• Ampatuans delaying
  trial - FFFJ lawyer

  September 2, 2010

  
  

• Male reporters & the gender lens

  August 15, 2010

  
  

• Candidates, parties lie, cheat,
  bluff against election laws

  August 12, 2010

  
  

• Top bets, party-list groups
  skirt ad caps together

  August 11, 2010

  
  

• Auditing the 2010 elections

  August 10, 2010

  
  

• vonjobi: wow, congratulations! kelan ang trip? i hope i'll be around when you come. had a good time with diosa last...
• Keith Bacongco: Knowing Nograles and his Big Boss...garapalan na lang talaga.
• Vinia Datinguinoo Mukherjee: Congratulations, PCIJ! Mabuhay kayo!
• Lead Philippines: But without credible mass media there, what is left to protect the people..?
• vonjobi: it's juned sOniDo.

• XFN

• WordPress

House to ratify anti-terror bill

Posted by: Avigail Olarte | February 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Filed under: Congress Watch, Governance, In the News

UP for ratification by the House of Representatives on Monday is the anti-terrorism bill, said to be “the most terrifying piece of legislation ever submitted” to Congress.

This was the common sentiment of progressive and human rights groups which fear that the bill, though given the less threatening name of Human Security Act of 2007, will “severely undermine” the constitutional guarantees under the Bill of Rights.

They pointed to “draconian measures” in the bill that will cripple the human rights and civil liberties of even those who are mere suspects in the crime of terrorism.

The Senate’s approved version of the anti-terrorism bill was passed by the bicameral conference committee shortly before Congress adjourned its session on February 8. The Lower House failed to ratify the measure owing to a lack of quorum.

Download the bicam version of the anti-terrorism bill, otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007.

In a press conference held by the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL) yesterday, several groups opposed the wide latitude the bill grants to State agents as, once passed into law, it will legalize police surveillance, the “surreptitious search” of homes and offices, and the electronic recording of communications of mere suspects and even members of groups identified as “terrorist organizations.” The bill also allows the police to examine, seize, and sequester bank deposits and assets. All these, the bill states, may be done ex-parte or without notice to the person concerned.

Senate Minority Floor Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., who introduced 89 pieces of amendments to the bill to ensure that it will not be used as an instrument of terror against the people, also admitted that the anti-terror measure still legalizes arrest and detention without a judicial warrant.

Moreover, it empowers authorities to hold a person under house arrest, during which the use of phones, computer, and the Internet is prohibited, even after posting bail.

“The anti-terror bill is legalizing martial law,” Senator Jamby Madrigal said during the press conference. Madrigal, together with party-list Reps. Etta Rosales (Akbayan) and Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna), dissented against the adoption of the bicameral version last week.

The groups said the bill ignored constitutional provisions such as the right to privacy, that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and that an accused shall be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

Listed below are some of the “contentious” provisions in the anti-terrorism bill:

Sec. 3. Terrorism
A person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

• Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters (Article 122)
• Rebellion or Insurrection (Article 134)
• Coup d’etat, including acts committed by private persons (Article 134-a)
• Murder (Article 248)
• Kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Article 267)
• Crimes involving destruction (Article 324)

or under:

• Presidential Decree No. 1613 or the Law on Arson
• Republic Act No. 6969 or the Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990
• Republic Act No. 5207 or the Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968
• Republic Act No. 6235 or the Anti-Hijacking Law
• Presidential Decree No. 532 or the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
• Presidential Decree No. 1886, as amended or the Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives

– thereby “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give to an unlawful demand.”

Any person found guilty of the crime of terrorism will be imprisoned for 40 years, without the benefit of parole.

Sec. 4. Conspiracy to commit terrorism
Any person who conspires to commit the crime of terrorism shall also suffer the penalty of 40 years of imprisonment.

Sec. 5. Accomplice
Any person who cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism shall suffer the penalty of about 17 years of imprisonment.

