1. According to recent news reports, the one week state of emergency imposed in February by President Gloria Arroyo has been accompanied by intimidation of the press in your country. How has this played out and affected the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalists (PCIJ)?

The police took over an opposition newspaper for about 10 days. The military posted troops outside TV stations also for several days. Three journalists have been charged for rebellion. Broadcast stations were warned that they could be closed down if they aired "seditious" material. In addition, sedition charges were threatened by the justice secretary against the PCIJ, for posting on our blog, a three-hour wiretapped recording that contained the conversations of an election official, some of them with the president, during which election fraud was discussed. There was also an attempt by the police to get a search warrant against PCIJ in March, but the courts refused to issue the warrant. This was clearly an intent to intimidate us. We have had to take security precautions, including backing up all our hard disks, changing locks, and keeping track of staff whereabouts. The public outcry, here and abroad, against the threats against journalists has forced the government to back off. So far, since the end of March, there have been no new threats.

2. How did the Center come to publish the three reports on former President Joseph Estrada’s unexplained wealth, which ended up being presented in the congressional impeachment hearings?

Those investigations were the product of a year-long research into Estrada's wealth. That research was based on public records and key informants. A chapter of our book, “Investigating Corruption”, details the Estrada investigation.

The reports were presented when congress filed impeachment proceedings against Estrada in late 2000. The congressmen had little to go with in the beginning except for the testimony of a whistleblower who alleged Estrada received money from illegal gambling. So they used our research as a basis for filing other charges.

3. How was the decision made; what difficulties were faced in the research?

The decision to investigate Estrada came after we received unconfirmed reports that he was getting fat commissions from business transactions with the government and that he was building fancy mansions for his mistresses. An initial investigation showed that there was indeed something to investigate so we formed a team to start the research. The difficulties mainly had to do with the extent of documentation the investigation required and getting sources to talk.

4. What kind of reaction did you receive?

Our first report, which examined gaps in Estrada's asset disclosure, was used by only small newspapers. It was mainly circulated online. The big papers were reluctant to use the report. Estrada was then immensely popular and had hit back at critical newspapers by organizing advertising boycotts and engineering the sale of one newspaper to his crony.

Later when the tide of public opinion turned against Estrada, the media was very eager to use our reports. The public reaction was overwhelmingly favourable.

5. Were there any threats or intimidation?

Nothing direct. The threats were second or third hand and we didn't know whether they were serious. We were told Estrada was very upset with our reporting and that some people close to him might take this as a signal to do something to us.

6. According to the International Federation of Journalists, in 2004 the Philippines was the second country after Iraq with 13 deaths of journalists recorded. In 2005, the Committee to Protect Journalists reports 4 deaths in the Philippines. All four journalists had reported on corruption or were critical of it. The death of Marlene Garcia-Esperat, in particular, exposes this link. How do you see the link between dangerous situations for journalists and exposing corruption?

The danger is mainly for journalists outside Manila, who work in provinces ruled by bosses who have no tolerance for a free press or critical reporting. Given weak law enforcement, these bosses can get away with the murders. For sure, those who expose corruption in areas ruled by the gun, rather than by law, put their lives in danger.

7. What aspects or examples of corruption are underreported in the Philippines and why do you feel that is the case?

There have been many reports on political and bureaucratic corruption. The military is an area that has not been investigated enough, partly because it is such a secretive organization and also because many journalists do not know how it works and don't know how to start investigating it. There is also the intimidation factor -- many journalists are intimidated by the thought of exposing the dirty deals of a powerful and armed institution. Corporate corruption has also not been as well investigated as public sector corruption, also for the same reasons -- lack of transparency and reportorial expertise.

8. How important do you feel is the role of organisations like Transparency for facilitating access and information for journalists?

TI and other groups can help raise global awareness on transparency and accountability issues. They can put pressure on the government. They can also set global standards and ask states and private entities to live up to them. They can publicly shame governments and other entities that don't live up to these standards.

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalists (www.pcij.org) is an independent, non-profit media agency specialising in investigative reporting.