In my law days, we were always urged to read the law in context with the surrounding circumstances of people, time and place.
For any given situation, either by an example or jurisprudence, our law professor reminds us always to find the linking words. And put together in context
And create an environment where meaning of the message is conveyed through the use of words appropriate for the situation, thus, throwing light of fairness in communicating.
The underlying purpose is to surround the message with interrelated conditions so as to arrive at the desired but reasonable conclusion in the light of a given perspective.
This is the way of effective communication. We need to scan the environment and interpret every message in context so as to yield to its authenticity with real import of its meaning.
The overflow of information in a cyber age has effectively deprived us to broadly understand what really are unfolding before us. Oftentimes than not, we get strayed; we lost the meaning; and we are taken out of context.
Being in context means the be-all and end-all in interpreting life in all aspects — to its entirety. With has been going on in these exciting times, there comes a compelling necessity to dissect in greater details the expression of any kind of message: either spoken or written; hardcopy or digital and; voice type or body language.
To be in context shapes the landscape of communication. On one hand, a good opinion on people’s lives and events can be reaped from a careful endeavour to weave all facts from different angles using the human senses but anchored on valued principles. That way, the crux of the matter can easily be spotted. Then, it will radiate rays of light giving birth to a complete circle of a new paradigm of truth.
On the other hand, If people or institutions get attacked off the track, they tend to cry foul and most likely gave a perennial excuse that it is politically motivated or with ill-motive of vengeance. But little did they realize that by failure to disclose some material facts would most probably ripen into misunderstanding. Then, the process of exchange of communication will be in jeopardy.
In the market place of opinion, some people collide course with the government over some issues over public safety or pubic health vis-à-vis freedom of movement and expression. For example, during the ECQ, some tend to defy the government orders like for instance, wearing mask, social distancing and staying-at-home. Not because their concern is less than legitimate. In fact, it requires no more logic that to deprive a person of liberty and freedom of expression is universally wrong, but not absolute, of course.
In most probability, the dissidents may have failed to appreciate the gravity of this pandemic crisis maybe because by default their mindset dictates that restricting their freedom is violation of their human right. However, on how corona virus spreads with dramatic speed resulting to the unimaginable suffering and deaths, thus, crippling the once normal lives of families, communities and the entire country is something that is beyond the reach of their consciousness. This imbalance of mindset and misplaced understanding of the whole situation needs to be taken in context.
Come to think of the brewing but hotly debated issue over the closure of ABS-CBN by virtue of the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by National Telecommunication Commission (NTC) on May 4, 2020. Apparently, ABS-CBN’s legislative franchise has already expired last May 5, 2020 without yet being renewed by Congress.
But with myriad but opposing reactions coming from almost all sectors of society, Filipinos have come in discord with each other, ensuing into an ugly face of nation divided, and now ailing and healing from corona pandemic . The press, lawyers, celebrities, businessmen, Filipinos and practically the entire social media nomads come out with their own opinion on the matter from their own individual but different perspectives. Such scattered points of view will veer us away from the right context, a tragedy of miscommunication in the offing.
At least two retired magistrates, Retired Chief Justice Renato Puno and Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, shared the same view that once the franchise expires, the right to operate ceases to exist. Ergo, NTC cannot issue a provisional authority absent of a valid franchise. But Congress differed its view by saying the NTC has authority to do so. It even urged NTC to issue provisional authority pending the approval of the franchise. Caught by surprise by issuance of CDO, some of its members expressed their disgust with the NTC over its reneged undertaking to issue a provisional authority during congressional hearing. Some even threatened NTC to cite it in contempt. But is it not a pretext to divert the public eye from its dismal failure to act on it with dispatch? We may look at it in that context.
But a former secretary of DICT, Atty. Rodolfo A. Salalima, a law expert on legislative franchises throws some light on it by simply going back to the basic—the constitutional right to due process of law. He opined that from the very beginning the CDO was void because it violated the ABS-CBN’s right to due process of law when it was not given an opportunity to be heard via show-cause order, a legal stand irritating to the ears of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). The context by which due process of law is invoked is very basic; its infringement is revolting to the human conscience.
Well, my two cents worth for due process of law is no less than the Creator did observe this inherent right by affording it upon the first franchise holders in the persons of Adam and Eve to live in the Garden of Eden. Before they were deprived of the franchise to remain in the Garden, the Creator had issued a “show-cause order” by asking, “Why have you eaten the forbidden fruit?”. Right there and then, Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to be heard. That was the first faithful observance of due process of law. This right was a fresh cut from the Garden of Eden at the very day of creation, as original as original sin.
