CHUA & DANGA. Okay. So, today is December 6, Wednesday, and we're here to interview Ms. Chay Hofileña for our oral history project. Okay, Ma'am, for the record, please state your full name and your present employment.
HOFILENA. My full name is Ma. Rosario Florentino Hofileña. I've always used Chay, in my by lines, and I'm currently a fellow with the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. And I'm with the Communications Department of Ateneo and the Center for Journalism.

Q. Okay, Ma'am, let's talk about your first experience as a reporter. How were you able to get into the newspaper industry?
A. I was actually a Philosophy graduate of the Ateneo. I had always wanted to be in journalism. I thought I'd take the journalism courses at UP, but I ended up here. After graduation, I taught for just one year. I thought I'd be teaching, but I didn't enjoy it-it was fun, but too tiring; I really wanted to write...I graduated in 1984 and Eggie Apostol was already publishing Mr. & Ms. Special Edition. I started out as a contributor to Mr. & Ms. Special Edition. And then, as the Ninoy Aquino hearings went on, there was a felt need to come up with a newspaper. So, one day, she just announced, "I'm publishing a daily, if you want to, join the newspaper." So, it was a natural progression to move from being a contributor to Mr. & Ms. to be a staff member of the Inquirer.

Q. You applied for being a reporter...contributor?
A. I applied. I had to fill up a form, but basically there was really no screening, no interviews any more, because maybe I had already been writing for Mr. & Ms. So, there was some relation that had been established already.

Q. Okay, so that was the beginning of your career as a newspaper reporter?
A. Yes, yes. It was December of 1985.

Q. Okay, so let's talk about your early years as a reporter for the Philippine Daily Inquirer. What was your first experience as a reporter? What was the first story that you covered?
A. First, let me describe what the Inquirer looked like. It was totally different from what the Inquirer is now. It was in Intramuros, where the Philippine Star is presently situated. It was in this small, cramped, basement office, and we just had typewriters then. Maybe 10 typewriters, and there was a round table and the typewriters were on the table. There were probably 12 or 15 reporters, most of them were very young, most of them a few years out of college, including myself, and maybe there were just 3 or 4 senior reporters. They were political reporters covering the Senate. So, we would come in at 3 or 4 in the afternoon-unahan 'yan sa typewriters, and we had newsprint as paper, tapos may roll of newsprint kasi 'yan. So, you load the roll of newsprint on your typewriter, and then you can type endlessly. When we started out, computers were practically not in existence in the newsroom. So, people would tear off sheets when they weren't happy with the lead, and crumple the paper, and start all over again. Manually, you'd insert paragraphs, draw arrows between paragraphs, indicating where paragraphs would go, and all that. So, it was very low-tech but very intense and very exciting. That was how we operated. In a way, parang guerrilla-type of operations. Luis Beltran was the editor-in-chief.

Q. Luis Beltran, was he a strict editor when it comes to...you know...
A. Louie would come in, he would swagger, actually. He's a huge, huge figure, he would walk into the newsroom...kasi the big three then were Louie, Art Borjal and Max Soliven, and Betty Go was still part of the Inquirer...they were partners with Eggie. And, Louie would come in late in the afternoon, mga 3 or 4:00. It was the time for the story conference, and it was enough time for him to write the editorial, kasi 'yon yung kanya talaga. He would write the editorial. The other reporters would say ito yung "tyranny of the editors." Very tyrannical type of editor na he'd expect big stories, slap you on the back if you turn in a lousy story, or engage you in conversation about the latest political issue, and he would project himself as someone who is very strict. I think he earned the reputation sa college, sa UP, that he was a terror professor. And he tried to carry that to the newsroom as well. But, kami as reporters, we knew that deadlines are a must. You know, the editor doesn't have to tell you that you have to submit your story by this time. We know, and we abide by it...we follow the deadline.

Q. So, what is super strict deadline, as in 4:00, for example. 4:00 is not 4:01?
A. It depends on the story actually. If it's a big story, a late breaker, then they could take it as late as 7 or 7:30. Like when I was covering, my first beat was Quezon City Hall, the elliptical circle-City Hall, Commission on Audit, Department of Agrarian Reform, National Housing Authority, lahat 'yon akin 'yon.

Q. Lahat ng nakapalibot doon.
A. Oo, territory ko 'yon.

Q. Okay.
A. I wasn't asked though to cover the police beat, which is how most young reporters start out. Sa police ka muna, ako diretso na ko sa QC Hall.

Q. You never started with the police?
A. I never started with the police, and I didn't start out as a correspondent either. Kasi yung correspondent, iba yon sa regular reporter.

