|
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Malig: 'Persona non grata'
By Jun A. Malig
ITS literal meaning in English is "an unwelcome person." The Latin phrase is used in diplomacy (international relations between nations through diplomats). It is particularly cited under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the international treaty on diplomatic intercourse and the privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission. The treaty was adopted on Apr. 14, 1961.
Paragraph 1 of the treaty's Article 9 states: "The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is "persona non grata" or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.
Paragraph 2: "If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission."
Utilized loosely for a certain purpose or whatever reason, "persona non grata" could simply mean "a person who for some reason is not wanted or welcome."
In its true sense, it should be the official representatives of the people that should carry out the declaration of "persona non grata" against a particular person within their territorial jurisdiction. Elected officials of a country, of a province, of a city, of a town, or of a barangay may declare a person who is not a bona fide resident of their territory as a "persona non grata". The person may be prevented, depending on the existing laws or ordinances, from setting foot in the territorial jurisdiction of those who "outcast" him.
Surprisingly, the Pampanga Press Club (PPC) declared Senior Superintendent Policarpio Segubre, chief of the Angeles City police, as "persona non grata" in its "unanimously" approved resolution last Oct. 11, 2005. The PPC members who approved the resolution cited "significant increase in crime"; "comeback of acetylene gang, video karera, and cybersex"; "resurgence of jueteng in the form of EZ-2"; "Segubre's gross incompetence in the performance of his duties and acts of arrogance and highhandedness in dealings with journalists" as their grounds for their declaration.
The declaration ought to result in banning Segubre from the office of PPC and nothing else. However, the PPC members who approved the resolution added in the "therefore" paragraph that the media group "calls for his immediate relief." The next paragraph states that copies of the resolution would be forwarded to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the National Police Commission (Napolcom), the chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the chief of Central Luzon police, the Department of the Interior and Local Government, Angeles City Mayor Carmelo Lazatin and the City Council.
Several colleagues in PPC even staged a picket in front of the City Hall, carrying a "Oust Segubre Now!" streamer. They also met with Lazatin to personally ask him to replace Segubre, but the sensible mayor did not give in to their demand.
Last October 17, I was able to observe the handing over of a copy of the resolution by several colleagues to Central Luzon Police Director Alejandro Lapinid, who even teased, if not taunted, them by his intro: "O ba't wala kayong dalang streamer?"
Two days after the audience with Lapinid, I again chanced upon three PPC colleagues at the regional police director's office in Camp Olivas. Apparently, they were there to follow-up the resolution. After about an hour while I, together with another journalist, was having a talk with a senior regional police official, one of my three colleagues arrived. "Pinatawad na ng PPC si Segubre," he told us. I was not surprised.
A front-page story of the Angeles Observer's latest issue carried the headline: "PPC accepts Angeles police chief's apology." The story said the media group has accepted Segubre's apology and "recalled its call for his ouster." It said PPC president Ashley Manabat handed over "an official communication from his club" about the withdrawal of its demand to oust the city police chief. Upon reading the story, I realized that the three colleagues were not in Lapinid's office to lobby for or follow-up their resolution. Or were they?
I learned about the PPC's call to oust Segubre only after reading this paper's story last October 13. Like some other PPC members, I never knew about the "unanimously" approved resolution. Perhaps only those who attended the meeting when Segubre was discussed, whether with or without a quorum, had unanimously approved the resolution.
Well, I guess had some other long-time PPC members and I was present in the meeting, the passage of the resolution would have not been unanimous. In my humble opinion, I believe that for a police or local official to be regarded as arrogant in dealing with journalists, most, if not all, media organizations in his area of responsibility should call for his ouster. Only several (or perhaps most) members of PPC did this. The Angeles City Press and Radio Club, the Central Luzon Media Association and other press organizations in the city did not officially support the PPC resolution.
I also do not believe that Segubre had been incompetent in performing his duties. Higher incidence of crimes (if verified) are results of complex factors, including the continuing deterioration of the people's quality of life due to the unstoppable skyrocketing of the prices of goods and services. It would be an unhealthy precedent for elected and police officials to give in to the unusual demand (like ouster) of a fraction of the community's entire media sector. Only the roars of other sectors (workers, bankers, business, religious, etc.) of the community would prove Segubre's alleged incompetence.
When the story about the PPC's call to oust Segubre came out in this paper, I received several text messages from friends and news sources asking me about the issue and if I was among those who approved the resolution. I told them I was not aware of the resolution and that I did not believe that a media organization has the right, being member of the Fourth Estate, to declare an official as "persona non grata" and call for his ouster just because of his perceived arrogance and incompetence. I said if a public figure is abusive and remiss of performing his job, a journalist should write about it and report about it, instead of declaring him as a "persona non grata".
I also believe in the media's right to march and hold pickets. But such should be resorted to only when the newspapers, radio and television reports have been found to be futile or ineffective and if the issue is about the attacks on the life and safety of journalists, or about the infringement on or violation of freedom of the press.
(October 25, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