Sec. 6. Accessory
Any person with no knowledge of the commission of the crime but assists the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; conceal or destroy evidence; harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the terrorist shall suffer 10 years of imprisonment.

Sec. 7-8. Surveillance
The police may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with surveillance equipment, any communication, message or conversation between members of a “judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.”

The police, upon an ex-parte application, may be authorized to do so “once there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the said crime of terrorism has been committed” or that there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring evidence.

Also, the interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.

Sec. 17. Terrorist organizations, association, or group of persons
Any group organized “for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually used the acts to terrorize or to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to unlawful demand” shall be declared as a terrorist and outlawed organization.

This will however be done with due notice and an organization will be given opportunity to be heard before a Regional Trial Court.

Sec. 18. Period of detention without warrant of arrest
The police shall deliver the charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within three days from the moment the person has been apprehended or arrested.

But the police, before detaining a person suspected of the crime of terrorism, must present the suspect before any judge where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night to determine the basis of the arrest and for the judge to observe whether the person has been subjected to physical or psychological abuse.

A police officer who fails to do so shall suffer the penalty of 10 years in prison.

Sec. 19. Period of detention in the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack
In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for more than three days without written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of the Human Rights Commission or any trial court judge or Court of Appeals justice nearest to the place of arrest.

Sec. 21. Rights of a person under detention
The moment a person is arrested or detained, the person shall be informed of the nature and cause of his arrest, shall have the right to remain silent, and have the right to a counsel of his or her choice.

Sec. 24. No torture or coercion in investigation and interrogation
No threat, intimidation, or coercion, and no act which will inflict any form of physical pain or torment, or mental or psychological pressure, on the detained person shall be employed.

Otherwise, the evidence obtained from the said detainee as a result of torture or abuse shall not be admissible and usable under any investigation or hearing.

Any person who resorted to the use of torture or abuse shall suffer the penalty of 12 to 20 years of imprisonment.

Sec. 26. Restriction to travel
If the evidence of guilt is not strong, the person charged shall be entitled to bail. But upon the application of the prosecutor, the person’s right of travel shall be limited within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending.

The person may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court. And while under arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cellphones, emails, computers, the internet or any means of communication until otherwise ordered by the court.

Sec. 27-30. Bank deposits, accounts, and records
The Court of Appeals may order the police to examine the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records in a bank or financial institution of a person charged with or suspected of the crime or a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, or a member of such organization.

The authorization will be granted upon an ex-parte application by the Anti-Terrorism Council, justifying the need and urgency of examining and freezing accounts.

The period of examination shall not exceed 30 days renewable to another 30 days, provided that there’s enough ground for such an extension.

Any person who maliciously obtained authority to examine deposits or records shall suffer the penalty 10 years of imprisonment.

Sec. 39. Seizure and sequestration
The deposits, placements, bank accounts, assets and records in any bank or financial institution, businesses, transportation and communication equipment, supplies, property belonging to a suspected or charged person or to judicially outlawed organization shall be seized, sequestered and frozen to prevent their use or transfer.

An accused person may however withdraw money for the medical and monthly needs of family members or for the services of his or her counsel upon approval of the court.

Sec. 50. Damages for unproven charge of terrorism
Upon acquittal, any person who is accused of terrorism shall be entitled to the payment of damages in P500,000 for each day that the person has been detained. They payment shall be released from the date of the acquittal.

Sec. 57. Ban on extraordinary rendition
No person suspected or convicted of the crime of terrorism shall be subjected to extraordinary rendition to any country unless his or her testimony is needed for terrorist-related police investigations or judicial trials and unless his or her human rights, including the right against torture and the right to counsel will be assured by the requesting country.

Sec. 53-54. Anti-terrorism council
Members of the Anti-Terrorism Council: Executive Secretary, as chair; Secretary of Justice as vice chair; and the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Interior and Local Government, Finance, and the National Security adviser, among others, as members.

The council will implement the Act and assume the responsibility for the proper and effective implementation of the anti-terrorism policy.