Q. Please explain to us the difference between correspondent and the regular reporter.
A. Correspondents were paid by the column inch at that time. They may opt to use your story; they may choose not to use it. And, if in a week's time, you accumulate only, sabihin mong mga 20 to 50-column inch stories, multiply that by the rate at the time (which was P10-P12 per column inch), that's your income for the month. It's not fixed, in other words.

Q. Regardless of how long the story may be?
A. Regardless. So, if you're a prolific writer, and you're a hard working correspondent, and you turn in features on top of the regular daily stories...

Q. You get a higher salary?
A. You could actually earn more than the regular reporter. So, at the time, salary siguro was like P4,000, P5,000 to P6,000.

Q. But, during that time that was already big?
A. No, compared to other professions, compared to other industries, a reporter's salary is always low.

Q. Are you saying that a reporter's salary is...usually...that reporters are underpaid?
A. It's a fact that journalists are not well paid.

Q. You do more stuff, you do heavier stuff, but you get a lower pay compared to other professions?
A. Yes, like if you look at salaries across the region, compared to Indonesia, Japan, Thailand,...we're only better off than Indonesia, and we're earning, today ah, today's rate, year 2000, we're probably earning on the average a month 300 plus, US dollars. So, Japan is way, way ahead. Talagang first-world, on a different planet altogether compared to the Philippines. Thailand and the Philippines, more or less the same. So, parang in this part of the world, generally we don't earn very much if you compare it even to the US lalo na, or Singapore even.

Q. So, after you were a reporter for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, you moved to Manila Chronicle in 1989. Were you there when Manila Chronicle closed down?
A. No, I had left already, but...

Q. Ah, so by the time it closed down, you had left the Chronicle?
A. Yeah. There were labor problems with the Chronicle then. I wasn't there anymore.

Q. Ah, ok. Describe to us some of your experiences in the Manila Chronicle. How many years was that?
A. It was on and off. So, siguro with the Chronicle, I began as a reporter covering the House of Representatives. And then, from there I moved on...kasi sa Inquirer, when I left the Inquirer, I was covering foreign affairs. Then, when I joined the Chronicle, I initially covered the House of Representatives, but eventually went back to the Department of Foreign Affairs. And what was interesting during that period was the bases negotiations. It was between the Philippines and the US. The talks were about deciding whether we would renew the military bases agreement with the US or not. So, negotiations were ongoing, and I was there to cover that particular event. And then from the daily, kasi after a while when you're doing the regular beats, it becomes pretty monotonous, it becomes boring. So, it depends if you have interesting stories, but this is not the case, there are days when there are no stories, there are days when there are a lot of stories, a stream of stories. So, I said I wanted to try something different so I shifted to Sunday Chronicle. And this is more analytical, in-depth features. Amando Doronila was the editor at the time. Luis Beltran had already left the Inquirer and they had already opened Philippine Star.

Q. Okay. So, how about the office...the facilities of Manila Chronicle?
A. The Chronicle office looked more like a newspaper office. The Inquirer had several... it moved from Intramuros to... I'm not sure now if the first one was Bangko Filipino, it's a condemned building, still in Intramuros. We stayed there for quite some time. But, I think before that even, the next move was a previous restaurant along EDSA called Madrid, Madrid Restaurant. It was a restaurant, but it ceased operations, so we transferred there. So, imagine you had a restaurant for a newspaper office. Kind of weird. And then, from Madrid we moved to BF condominium offices. That was the last office I was in when I resigned. The Chronicle was again in Intramuros. It had a more newspaper-like layout. You'd walk through a corridor, and yung paste-up had a separate section, photography had a separate section, art had a separate section, and at the end of the corridor, the newsroom. And that's where the desk and the other editors were, and the editor-in-chief and the managing editor had their own separate cubicles as well.

Q. Who was the editor-in-chief when you joined the Chronicle?
A. It was Doronila.

Q. Doronila?
A. And Vergel Santos, I think, was the, I'm not sure now, because Vergel was the managing editor, one of the senior editors also at that time.

Q. Okay. So, let's move on, from Manila Chronicle you transferred to...ah, you worked for Channel 5.
A. Briefly. That was like, I think, four months.

Q. And then you worked for the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism?
A. You know, it was back and forth. I tried TV, I didn't like it, kasi basically I came from print. Print talaga yung bias ko.

Q. On TV you were a reporter...TV reporter?
A. Yeah, and it was a difficult shift because on TV, they just need short sound bites; you don't do very long interviews. For print, you get the full low down of the story. Your interviews could run for 30 minutes, you're looking at just one story. For TV, siguro on the average, 5-10 minutes per interview, and then you're asked to run to another beat kasi mas geographical ang coverage. If you're covering the Senate, for example, and something breaks out in the Department of Justice, even if you know nothing about the story or have no background whatsoever, you have to go there. So you have to be a generalist in a sense- fast, quick, quick worker.

