In response to Rappler’s charge of dishonesty

It has recently come to my attention that a post I made on Twitter became the subject of a mini-controversy between Malou Tiquia, a notable columnist at the Manila Times, and Rappler, the designated third party arbiter or fact checker on that platform (see original tweet below).

Significant laws passed by the mid-point of @noynoyaquino's and @PangulongDigong's presidential terms #sidebyside #legislation #midterm #Congress pic.twitter.com/LLehstcYrm

— Emmanuel Doy Santos (@cusp_ph) February 21, 2019

What was it all about?

As Rappler claimed in their “Fact Check” article:

Two versions of a meme or graphic compared the "midterm legislative achievements" (laws signed in the first 3 years) of presidents Benigno Aquino III and Rodrigo Duterte.

One version has a screenshot of a spreadsheet showing that in Aquino's first 3 years, he signed 7 laws, while Duterte approved 28 laws. This came from a tweet by Emmanuel Doy Santos on February 21, with the caption, "Significant laws passed by the mid-point of @noynoyaquino's and @PangulongDigong's presidential terms #sidebyside #legislation #midterm #Congress".

This version was reposted by some netizens, including political analyst Malou Tiquia on her Facebook account on February 22, with the caption, "After 3 years...7 viz 28 and needle is still moving." ...

Citing Tiquia's post and a video by Facebook page VOVph about Duterte's signed laws as her sources, former communications assistant secretary Mocha Uson posted on her Facebook page on February 23 another version of the list of laws. Uson attributed 32 laws to Duterte.

Uson's post got more than 27,000 reactions, 42,000 shares, and 3,300 comments.

Rappler decided to tag my table as “Misleading” because, as it said,

The memes left out significant laws that were approved halfway through both the Aquino and Duterte administrations. The original posts also did not have a more definite criteria for the inclusion of laws in the list.

According to the Philippine House of Representatives website, Aquino approved a total of 460 laws from June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2013, while Duterte approved at least 314 laws (including 4 joint resolutions of Congress) from June 30, 2016 to date.

Counting only landmark laws and laws of national significance, both presidents have an almost equal number: at least 57 for Duterte and 58 for Aquino.

Let me set the record straight.

I never claimed that my table represented a comprehensive list of “laws signed in the first 3 years” of both presidents. Neither did I claim that PNoy only signed 7 laws compared to 28 for Duterte. The title clearly says “Mid-term Legislative Achievements”. My tweet specifically said these were “Significant laws passed by the midpoint” of both presidents’ terms.

Rappler rightly says that my post “did not have a more definite criteria for the inclusion of laws”. BUT, if they had done some digging, a netizen by the name of Adrian Cuenca did interrogate me for my methodology and sources. All one has to do is drill down the thread from the original post. But it bears repeating here.

For the ordinary citizen, there is a massive difference between a law that creates a new Regional Trial Court in Tacloban, for example, or renames a street or a high school in Pangasinan, from enacting universal health care, or reforms the tax system. Even if you limit yourself to “Laws of national significance”, as they might be called. These include the “Red Cross and Other Emblems Act”, for instance. That is of no significance to most people. So that was the filter that I applied, in distinguishing the laws I cited as “significant”.

As Ms Tiquia so deftly put it in a subsequent Facebook post,

The truth is the list is long and if you go by numbers, Aquino had more. But if you look at the significance and importance, whether in terms of social, economic, political, governance, reform legislation, Duterte had better quality since what was deemed hard to get under Aquino were signed into law in the first half of Duterte’s term.

In other words, I made a critical analysis of the laws passed, based on their impact on the lives of ordinary Filipinos. I didn’t simply count the laws! Any spreadsheet monkey can crunch the numbers. It takes an appreciation of the substance that lies behind the laws to be able to come up with what I had.

Is that misleading? The fact that I missed some of Aquino’s laws like cyber security, for instance? Well, I missed a few that Duterte had belatedly signed, as well, like the creation of the human settlement department. Does that change the overall picture, or make it inaccurate, dishonest or “misleading”? No, and here’s why.

For the benefit of Rappler’s fact checkers, let me tell you what policy analysts do. We examine proposed or existing policies and figure out how to make them better (or at least less bad). That’s what I was doing. I’ve been doing this professionally for more than 12 years. I have a Masters in Public Policy from a reputable institution in Australia and the US and a Master in Development Economics from UP.

Journalists are considered the 4th estate. They provide an important role in reporting facts. Policy analysts are the lesser known 5th estate. We also perform a crucial role in society. To introduce critical thinking into substantive public debates. We base our analysis on evidence and stakeholder engagement.

To the readers of Rappler who requested this Fact Check, please use your own critical judgement. Don’t simply rely on somebody else to tell you how you should think. Form your own conclusions, now that you have heard both sides of the argument.

And finally, what Ms Tiquia said was right. Why couldn’t Rappler contact me to find out what my “definite criteria” was for including laws in my table? I would have told them. After all, I have been contributing articles to Rappler since 2014. Professional courtesy of getting in touch, let alone hearing both sides of the issue,  would have been nice.

Instead, I was accused, tried and convicted, in absentia, without an opportunity to defend myself. Is this what journalism in the 21st century has become? Inaccurately portraying the claims of an individual and then rendering judgement based on that? With no recourse for an appeal or way to check the fact checkers.

Public debate can be silenced this way. Critical thinking removed from the equation. This form of mind control is even more pernicious than outright censorship! If this is what we have come to, then what difference is there between China’s state screened media and our own local thought police?