The council can, among others:

• Coordinate all national efforts to suppress and eradicate acts of terrorism, and mobilize the entire nation against terrorism.
• Direct the speedy investigation and prosecution of all persons accused or detained.
• Freeze the funds property, bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records belonging to a person suspected or charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
• Establish and maintain coordination with and the cooperation and assistance of other nations in the struggle against international terrorism.

Sec. 55. Commission on Human Rights
The CHR shall have the concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute public officials, law enforcers, or other persons who may have violated the rights of the persons suspected of, accused of, or detained for terrorism.

Sec. 56. Grievance Committee
The committee shall be composed of the Ombudsman, the Solicitor General, and a DOJ undersecretary, who will receive and evaluate complaints against police and law enforcement officials.

Sec. 59. Joint Oversight Committee
The committee will oversee the implementation of the Act.

It shall be composed of five members from the Senate and the House. The committee shall have at least two opposition or minority members from each Chamber.

The bill, once signed into law, will take effect two months after the 2007 elections.

The administration had long been pushing for the passage of an anti-terrorism bill. The present bill, principally sponsored by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, was filed in October 2005; Malacañang immediately certified it as urgent.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo described the measure as “an institutional landmark of the 13th Congress” especially at a time, she said, when the Philippines is being recognized as a “strong global player in the fight against terror.”

“All peace-loving Filipinos are looking forward to its quick approval at the bicameral level and I will wait for it, pen in hand, at my desk,” Arroyo said in a statement issued a day before the bicameral committee adopted the Senate version.

But CODAL spokesperson Neri Colmenares said Arroyo is being pressured by the US government to adopt such a measure.

Defense Undersecretary and Anti-Terrorism Task Force Head Ricardo Blancaflor countered though that the government wanted an anti-terrorism law because “terrorism is very real” in the country. He said people should remember that over 300 people died in the Light Rail Transit bombing by suspected members of the Jama’ah Islamiya and Abu Sayaff in 2000.

Madrigal, however, said “draconian anti-terrorism laws do not solve terrorism.”

“What will solve terrorism is a government with good intelligence and transnational links,” she said.

In explaining his vote against the ant-terrorism bill, Senator Mar Roxas said that while the problem of global terrorism persists, he also does not believe that the passage of a law “that curtails civil liberties is what we need to address terrorism.”

He said providing equipment for forensics and for law enforcement and providing appropriate training of personnel will contribute “to a much greater success” to the battle against terrorism.

Late last year, Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines Law Center’s Institute of International Legal Studies argued in hearings before the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights in Jakarta that the bill is a “legal superfluity” in international humanitarian law as attacks against civilian persons and infrastructure have alredy been criminalized since ancient times.

Instead, Roque said what Congress should enact is the pending bill on International Humanitarian Law which the Philippines committed to enact as early as 1951 when it became a party to the Geneva Conventions.

He also said joining the International Criminal Court is the single most effective tool in the fight against international terrorism.

Colmenares meanwhile said such a measure may be abused by the Arroyo government, “which has shown penchant for misinterpreting legal principles and disregarding provisions of the Constitution.”

“When did the administration respect the rule to the letter?” Madrigal agreed, “The Senate version is a martial law version which will be used against progressive groups and freedom-loving people.”

Many groups and legislators had been lobbying against the passage of such the anti-terror bill. They claim that the “broad and dangerous” definition of terrorism may render “people power” an act of terrorism. (See related posts here and here.)

Madrigal added that many of the provisions in the bill go against the UN international agreements on civil and political rights, to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Meanwhile, leftist groups are scheduled to hold rallies at the Batasan Conplex on Monday where the special two-day session of Congress will be held.

Last week, Arroyo ordered the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to convene and hold special sessions after the Lower House failed to ratify the bicameral committee-approved version of the bill on the last day of regular session.