Others also tried their luck to throw punches in the public arena of discussion crying foul over an infringement of freedom of press, the unfortunate displacement of 11 thousand left jobless by the closure and the adverse socio-economic consequences to the Filipino People. Oddly, however, was a forecast of congressman Joey Salceda on the direct impact of the network’s shutdown to an increasing number of Covid-19 patients. To him, it will add up an estimated 2,600 cases, a prediction we can hardly put in context.
Instead of putting everything in context, the issue over the renewal or closure got muddled when the President expressed his disdain over the refusal of the network to air his political adds during 2016 elections. Although, the President has accepted the apology after ABS-CBN explained and asked for it, the legal issue may still be taken in different context. Undisputedly, the government, through the Congress and NTC has their own mandate to tackle the issue of renewal of franchise with utmost objectivity, but by putting the controversial ads on the table with the issue of ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal or closure, it has allowed the entire matter to be taken out of context.
Which will of the many schools of thought prevail requires gathering of all the relevant facts and decisional laws to put everything in context. This can be done by judicial determination by the Supreme Court, the case being now in its chamber. At the end of the day, it has the final say to put it in context.
At the hindsight, however, bereft of careful contextualisation, all other significant socio-political and economic concerns would fall into disarray yielding to an inevitable domino effect of social misunderstanding. For instance, what could have been a healthy and vibrant discussion on the freedom of the press vis-à-vis the authority of congress to issue or renew legislative franchises has now turned into social tension between and among the Filipino people, media, government and all other stakeholders.
Lack of context either by neglect or deliberate motive has the unfolding of unfortunate disintegration of free market of ideas with unnecessary restraint upon democratic discussion. And worst, we tend to get farther away from the real facts because we may have been taken into a good ride by social media hypes. Or at its worst, played away by fake news or simply swayed away by hearsay.
The display of lack of context has even been getting worst amidst the onslaught of pandemic Covid-19 crisis. The closure is at its worst time of Covid-19 when the best in all of us, could be fully unleashed– our heroism and voluntarism — to help heal our nation as one. This untimely closure in this trying times does not only undermine our collective effort to fight corona virus but it takes us away from the context of meaningful collaboration and unity among us- Filipinos.
The context even gets dimmer when there allegation that hundreds of thousand families did not able to receive their fair share from Social Amelioration Program (SAP) while others of higher economic status managed to grab theirs. It is hard to put it in context if the data to stratify as to qualify the beneficiaries is either incomplete or flawed. It is even harder to contextualize with complaints mounting over slow or unequal distribution of subsidy and allegations of graft and corruption in the local level. If the evidences will unfold shocking revelations, then it takes longer time to accept it in our conscience at the time of pandemic crisis, much more difficult to give the right meaning with contextual care.
How about other occurrences while we are still reeling with the persistently fatal Covid-19? Remember the shooting of an ex-soldier, Mr. Ragos, by a policeman at ECQ checkpoint? In what context shall we look at it given the circumstances—presence of unlawful aggression or lack of it in the context of self-defense, not to mention the aspect of mental challenge? The case, however, being more of a question of facts, a more credible context can be derived from judicial determination of evidence in a fair trial.
Added up to contextual challenge is the arrest of Cebu artist, Maria Victoria Beltran, for alleged posting of fake news. Her Facebook post reads, “9,000 + new cases (all from Zapatera) of COVID-19 in Cebu City in one day. We are now the epicenter in the whole Solar System.”
For Mayor Labella, it is a fake news, a criminal act to warrant arrest and criminal prosecution. But for Ms. Beltran, it was “satirical, designed to show wit instead of spreading chaos, anarchy, fear and confusion.” Besides, it was just based on the DOH report that over 9,000 residents were “presumed contaminated”.
Does this style of writing, being satirical, have a place in this time of corona? How would we put it in context in the light of anguish and suffering of the people? Maybe, we can understand her artistic expression. After all, it is a constitutional right. More so when Ms. Beltran recently bags an international award (2020 Deutsche Welle (DW) Freedom of Speech Award), a right that unceremoniously sent her to jail. However, in the arena public opinion, there may be opposing views which hardly could we put in the right context at this abnormal times.
Nonetheless, both situations stir up an open and healthy discussion with the end of putting it in the right context.
Ironically, in an information age, we are suffering from mental paralysis in putting in context the actual situation we are in. We utterly failed to understand what others really mean that we put ourselves in the line of danger of being misunderstood.
This is the office of this writing. We will try to connect all the dots. We will exert effort to find the hidden corners. We will explore the other side of the world.
And hopefully, we can create an environment of truth. We can throw some light to the message. We can give the right meaning.
And finally, put everything in context.
