The Justice Secretary and Freedom of Speech

May 23, 2005

It was reported over the weekend that Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales had ordered the prosecution of Sen. Lacson’s three (3) jueteng witnesses.  It seems all of them had admitted that they were engaged in the illegal numbers name and on the strength of these admissions, they should go to jail.  It will be recalled that when Gov. Chavit Singson went public with his allegations against Pres. Estrada, he too admitted to being involved in jueteng. I’m not sure if it’s in relation to Sec. Gonzales’ announcement but Gov. Singson is now singing a different tune.   Still, the prior admission is no different from those made by Sen. Lacson’s witnesses and therefore Sec. Gonzales should not discriminate.

Furthermore, Sec. Gonzales should be more careful when ordering the prosecution of people who have admitted wrongdoing.  Not all of them have to be pursued by the authorities.  Otherwise, noone would assist the government in putting other people in jail except when they have committed no crime.  Public policy however allows “guilty” witnesses to testify and our law even encourages them by providing protection.  It seems that Sec. Gonzales has opted not to protect these witnesses but instead use the full force of the government to retaliate. 

This speaks volumes about Sec. Gonzales as a Justice Secretary.  Obviously, he’s concluded that GMA (Ginoong Mike Arroyo) and the others are innocent even before he’s heard the evidence.  That being the case, the only ones guilty of a crime are the witnesses.  I’ve never seen such raw efficiency from any government official in making a factual determination.  But then again, he may have other motivations — like the enforcement of our anti-gambling laws.

Perhaps our Justice Secretary should pull back and consider what he’s doing in relation to the Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of expression.  If less than innocent people are threatened by the State against making disclosures that are beneficial in upholding the rule of law, then shouldn’t that action itself be considered a violation of the Constitution? And should the person calling for such action sit as a top law enforcement official of the land?

A Misquote on VoIP

Inq7 reports that the Commission on ICT Chair, Virigilo Pena, believes that VoIP won’t have a great impact on the ordinary Filipino because:

“VoIP presumes access to a computer [and the Internet]. And if you’re running at 3-percent penetration rate, only a small percent of the population [has access] to VoIP. Yes, it’s right that there is false sense of expectation. Even if VoIP allows people abroad to make cheaper calls, not all their relatives have access to a computer,” Pena said.

He’s not serious, is he?  He must have been misquoted by the media because this is not a smart thing to say when you’re the Undercretary for Communications of the DOTC.  Look at his job description:

Advises and assists the Secretary in the formulation of policies and objectives pertaining to the Department’s telecommunications and postal systems;

Develops plans and programs in order to provide a safe, reliable, and efficient postal system;

Oversees all activities of the Department pertaining to the telecommunications and postal communications services for which he shall be responsible to the Secretary;

Assists in the guidance of government and private investments, development of our country’s communications systems in a more practical, expeditious and orderly manner; and

Perform such other function as may be assigned by law and/or assigned by the Secretary.

It’s impossible.  Given his job description, he must know that VoIP calls can be made even by people without a computer.  After all, PLDT itself offers outbound VoIP calls for 18 cents per minute to people without computers but only basic telephone service.  He must know this since PLDT is the dominant telco over which is office has jurisdiction. 

As a top government official in charge of communications, he knows that one of the key points of the NTC VoIP guidelines is interconnection.  If VoIP providers are allowed to interconnect to a telco’s local exchange, then anyone with a telephone (regardless of computer ownership) can make an international VoIP call.  Therefore, the three percent (3%) penetration rate he mentions is completely irrelevant. 

After all, he did make this astute observation:

“The bulk of VoIP calls are inbound to the Philippines,” Pena stressed.

He’s absolutely right.  Of course, he’s aware that this is because the government has maintained a regulatory system that prohibits local players from offering outbound VoIP calls without an expensive and time-consuming licensing process.  This is precisely what the NTC VoIP guidelines are meant to address — opening up the market so that ordinary folks can pick up the telephones already installed in their homes in order to make long distance VoIP calls to their loved ones overseas.

I must say I also agree with this last statement of Mr. Pena: 

He added that apart from technology, there is also a need to educate people about VoIP.

He’s hit the nail right on the head.  Many people do need to be educated about VoIP.

Let’s not forget that when he’s not acting as an Undersretary for DOTC, he’s a Cabinet-rank Chairman of the Commission on ICT where technologies far more complicated than VoIP are involved.  I hope he doesn’t get misquoted when he’s acting in that capacity as well.  But I guess that’s just a fact of life.