House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. last Monday urged voters not to support senators and congressmen who will absent themselves next week. It is also believed that pork barrel funds will be released to congressmen on Monday. An administration lawmaker said they have yet to receive their pork releases for the last quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of this year.

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 17th, 2007 and is filed under Congress Watch, Governance, In the News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 people have left comments

in the case of Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), a mere executive agreement between between two countries, the people are urged by our leaders to respect and support its provisions-nevermind, if some of them is run counter to the Contitution of the Land;

a lot of proposed “anti-terror bill” provisions, meanwhile, does not only oppose diametrically the Charter, it makes mockery of our decades-long commitments to the conventions of Geneva, and to the United Nations!

if most of our neighbors are relatively successful in addressing the threats of terror without parroting Bush admin-sponsored global war rhetorics, why can’t we do the same?

to make matters worse, Sections 53 and 54 of the House of Thieves version–the ‘Anti-Terrorist Council’, extends extra-judicial functions to a bunch of political appointees-functionaries whose history of dispensing carrot and stick policies, even to peers who just happen to belong to the opposite side of the fence, becomes NOT worthy of people’s trust.

the approval and/or its eventual adoption should be opposed in every step of the way. this terror bill once approved, lets loose the floodgates of terror on the people trying to solidify the gains of a fledging democracy.

freewheel wrote on February 18, 2007 - 1:42 pm | Visit Link

The anti-terrorism bill is worth the wait.
Perhaps this time the people will wake up from its stupor and eventually kick out this illegitimate government.

This bill is being passed surreptitiously under the nose of the upcoming elections where the media might focus its eyes on Manny Pacquiao, Richard Gomez and Cesar Montano doing the rounds.

This bill if passed into law would literally step on our civil liberties but we don’t know it.

The left being proliferated and divided could never have a single voice.
Being killed indiscriminately left and right they have no other choice but to go up the mountains and rage their wars over there…
While the others who are not armed and working on the legal struggle will themselves be subject to the states’ harassments.

So what could one expect over this Anti-Terrorism Bill?

1. Military Adventurism
2. People Power
3. Rise of the Armed Left
4. Rise of the Legitimate Left
5. Real and Authentic Terrorism
6. Innocent Deaths

By the action of the government in espousing this bill it invites dissenters to take more pro-active actions not far from the experience the Philippines had at the time of Marcos.

And it is wrong to compare this to martial law because in this scenario we are using the rule of law to be used against us.

We have failed to work against those congressmen who perpetrated charter-change in congress and now we have no reason to not oppose them again with this bill.

The situation is tricky.

Who’s to determine who’s a terrorist and who isn’t? And what if the filipino is not a terrorist? could he get over the “identity rape” he just suffered? And if indeed the filipino is a terrorist, how could such bill stop it when it already admitted incompetence by forcing such bill because it cannot do its job properly with regards to intelligence reports and the upholding of the law.

It is in the filipino experience that most human rights violation came from the police and the military and yet by the passing of this bill we will give them more opportunity and power to legitimize their claim over our freedom and rights?

If this bill will be passed it would be worse than Mc-Carthyism It would be worse than martial law. In fact it would be worse than the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus indeed this bill is inviting civil war.

And if civil war it will be then civil war it is, besides aren’t great nations created from its own ashes?

floyd wrote on February 19, 2007 - 4:08 pm | Visit Link

[...] Here is the text of the anti terrorism act. It’s from the PCIJ blog. Whoever their source was left interesting marginal notes on their copy of the bill. [...]

Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose » Blog Archive » The anti-panic law wrote on February 22, 2007 - 1:21 pm | Visit Link

[...] Read the anti-terrorism law, also known as the Human Security Act of 2007. anti terrorism, terrorism billPosted in In the News, Human Rights |  [...]