Q. You don't really have specialization when it comes to TV reporting?
A. For TV, parang you have a beat also, but I think compared to print, mas generalist ka.

Q. Ah, ok.
A. Same thing for print. You're actually assigned to a beat, like in my case, as I was saying earlier, I was covering DFA, foreign affairs. So, parang 'yon yung specialization ko, but mas fixed 'yon compared to TV kasi you're there day in, day out. You just have one day off, and then maybe on the weekend you could be asked to pinch hit kasi you have one day off. So, yung day off mo is either Saturday or Sunday. So, if ang day off mo is a Saturday, you have to report for work on a Sunday. In some beats-Sundays wala 'yan eh, government offices are closed, but Malacañang is always open. So, it's possible that on a Sunday, you're asked to cover Malacañang, or you're asked to cover this press conference being held by this politician, kasi the regular reporter covering is taking a day off.

Q. How about your experiences as an investigative journalist?
A. It's been very exciting, very tiring, very challenging at the same time.

Q. Compared to being a regular reporter in a newspaper, are there any similarities or differences?
A. A whole world of differences, I think. But, this is not to say that daily reporting is inferior, definitely not. Because that's where you get the discipline in the beat, that's where you develop your sources, that's where you develop your skills as a deadline writer, and that's where you develop your news sense-you know what is news, you know what is spin, you know what is propaganda, and you know who the credible sources are. But, as I said, if you're doing this on a daily basis, sometimes you're just forced to churn out stories because you have to produce a story on a daily basis, 2 or 3 stories a day. So, minsan non-story na, pero you're just stretching it, 'cause you have to produce something. For investigative journalism, it's more intense, because what you're really after is a story or stories that people want to keep secret. So, the object really is exposé. So, you're working on just one story, minsan for a month on the average. Sometimes, it can go for as long as 3 months, and you're interviewing maybe 20, 30, 50 people, and you're working with various documents, which you get from not just one office but several offices. You put all of them together, you digest everything into a maybe two-part series. Like the very, very first investigative story that I worked on was on Ramos. It was supposed to be an environment story on Mt. Makiling, but we stumbled upon a bigger political story that involved a subdivision in Los Baños, which had no ECC. And the owner, the developer actually, was using the name of Ramos to get permits, and it turns out that Ramos also had a share, or was a part-owner of the subdivision.

Q. Where was the story published?
A. This was published in various newspapers, and PCIJ also has a compilation of the past stories that have been produced. So, that was the very, very first story for which we were invited for lunch in Malacañang.

Q. Was that the same as during the Martial Law years when you were invited for lunch, but all you get was... Niki Chua: ...a reprimand. Were you reprimanded?
A. I wasn't covering during the Martial Law years. Wala na, Martial Law had been lifted by the time that I was working as a reporter. The reporters would say parang Ramos was more suave. He'd invite you to lunch, make you feel good, and then on the side ask you, "What was the story all about?" So, it was a very awkward lunch. Guingona was there, kasi... ang tagal, we were waiting to get his side from the Palace, and it just took forever. The questions were faxed and siguro it took about a week or two for them to reply to the questions. So, parang feeling nila, they weren't given enough time daw to reply, but we said, "No, we gave you enough time so fix up you bureaucracy." Parang ganon. Baka hindi na-relay. This was all spelled out during that lunch.

Q. Then a year after...was this the year after? Actually you were still working for PCIJ when you joined Manila Times, was that it?
A. I'm not a full-time employee of PCIJ. If you're a fellow of PCIJ, you're really working on projects, and you could do this simultaneously. You could be working, fully employed by a newspaper, but in your spare time, you work on the story. So, that was the arrangement.

Q. Okay. How about during...being with Manila Times?
A. What about Manila Times?

Q. First you started as a senior writer for the Sunday Times. So, this is not difficult newspaper reporting like compared to what you did with Inquirer?
A. Yeah.

Q. Then, as an associate editor, what was that...about in a span of like months before... after joining Manila Times in a span of how many months?
A. I think, siguro, I was with the Sunday Times for less than a year, or maybe close to a year and I found it. This is what I really liked to do, because you do field work. I really resisted being on the desk because you get tied down. You're there in the office, you're not exposed to the stories outside. You don't get to do as much interviewing, and I felt that at that age it's too early for me to be tied down to the desk. So, I said, "I'll join you, but I wanted to do features", which was really what I was doing for the Sunday Chronicle. So, yon, it was going on that way. The writing was fulfilling until they felt they wanted to beef up the desk also, so, eventually I decided to join the daily, and here it was totally different. Although, it was really the city editor who supervises directly the reporters, in the planning of the stories, for example...

