Press freedom, very much like democracy, is alive and at risk. It will be in constant legal, economic, and ideological struggle with other political forces not only because authoritarians-in-the-making want to consolidate every inch of power. But also due to the more obvious yet simple reason that press freedom is the mirror of democracy.
Any shortcomings that press freedom endures will backfire on democracy. If seasoned reporters, campus journalists, and bloggers are an easy target of criminal libel, this practice can encourage a draconian reading of other laws that will undermine legitimate dissent — an indispensable part of democratic life.
Journalists, free expression advocates, and media organizations are the major beneficiaries, if not casualties, of press freedom. But since it covers the right to impart, receive, and exchange information of public interest, press freedom is a public right. When press freedom is under attack, democracy backslides, thus leaving the public at a loss.
To uphold press freedom, we must defend the tenets of democracy. This means recognizing the systems and norms of democratic institutions of power, and calling out extreme incivility and illiberal politics.
In the Philippines, this would also mean being sensitive to the inherent tension that affects the ties that bind media, governance, and international affairs. Many think that the Philippines has the freest press in Southeast Asia even though the country is notorious for unresolved cases of killings of journalists and media workers.
The Philippine experience can shed light on the ambivalent state of media and democracy. And there are three lessons that can help us make sense of this contradiction.
Lesson one: The court is a potential ally of the press.
The Supreme Court (SC) and the courts in general issue critical rulings that shape the standards of press freedom. The court does not always offer a liberal interpretation of the law, but it has mechanisms like the writing of dissenting opinions that can balance, if not outrightly oppose, the court’s negative ruling on press freedom. This practice must be supported by protagonists of press freedom and free expression.
In June 2023, for example, the majority decision of the SC dismissed the petition filed by journalists and media practitioners to declare void the media ban imposed by the Rodrigo Duterte administration on Rappler. Since Mr. Duterte is no longer in office and that Rappler has current access to covering the present Ferdinand Marcos Jr. administration, the SC decision noted that a ruling from it would not provide any practical value anymore.
In a dissent, Senior Justice Leonen explained that there was a need to grant the petition in the name of press freedom, arguing that “I urge that we continue to rule to emphasize our doctrines on a free press and to avoid repetition in the future.” Leonen highlighted how the press empowers citizens by helping them participate in public deliberations, saying that, “Government interference in exercising free press is always treated as suspect, and the government must prove the validity and constitutionality of its regulation” (which, in this case, is about the previous government’s decision to ban Rappler’s journalists from covering presidential events).
Lesson two: Church-run media can be weaponized for illiberal politics.
Church-run media companies can be weaponized for dark political gain. The country’s media environment thrives in part because churches and faith-based formations have the right to run their own media operations. But until recently, politically active churches deliberately transgress the cardinal bounds of legality and civility in exchange for electoral mileage. This practice is detrimental to press freedom and must be called out.
Take the case of Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI), which sees itself as “a beacon of truth for Filipinos…in an era plagued by fake news and fabricated stories.” SMNI is a key propaganda arm of the Dutertes and their political supporters, with the former president hosting his own program (Gikan sa Masa, Para sa Masa or From the Masses, for the Masses) and his then-administration officials running their own programs too. This church-run media is becoming more aggressive and combative in promoting and defending the profiles of the Dutertes, including Vice President Sara Duterte, who was recently impeached by the House of Representatives and is set to face an impeachment trial at the Senate this year.
SMNI serves as the broadcasting channel of The Kingdom of Jesus Christ, a Davao-based church founded and led by Apollo Quiboloy, a televangelist and Mr. Duterte’s spiritual adviser. Quiboloy is currently on hospital arrest for sexual abuse and human trafficking charges yet was allowed by the Commission on Elections to run for the Senate this year. His proclamation rally was well attended by the pro-Duterte senatorial candidates, including Senator Ronald dela Rosa. SMNI had prior collaboration with the Chinese embassy and was in the process of negotiation for partnership with China Global Television Network.
Lesson three: The donor country-sources and the values they represent matter. Beware of media trainings sponsored by communist China.
And lastly, this lesson concerns the training of Filipino journalists in China under the sponsorship of China’s communist government and its state-run media. Although the practice of foreign governments providing development aid to less developed countries is not new, one must be cautious about the dynamics of transnational politics. It is necessary to keep in mind that the donor countries and the values they represent always matter.
The Presidential Communication Operations Office of the Duterte administration, led by broadcaster Martin Andanar back then, sent more than 50 journalists and information officers to China between 2018 and 2019 to attend media trainings co-organized by China’s State Council Information Office. Mr. Andanar, who personally attended a media seminar in China and who would later become a news anchor of the state-run China Global Television Network, reportedly told officials of China’s National Radio and Television Administration in 2018 that “While the Western media was endlessly criticizing the Philippines, I felt that we were in good standing because of the more than 1.3 billion Chinese watching the interviews that were being made by your media.”
The Philippines was certainly not the only country “invited” to China’s media trainings. China sponsored journalists from Pakistan and Sri Lanka too, and found officials in countries like New Zealand and Germany who could amplify China’s friendly image in their local media, reported the Washington-based Freedom House. The group underscored how the Chinese Communist Party has been expanding its media influence beyond its borders since 2017 to promote a positive image of China, encourage foreign investment, and demonize voices critical of the communist party.
The way we see press freedom requires not just understanding the legal, but also the changing transnational, landscape that shapes the relationship between media and democracy. – Rappler.com
Jefferson Lyndon D. Ragragio is Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan and Assistant Professor of Media Studies at the Department of Science Communication, University of the Philippines at Los Baños. This paper was presented at the Wallace House Center for Journalists, University of Michigan in February 2025.