article underscores how the government’s ‘twisting of the law’ can have a chilling effect on media. Such an environment can make journalists hesitant to cover certain topics out of fear of backlash, including the risk of censorship or retaliation for their reporting. NUJP stated that the takedown was an “inevitable consequence” of the government’s “twisting the law in pursuit of its vindictive agenda to shut down Rappler and intimidate the Philippine media community into meekness.”

Without Fear and Favor

Journalism is about disseminating the truth in the service to the public. Hence, instances like these tend to erode public trust given that media outlets are expected to be transparent not only in their news, but also in their editorial decisions. When stories are removed without clear justification, it can raise various concerns about the media’s transparency, integrity, political bias, and the potential compromise in their commitment to fearless reporting. 

These issues should serve as a stark reminder of the balance that media professionals must strike between delivering the truth and navigating its potential repercussions. The impact goes beyond the internal and external implications for the media outlet; it also affects the very essence of truth that all journalists strive to convey. Furthermore, when article removals become a recurring pattern, it only proves the significant influence of power on editorial decisions and the historical records that journalism is ideally meant to preserve.

In a democratic society, a free and fearless press remains paramount. The media plays a vital role in disseminating the truth, acting as a watchdog that uncovers abuses of power, and ensuring transparency throughout the process of doing so. Hence, article takedowns threaten the core principles of journalism. In this context, it becomes a responsibility for all citizens to relentlessly seek the truth and for media outlets to unwaveringly commit to reporting without fear or favor. As a society, it is imperative to ensure that the pursuit of truth and the service to the public remain the guiding beacons of journalism in the Philippines.