Q. ...you're involved in it?
A. Yeah, then on a daily basis you have the story conference, and there you could toss possible story ideas, decide which reporters could be deployed, and then plan for the newspaper.

Q. You were holding these news conferences, for example, this day for tomorrow's news?
A. The story conference is what you call it, and that was held, sa amin sa Manila Times, siguro mga 3, 3:30 or at the very latest 4:00 (p.m.). So, all the section editors would be seated, including the editor-in-chief- Malou Mangahas at that time. And then the news editor would come out with her news summary. The reporters are required to call in their summaries at the latest 3:00 pm, so we know, the editors know, what to expect. Ito yung mga stories that will come in later, then we can prioritize and rank, what would be the banner, what will come out on page one. The other stories dun na sa ibang sections. So, it's a very important, key, decision-making process in the newsroom.

Q. So, you were not supervising the reporters as they were typing their stories?
A. No.

Q. But, as an editor, were you as strict as the former editors you worked with?
A. I think our generation of reporters did not believe in the "tyranny of the desk". We were more democratic. When we were young reporters, the editor could totally rewrite your story, and you just see it the following day, and you don't know that binago yung lead, and it was sensationalized. And your sources could complain na I didn't say this, and then you explain na "Sir, I'm sorry, but it was my editor who did this." Parang they think because they're editors, they can do whatever they want with your copy. In our case, we were more careful, I think. The attitude was, this is a collaborative project, every story is a collaborative project between the reporter and the editor. So, when the stories come in, we edit, and then because we were reporters- practically all of us at the Times were reporters once- we had standards for the news, so we would say, "Kulang 'tong detalye mo." As we'd ask why, why did this happen? How does the official explain this? There's an insufficient explanation for this or strengthen the last story or get another source, or get someone to confirm this, or parang in-SS mo lang 'to, parang this is a non-story and actually, you're making a story out of it. Nagawa na namin 'yan before, so parang hindi mo kami puwedeng lokohin, kasi naging reporters din kami.

Q. But you're not the tyrant type?
A. No. Tapos na 'yon. I think the era of tyranny is past and passé.

Q. So, it's like this generation of news editors starting 1996 up to now were more democratic when they...
A. Yeah. But you know, Times was different. It had the youngest set of editors compared to the other newspapers. Look at the other newspapers today. Bulletin probably has the oldest, oldest set of editors. Star, meron ding mga old dyan...Even if you look at the publishers at the Times, Robina and Liza Gokongwei, they were young. They were young publishers; they were young owners compared to Emilio Yap of the Bulletin, Max (Soliven of Phil. Star)... well ngayon it's the sons of Belmonte who are running the paper and younger na rin yon.

Q. But Manila Times is not a young newspaper at all.
A. Yeah, exactly. So, because the editors were young, the editors were willing to experiment in a way. Parang, o sige, let's come up with solid stories, not as sexy, not as sensational. And that's why probably we didn't sell as much as the Inquirer did, kasi we were very careful. We were very conscious about pushing certain stories we felt would contribute to the quality of governance for example, or the quality of debate or development in the country. Hindi yung basta nag-away yung pulitiko-he said, she said-ilalagay mo sa page one. Pag ganun lang, we put that in the inside pages, but other newspapers would highlight it and put it on page one, upper fold. Kami, pag nag-aaway lang, forget it. There are other issues that are more important than squabbling or quarreling politicians.

Q. I don't know if it is proper to ask, but does this being careful motivated by...so as not to jeopardize your relationship with the government, for example?
A. Oh, not at all. We were very critical of government. Joe de Venecia threatened to file a libel suit, he called the Gokongweis complaining about the story that was published. We were closed down, because we were very critical of the government. So, no way were we careful about not antagonizing government.

Q. But the fact is you try to make your stories as objective as possible, not sensationalizing, like small stories?
A. Yes.

Q. Let's talk about the environment of Manila Times. Compared to Inquirer many years ago...it's like eleven years ago, how was Manila Times then when you were editor? You're not using typewriters anymore?
A. No, we were...well actually even as far back as the Chronicle. No, kahit sa Inquirer when me moved to Madrid, that was the very first time when we had computers. So the second office may computers na.

Q. So, how fast was this development from...this shift from typewriters to a more sophisticated equipment?
A. Probably, well a year's time or less. Computers na.