INSIDE PCIJ » Arroyo signs anti-terror bill into law wrote on March 6, 2007 - 6:47 pm | Visit Link

[...] Progressive organizations in Davao City have denounced President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s signing of the anti-terrorism bill into law. They said the law, which Arroyo signed on Tuesday, would worsen the already worrisome human-rights situation in the country. It would also allow the government to brand as terrorists those groups who have legitimate political dissent, according to Ariel Casilao, secretary-general of Bayan in Southern Mindanao. “There will be no more distinction between terrorism and political offenses and legitimate dissent,” he said. “With the new law, the government becomes more powerful and will strike harder against those who question it,” Casilao said. Suara, a partylist group of Moros, pointed out that the state itself has been guilty of terrorism. Carlos Zarate of the Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao said his group would ask the Supreme Court to abolish the law. (Text by Grace S. Uddin/Photo by Barry Ohaylan, davaotoday.com) PREVIOUS STORY: Davao Human-Rights Advocate Gets Death Threat Possible Related Posts:Suara Bangsamoro Denounces GMA for Anti-Terror Bill PushPassage of Anti-Terror Bill Tied to Military AidGroups Call for Probe on Marines’ ‘Role’ in Jolo BlastTerror Law Undermines Efforts for Justice and Peace in MindanaoUS-Backed Military Operations in Sulu Decried [...]

Davao Today — News, commentary, analysis, reports from Davao City, Mindanao, the Philippines wrote on March 7, 2007 - 10:13 am | Visit Link

[...] Progressive organizations in Davao City have denounced President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s signing of the anti-terrorism bill into law. They said the law, which Arroyo signed on Tuesday, would worsen the already worrisome human-rights situation in the country. It would also allow the government to brand as terrorists those groups who have legitimate political dissent, according to Ariel Casilao, secretary-general of Bayan in Southern Mindanao. “There will be no more distinction between terrorism and political offenses and legitimate dissent,” he said. “With the new law, the government becomes more powerful and will strike harder against those who question it,” Casilao said. Suara, a partylist group of Moros, pointed out that the state itself has been guilty of terrorism. Carlos Zarate of the Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao said his group would ask the Supreme Court to abolish the law. (Text by Grace S. Uddin/Photo by Barry Ohaylan, davaotoday.com)                              [...]

Mindanao Today — news, analysis, special reports, commentary on Mindanao, the Philippines wrote on March 7, 2007 - 11:57 am | Visit Link

[...] A UNITED NATIONS envoy today called for the review of Republic Act 9372 or the Anti-Terrorism law, saying its implementation “could have a negative impact on human rights in the country.” [...]

INSIDE PCIJ » UN special rapporteur calls for the review of the anti-terror law wrote on March 13, 2007 - 12:15 pm | Visit Link

[...] Instead, House leaders have been trumpeting the passage of the Human Security Act (RA 9372) as one of the notable accomplishments of the 13th Congress. Ramon Casiple of the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform begs to differ. [...]

INSIDE PCIJ » One hundred years of lassitude wrote on June 10, 2007 - 11:44 am | Visit Link

[...] The anti-terrorism bill is worth the wait. Perhaps this time the people will wake up from its stupor and eventually kick out this illegitimate government. [...]

Legalizing the illegal | The Mis-Adventures of a Philippine SEO Specialist wrote on September 4, 2008 - 10:33 am | Visit Link

feel free to leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Register
• Log in

• "Gloria-Garcillano" Tapes
• Arroyo's "I'm Sorry" Speech
• Susan Roces's Speech
• Transcripts
• "Hello Garci" Ringtones

• Home
• Blog Rules
• Blogger Code of Ethics
• Who We Are
  • Cecile C.A. Balgos
  • Karol Ilagan
  • Malou C. Mangahas
  • Rowena Carranza-Paraan
  • Sheila S. Coronel
  • Tita C. Valderama

