Journalists, Beware of How You Tell the Story; Heavy Editing Creates Misconception and Misinformation

All it takes is a wrong impression.

In pursuit of finding the most appropriate words while minding the cost of space every character in an article creates, one must not sacrifice accuracy and the full conveyance of meaning, in the altar of efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

For those not versed in the notion of executive orders (EO), executive orders are directives from the chief executive, emanating from his constitutional duty to "ensure that the laws be faithfully executed" (Philippine Constitution, Article VII, Section 18).

Indeed, executive orders are written commands of the chief executive to the executive branch in order to fulfill their role as executors of the law, not as alterers, amenders, or modifiers of the law; as the Philippine Constitution gives the chief executive "control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices," it is necessary for the chief executive to give final direction when overlapping boundaries of duty creates confusion and discord within the executive branch.

It is quite absurd for anyone to think that executive orders or even decisions/findings of committees created by the chief executive can supersede Acts of Congress, given that the notion of executive orders are subordinately tied to the execution of laws, which are also called congressional acts (i.e., laws = congressional acts). Unless specified by law, which Congress makes (i.e., allowed by congressional acts) or by constitutional mandate, executive orders has no bearing when it comes to other branches of government, i.e., Congress and the Supreme Court.

Hence, it is fallacy to say that a mere executive order can amend the ARMM law, not to mention the law is an organic act in itself. Although I highly doubt that the author of the article meant what I have just stated, it is expected of journalists to write articles that reflect accuracy based on facts, to help their fellow citizens make informed decisions.

Perhaps, emphasis on the creation of a committee that would RECOMMEND changes to the ARMM law would be more appropriate, don't you think?