Q. But it was not hard to adjust to this technology?
A. No, we were young. We were quick to adjust.

Q. But the editors?
A. The editors...Louie was quick. I mean...you know that's one skill that journalists have. They're very quick adjusting. You give them a task, they complete it. Give them thirty minutes to do it, they'll do it. They'll produce something. And technology is, I think, one aspect that they've been quite quick to adapt to. So...sa Inquirer it was mostly IBM computers, generic pa nga yung iba. And then, sa Chronicle...ang bias naman ng Chronicle was Macs... Macintoshes. But we were complaining about the Macintoshes that weren't working and it's very expensive to have them repaired. So, we had a lot of computers pero they were not working...

Q. You don't have any use for it?
A. ...they were not working. What's also interesting to look at is the technological advancement. In the Inquirer we had face-to-face dealings with the editors because we would go to the office after work 'cause wala pang fax noon, wala pang pagers noon, wala pang cell phones noon. So, you really had to go to the office and the editor, as you write your lead, the editor would be there. I remember there was one time when I pitched in for Malacañang and I had to go back to the office because it was a front page story. And it was late. You travel from Malacañang to the office, may traffic yan and all that. And the editor was right behind me...parang looking at how the story was progressing. So there was tremendous, tremendous pressure. Kasi i-eedit pa yon, or ire-re-angle, or isha-sharpen...they have to sharpen...rewrite the lead at the very least.

Q. But...
A. ...there was face-to-face interaction with the editor. But as the...as technology penetrated the newsrooms, wala na. Communication has, between the reporter and the editor, has been largely through the telephone. And that has its disadvantages. Because you cannot teach a reporter how to write a better lead through the telephone, you cannot point out errors in grammar or verbose writing, you cannot say, you know very verbose yung writing mo, you're overwriting this, you could collapse this into so many sentences. You cannot do that on the phone. You just hope that the reporter would read the edited story the following day and learn from the rewrite.

Q. But that was phone pa. But now, we already have email.
A. Yeah.

Q. Does that make the newsroom less...I mean, it's not as important as before?
A. The newsroom remains important.

Q. ...Reporters do not gather anymore in the newsroom to type their...
A. Yeah.

Q. ...they can email their stories. And...
A. Yeah. They can email their stories so in a way, it's fast. You get it right away. But, if you have problems with your server...

Q. Yes.
A. ...then that's it. Hindi dumadating yung stories. They keep on sending and the editors don't get it. And it could delay the entire production process. So it has its advantages and disadvantages. And also, one effect is it becomes difficult for unions in newspapers to thrive. When I was with the Inquirer we had a very strong union. And if you compare the unions in newspapers, the Inquirer union today is probably among the most solid unions. And that was because we were there...we saw each other everyday, it was easy for us to say...o sige, may meeting tayo mamayang gabi a, or do preparations for the CBA. It's easy to gather people, to bring people together because natural center yung newsroom. But today, because you can send your stories via email, you can fax it or whatever, wala e. They're all scattered...interaction among reporters is more difficult. Parang ang nagdedevelop is the press corps sa mga beats. They're closer. They become closer to the reporters of the other newspapers rather than...

Q. ...reporters among...
A. ...their own colleagues in their own newspapers.

Q. Okay. So let's make a run-through of some significant events in our history, and where were you when these events were happening. Like the EDSA revolution. You said you were not there yet during the Martial Law years. When you stepped in, it was almost a year before the EDSA Revolution. Where were you when...
A. December '85. February '86 was EDSA. So I was really just a few months...

Q. Yeah, a few months...
A. ...working as a journalist when EDSA happened.

Q. Were you able to cover EDSA?
A. We would...as I said earlier, yung beat ko nga was really Quezon City Hall. So parang kami, parang supplementary yung stories namin. We do parang atmosphere stories, and then write about what's happening in the universities. Just like what's happening now. If you're a young reporter, for example, you probably will be assigned...the more senior reporters would be covering the Senate and Malacañang. The younger ones would be covering the universities, would be covering the rallies, the political rallies and ime-merge lang yung story mo with the bigger story.

Q. So that's why there are stories like, "with reports from..."
A. Right.

Q. ...EDSA Revolution then there's this coup d'etat attempt. Where were you then?
A. The coups...kasi there was a succession of coups 'no. Pag coup kasi, the main beats that are affected would be the military, Defense, and Malacañang.

Q. And you're not there.
A. No, I wasn't. I wasn't doing that. I was doing Foreign Affairs.

Q. Yeah, Foreign Affairs.
A. So the main story really for foreign affairs was the Bases. Bases negotiations.

Q. And that was during what year?
A. This was 1988...'88-'89, mga ganyan.

Q. So during those years you had big stories.
A. Yeah. DFA was a major beat then because the Americans still had their bases here: Clark, Subic. And Filipinos were so paranoid about CIA intervention, about the American role in political affairs. The bases then served as some sort of a magnet for all sorts of chismis and speculation. And, although foreign affairs yon, which means you're not just talking about the US...