• Citations

  • IFEX
  • The Age

• PCIJ Sites

  • i-site
  • pcij.org

• Philippine Media and Journalist Blogs

  • Arangkada Uban ni Leo Lastimosa
  • At Midfield | Fernando Gagelonia
  • Bandillo ng Palawan
  • Bong S. Sarmiento
  • Bryanton Post | Bryant Macale
  • Butch Dalisay
  • By Jove! | Jove Francisco
  • Citizen Watch | Sun.Star Network Exchange
  • crimson page | Tina Panganiban-Perez
  • Current
  • cyberbaguioboy | Erwin Oliva
  • deadliest deadline | Alcuin Papa
  • Dean Jorge Bocobo | Philippine Commentary
  • Digital Life | Chin Wong
  • Docket Files | Joseph Morong
  • Ducky Paredes
  • DYAB Abante Bisaya
  • ederic@cyberspace | Ederic Eder
  • Edwin Espejo Portal
  • Ellen Tordesillas
  • first draft | Jose Torres Jr.
  • Freedom Watch | Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility
  • Froilan Gallardo
  • Gil Nartea Photography
  • Istambay sa Mindanaw | Walter Balane
  • Jalwyn’s Journal | J. Alwyn Alburo
  • Keith Bacongco
  • khanterbury tales | Rachel Khan
  • Kuwento Kuwento | Benjamin Pimentel
  • Leon Kilat: The Cybercafe Experiments | Max Limpag
  • Letter from Mindanao | Carol Arguillas
  • Luis Teodoro
  • Manuel L. Quezon III
  • Mike in Manila | Mike Cohen
  • Mindanao Current
  • Newsroom Barkada | Glenn Omanio
  • Newsstand | John Nery
  • Nothing in Particular | Robert JA Basilio Jr.
  • Nueva Vizcaya and Beyond
  • Off the Air | Aksyon Radyo Pangasinan
  • Pangasinan Star
  • Peryodistang Pinay | Isolde Amante
  • Philippines Free Press Online
  • Piercing Pens
  • Pine for Pine | Frank Cimatu
  • Pixelarium
  • Red Constantino
  • rg cruz now
  • Rick Rocamora | Balikbayan Visual Diary
  • Ricky Carandang Reporting
  • Ryan Anson
  • Sarwell Meniano Reporting
  • Shots from the Street | Luis Liwanag
  • Side Trip with Howie Severino
  • Solar Power | Danilo Arao
  • the babel machine | Joey Alarilla
  • The Sunday Punch
  • Writing Thirty | Jojo Malig
  • Zamboanga Journal

• Philippine Media Links

  • Bulatlat
  • Center for Community Journalism and Development
  • Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility
  • Davao Today
  • Foundation for Media Alternatives
  • Hot Manila
  • Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas
  • Mindanews
  • National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
  • Newsbreak
  • Philippine Press Institute
  • Pinoy Weekly
  • PinoyPress

• Regional/Global Media Links

  • Article 19 — The Global Campaign for Free Expression
  • Asia News Network
  • Berkman Center for Internet and Society
  • Citizen Lab
  • Committee to Protect Journalists
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
  • International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
  • International Federation of Journalists
  • International Freedom of Expression Exchange
  • Investigative Reporters and Editors
  • Media Channel
  • Nepali Times
  • Open Net Initiative
  • Pakistan Press Foundation
  • Reporters Without Borders
  • Southeast Asian Center for e-Media
  • Southeast Asian Press Alliance
  • Witness
  • World Press Freedom Day

• Weblogs Elsewhere - Media

  • Andrew Lih
  • CyberJournalist.net
  • Dan Gillmor
  • Doc Searls
  • Don’t Block the Blog
  • Dr. Awab Alvi | Teeth Maestro
  • editorsweblog.org
  • Ethan Zuckerman | My Heart’s in Accra
  • Global Voices Online
  • Jay Rosen | PressThink
  • JD Lasica
  • Jeff Ooi | Screenshots
  • MoJo Blog
  • Poynter Online | E-Media Tidbits
  • Poynter Online | Romenesko
  • Rasheed’s World | Rasheed Abou-Alsamh
  • Rebecca MacKinnon | RConversation
  • United We Blog
  • We Media