Q. ...the US, yes...
A. ...but Europe, Southeast Asia, ASEAN, the focus was really America. Parang it was the heart and soul of foreign relations.

Q. So, more or less, your stories when you were covering the foreign affairs were mostly U.S. stories.
A. Yeah. A lot of them. A lot of them US stories. Or probably about consular matters, passports, getting visas. Or probably trade, trade relations with other countries. And ASEAN was emerging as an important regional entity.

Q. Okay. Since we're taking about the history of Philippine journalism, one of the newspapers you've worked with, Manila Times, has a long history already since 1899 I guess. You entered Manila Times in the year 1996, just a year before it closed down. Can you tell us something about... you said earlier before we started this interview that you were there only a few days...only a few days before the Manila Times closed down...
A. Weeks maybe.

Q. Weeks? Okay.
A. Months or so.

Q. So, how was the environment there? During those times...during those crucial times that the Manila Times is about to close down?
A. Okay, I'll just contextualize it. Kasi I had left for studies abroad. And the editor-in-chief, Malou, also eventually left for Harvard. And then the news editor also left for studies, London naman siya. So the three of us were out of the country. Then I was the first one to come back. I graduated in May of '98. So I went back from New York. Then, I was just finishing work on "News for Sale". The story was published in June of...no. I'm sorry. No. "News for Sale" had already been published and then we were working on another story, yung Centennial Expo. So, that's supposed to come out in June. So I wasn't formally with the Times yet, but there had already been discussions that pressure was being exerted on the Gokongweis and Estrada was not very happy with Manila Times. And then, there was one story that was published which involved Impsa, this is an Argentinean investor. And then supposedly, merong deals involved and the story was published. It could have been more thorough but they were conscious about being scooped. So they published it. And ang naiwan doon was Chit and Booma. I still wasn't there- and same with Malou and Glenda- wala pa kami. So the story ran, and there was a libel suit one hundred one million-peso libel suit from Estrada. And then afterwards, there was intense emailing between Manila, London and Massachusetts. Harvard is in Massachusetts. And then there was talk about a closure because of the apology. Robina came out with a statement apologizing to Erap, Erap withdrew the libel suit. And then, yung feeling is, if the owner of the newspaper, the publisher, apologizes for a story which the editors felt was solid enough to publish, what does that do to the credibility of a newspaper? Parang ikaw yung unang nag-give in. The President exerted pressure on you, and you gave in because of the libel suit. So, there was talk about maybe it's better to just close shop, to maintain the integrity of the paper...

Q. Rather than...
A. ...rather than continue publishing and having this feeling that the paper is not strong enough, that it cannot stand up to pressure from government. And that's one thing that newspapers are very proud of--or at least, the newspapers that want to remain credible about the type of journalism that they do: their independence. We are proud that government can never tell us what to do. Once you allow government to tell you what to do, wala na, wala ka nang independence. Wala ka nang credibility. So, what's your business being a newspaper? So when the apology came out, Malou came back. She did not finish her Nieman Fellowship at Harvard. She went back and then she said, we'll try to make the most of the situation, rebuild from scratch kasi parang nasira na yung credibility. And this was a bit touchy, kasi Chit and Booma had decided to resign and they thought Malou was resigning too. They resigned in protest over the apology. When Malou came back, she took a different stance. She said, we'll close if we have to close but we'll do it with a bang, not with a whimper. So she came back. And then Glenda hindi pa tapos, she was still in London finishing her studies. Ako tapos na. So, she asked me to help. And I did. But, mukhang there had been calls already. Mark Jimenez was calling, he was interested in buying the Times. There were other people who were calling. Mitra was calling, Tony Boy Conjuangco was calling. There were indications that they were interested in acquiring the Times and the Gokongweis would sell. Kami, we were just waiting. We said, no, we cannot afford to be distracted by these purchase negotiations. We have to come out with a newspaper day in, and day out. And we have to come out with solid stories. So all that was going on behind the day-to-day operations. Until some time in July, a few days, mukhang there were indications that Mark Jimenez was really the one who was going to buy the paper because at that time there were extradition stories that were coming out. And some of the top officials in the newspaper were very uncomfortable with the play of the Mark Jimenez stories. I guess they were concerned about the future of the paper maybe because negotiations had already begun. Ayaw nilang masira yung negotiations. So, parang ang request is that could we downplay the stories about Mark Jimenez a bit. Maybe lower-fold, or maybe in the inside pages. But, nandoon na yung friction. We said no, you cannot downplay the story because Mark Jimenez is known to be close to Erap, pinapangalandakan yan ni Erap, he's saying he's a corporate genius, the presidential adviser for Latin American affairs...he's never had that, he doesn't care about Latin America anyway, then all of a sudden he gets this guy. And then the US was after him because of illegal campaign contributions so how could you bury stories about him? Put them in the inside pages, halatang-halata ka naman. Parang...eto ka na nga, you're trying to build the paper after the apology and then eto ka na naman. Magda-downplay ka na naman ng stories. I suppose as editors we were asserting our editorial prerogative, we were asserting our evaluation of the news. And this created some sort of friction within. And then we realized that the Gokongweis can only go as far. Parang hanggang dito lang ang kaya nila because naturally they have other businesses at stake.

Q. Yes.
A. And I mean, if your other businesses would have pressure exerted on them by Malacañang, kawawa rin naman yung family. So, sabi namin, sige better pa nga that you close, then let this new person take over rather than you go on. And to their credit naman, Robina was saying, no we could go on publishing, we can request the new owners, whoever he is, to retain you as editors and reporters para walang dislocation. As editors ang laking responsibility no'n. How many employees? 200. You close down a newspaper, 200 people unemployed. What do you do with them? What do you do with their families? What do you do with their Children, they have to send them to school. But we said no, if you continue operating, you lend legitimacy to the new owner, and he does not deserve the legitimacy. Parang kunwari credible pa siya because he has these editors na palaban, he has these reporters who are very idealistic and very young, when actually Mark Jimenez naman talaga yon. So parang magpapagwapo lang siya, deodorizer pa kami. So sabi namin, let's forget about this, let's just close. So yon. It was a big, big, big, big media event. And we really intended it to be a media event. So there was live media coverage, as early as I think 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning. ANC was there, Channel 2, Channel 7 were covering. And it was so difficult to close the paper. You're editing, tapos andyan yung lights, andyan yung camera. And it was very noisy. And the last issue of the Times- progression e- I don't know if you remember...two days before nakalagay: "For Sale" and the final issue just said "Closed".

Q. Yeah, I remember that.
A. And then, yon, tapos, just individual reflections and writings ng stories ng mga staff.

Q. So not much of really stories because that day you were the story.
A. Yeah. We were the story. We said let's indulge. Of course, debatable 'yon. People would say you weren't professional 'til the very end, because you should have covered still as if... But ang sabi namin, the Times has never been a typical newspaper. It's never been traditional. It's always defied convention. So this time, kami yung story, we'll let our reporters...we'll let our staff write their own stories. So ganon yung itsura. And despite the denials, kunwari si Katrina Legarda initially yung buyer, but wala naman siyang pera. It was just not a credible line that Katrina was coming in to be the new editor-in-chief and Reghis Romero of Smokey Mountain fame was the buyer-financier. We knew about his huge project, Smokey Mountain, which was in debt. And the project was stuck. And we knew that he just needed an entry point into the new administration to get the project going. So we were aware of the deals that were involved in the purchase of the paper, and that really, it was Mark Jimenez who was behind it. And it took quite a while but eventually Katrina left, she was kicked out. And look at the staff box, it's the son of Mark Jimenez who's now running the paper and Mark Jimenez is there, his daughter is there. So parang, kayo naman, we knew this all along. Niloko niyo pa ang tao. Clearly from the very start it was Mark Jimenez despite all the denials. So it was a very sad event for all of us because if you look at the past, the tradition of the Times, it was the first English paper, the Roces family owned it--the Roces Family is a very distinguished family. And then it had to end this way. It had to land on the lap of a crony of Joseph Estrada. So parang sayang yung glorious tradition and then it just ends up with a man who does not deserve the paper.

Q. So how did you foresee Times after the closure?
A. After the closure, it has never been a credible paper. I don't think it's selling. I don't think people are reading it. I don't think they will believe what is written, what has been published. Ang laki ng credibility problem.

Q. So they need to establish credibility again?
A. Yes. But with Mark Jimenez there and Joseph Estrada being president, it's going to be difficult to change the perception. N: Did all the reporters before...in the Manila Times, all resign?
A. Not all. N: Not all?
A. Not all. Not all editors. And this is the interesting thing. Because sabi namin, you know it comes to...parang personal decisions e. Of course ideally, you wish you could say, let's all go. Let's all jump ship and let these guys bring in their own people. But there were economic realities. N: Losing jobs.
A. Oo, losing jobs. So parang we won't take it against you. Stay if you must. We understand it perfectly. We're not judging you. Kami, we just have to go because this is a credibility issue. Some of the editors stayed, and kung baga iba-ibang forms of struggle. The first batch of editors who resigned, sila Chit and si Booma, felt that they had to resign after the apology. When we came in we felt it was a different level of struggle, that you build the paper and say na, hindi kami basta-bastang bumigay. We continued to be critical of the government pero hindi kaya nung publisher, ng owner, so sige we go. And those who stayed, parang sige lang--despite the narrower space to do critical journalism through the years. But, sabi namin, sige, we respect you and we wish you luck. But eventually they left. They also resigned.

Q. So the staff box of Manila Times today is a totally new batch of editors. None of those belonging to the...
A. Because those who eventually left the Times transferred to Philippine Post. Philippine Post has closed down.

Q. Again?
A. Yeah. So it's the continuing saga of newspapers in this country. They open, they close. They reopen, they have a new owner, they have a new set of reporters...it's a revolving thing. Yung stability of papers has always been in question. Kaya reporters would hesitate to join a new paper na nag-open up even if they offer high salaries. Kasi like sa Times noon when the Mark Jimenez group came in, fantastic yung salaries. They were offering like double their pay. So siyempre yung iba who really needed the money, sabi nila, sige, kahit for the short-term lang, kahit a few months lang, kasi doble yung salary e. Sabi namin sige okay lang yan. But alam naman naming hindi naman masu-sustain yon e. 'Cause we're familiar with the financial side of newspapering. And true enough, eventually, nade-delay na yung salary, or nababawasan na yung salary, but people stayed on. Then, when it became difficult...nahirapan na sila to come out with stories that were critical, they left and lumipat na nga sa Philippine Post. Tapos yon, that's a different environment altogether.

Q. You never came back to work with a newspaper after the closure of Times?
A. No.

Q. So right now you're just a fellow of PCIJ and you're here at Ateneo.
A. After a while you ask yourself, is it worth it joining another newspaper? You pour yourself into the job, you do your all, you do everything to be the best journalist that you can be. But in the end, if your publisher...if your owner is not ready to stand by you, it's not worth it. Looking at the present crop of owners and publishers, parang wala pa kaming makitang ganoon.

Q. But eventually when you see that, you'll join it?
A. Probably. I think once you're a reporter, you're always a reporter. It's difficult to get out of it. It's an addiction. Writing is an addiction.

Q. But it's quite interesting to know that you are a Philosophy graduate and you eventually ended up as a journalist. So, based on your experience as a reporter, as an editor, what can you say about the history of Philippine journalism?
A. It's been rough. It's been exciting. It's undergoing...it has periods of upheaval. In the past, whenever there are elections you'll hear about problems of corruption, about professionalism, a lot leaves to be desired in terms of professionalism and integrity. But, it's difficult to leave the profession. It's difficult to leave journalism despite the problems and the ills that plague it because...I think first and foremost, I would say this of my colleagues, they're in it because they're very idealistic, they're in it because they feel that it's important to check government, it's important to check the abuses of government...that because of Martial Law, you realize that the press has to be free. The press has to be on its toes all the time. And the press has to be critical of government. If you have a complacent press, Martial Law can happen again, abuses in government will happen again. And I think at this time, if you will notice, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism has become so popular in the past few months because of the stories about the mansions, because of Erap's wealth, and these are ground-breaking stories. All of a sudden, people realize that investigative journalism is important. The tradition is being set...the tone is being set. You look beyond the he-said-she-said-they-said type of stories or the stories that you produce on a daily basis. You look for perspective, you look for documents, you look for the paper trail, you do the person trail, the people trail. Because that's the most effective way that you can check government. In the end, who really benefits from it is people, ordinary people, civil society as they put it. Because you preserve your democracy, you make it dynamic. If you have information that people know about, they can participate in governance. People have a stake in governance. They don't stay away and say, "Sige kayo na ang bahala diyan, kaya nga kayo inelect." A few years ago, wala ('yon). You talk about rallies, walang nag-a-attend ng rallies. Then now you realize that it's important for us to be part of these rallies, to participate because may effect ito on the future. If you just sit back and watch, I mean, it's a waste. It's history unfolding before you and you're just watching. And it's the media that allows this participation because of the transparency it affords. So, for example, the fact that the hearings will be televised live, it's also a breakthrough. It's a historic event. These are very crucial events for the Philippine media. And I hope also that the public will judge the media and its performance because the media also needs it--the criticisms and yung pagbabantay ng tao.

Q. So, do we have anything else to know about Philippine journalism? So...thank you very much!
A. Sure. You're welcome.