See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305334236

Press Freedom, Governance, and Culture of Impunity: The Alarming Case

of the Philippines

Conference Paper · May 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3980.1844

CITATIONS READS

0 284

1 author:

Danilo Araña Arao

University of the Philippines
35 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Danilo Araña Arao on 15 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 225

Press Freedom, Governance, and Culture of Impunity:

The Alarming Case of the Philippines
Danilo A. Arao, Associate Professor, Department of Journalism, College of Mass
Communication, University of the Philippines, Diliman (currently on study leave)

Abstract

Ending the culture of impunity requires strengthening the culture of resistance.

Impunity results in the dearth or absence of press freedom which, in turn, has
deleterious effects on the practice of journalism as the people are deprived of relevant
information that could help shape public opinion. Effective governance can only be
achieved if there is an atmosphere conducive to press freedom and other basic
freedoms. The local and global campaigns to end impunity should continue so that the
culture of resistance would be strengthened and the specter of the culture of impunity
would be finally gone. The Philippines proves to be an interesting case study as it is
one of the freest press in Asia but has one of the most number of journalists killed
worldwide. The most notable example of media killings is the massacre in Ampatuan,
Maguindanao (located in the southern part of the Philippines) where 32 journalists
and media workers were among the 58 people killed. The situation in the Philippines
is alarming given the prevailing culture of impunity.

Keywords: Journalism/ Human Rights/ Resistance/ Media/ Framework/ Philippines

Introduction

My paper provides a normative and theoretical understanding of press freedom,

governance, and culture of impunity with special emphasis on the Philippines, a
country that is seen as one of the freest press in Asia but has one of the most number
of journalists killed worldwide. My continuing research on impunity and the practice
of journalism in the Philippines – as a Doktorand (doctoral student) at Technische
Universität (TU) Ilmenau in Germany under the research supervision of Prof. Dr.
Martin Löffelholz – has given me the opportunity to analyze the state of research on
these topics and I take this opportunity to share my initial observations. A framework
for understanding press freedom, governance, and culture of impunity is presented
toward the end of my paper.

Understanding Press Freedom

Press freedom is the cornerstone of a democratic state. Without it, the people would
be exposed only to “information” deemed acceptable to those in power.
Consequently, the media would be reduced to mere government mouthpieces. Such a
situation greatly compromises, if not totally represses, other basic freedoms like the
people’s freedom of speech. It follows that the kind of journalism practiced in a
society without press freedom does not provide the relevant information necessary to
shape public opinion.

To clearly understand press freedom, it is necessary to analyze the practice of

journalism. McQuail (2013) defines journalism as the “construction and publication
of accounts of contemporary events, persons or circumstances of public significance

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 226

or interest, based on information acquired from reliable sources” (p. 14). Kovach and
Rosenstiel (2001) said that there are clear principles that journalists agree on, and that
these “have ebbed and flowed over time, but […] have always in some manner been
evident.” Citing Lambeth (1992), The CMFR Ethics Manual (2007) enumerated five
principles of the journalism practice:

1. Truth-telling – journalists should develop a habit of factual and contextual

accuracy as they check and recheck information, strive for completeness,
provide proper attribution and engage in multi-sourcing (or referring to several
sources instead of just one);
2. Justice – journalists should practice fairness, balance and objectivity in
reporting in such a way that all sides are presented and that bias is avoided.
3. Freedom – journalists should have commitment to their freedom “to report
events and to comment on them to the best of (their) abilities and knowledge,
in recognition of the role information plays in the making of an informed
citizenry and better governance” (p. 29) by defending and enhancing the
freedom the Constitution guarantees them; avoiding conflicts of interest which
result in loss of autonomy and freedom; engaging in principled practice which
helps protect freedom; and upholding the citizens’ free access to information,
among other concerns.
4. Humaneness –even if there are groups and individuals who deserve to be
exposed resulting in damage to “undeserved reputations” (p. 31), journalists
should not do innocent harm like naming a minor in a crime story, intruding
into the grief of relatives of crime victims or refusing to be drawn into
“condemning persons accused of crimes before they have been convicted” (p.
31).
5. Stewardship – journalists should “take care of, and…preserve that with which
[they have] been entrusted” (p. 31), keeping in mind that they should respect
“the rights of others in the exercise of [their] profession as well as discharging
one’s responsibility with the awareness that irresponsibility […] can have
harmful and far-reaching consequences on the rest of society” (pp. 31-32).

That there is general consistency on the definition and orientation of journalism may
be gleaned from the latter’s significant role in democracy and nation-building and the
common goals of freedom and social development. The absence of press freedom
would have deleterious effects on journalistic work. Even Karl Marx has argued for a
free press as basis for a democratic society, stressing that it is the “right of an
autonomous individual and a means to uncover the underlying truth about society” (as
cited in McQuail, 2013, p. 34). Simon (2015) stressed that journalists need “to
recognize that their rights are best protected not by the special realm of ‘press
freedom’ but rather by ensuring that guarantees of free expression are extended to all”
(p. 171) especially in a situation where “the boundaries between journalists and
nonjournalists continue to erode and any meaningful definition of journalism becomes
more and more elusive” (p. 171).

Understanding Governance

Governance may be analyzed along the lines of government policies related to press
freedom and the self-regulatory mechanisms of news media organizations, as seen in
the history of how they have developed through the years. In the case of the

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 227

Philippines, special attention should be given to how journalists and news media
organizations have survived the years of colonial and authoritarian rule.

The 1987 Constitution’s Bill of Rights (Article 3) states that there is freedom of the
press in the Philippines. Section 4 stipulates: “No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances” (The 1987
Constitution, 1987, p. 4). On the other hand, Section 7 provides for public access to
information:

The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be

recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research
data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject
to such limitations as may be provided by law. (The 1987 Constitution, 1987,
p. 5)

Sections 4 and 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution’s Article 3 are consistent with
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “adopted by the UN General
Assembly on 10 December 1948” (“History of the Document”, n.d., para. 1) which
states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (Full
Text, n.d., Article 19 section, para. 1).

Many journalism schools highlight the characteristic of the Philippine press as being
the freest in Asia. Major textbooks on the history of Philippine journalism stress that
this is due to the constitutional guarantees of basic freedoms, as well as other laws
that uphold press freedom like the Shield Law which protects journalists from
revealing their sources (read, for example, Ables, 2003; Malinao, 1997).

According to Teodoro and Kabatay (2006), there was “absolute censorship” (p. 5)
during the three centuries that the Philippines was under Spanish rule from 1565 to
1898. The same case happened during the American occupation from 1898 to 1946
(with a brief interlude due to the Japanese invasion) when “the dangerous tendency
rule was the text used in determining whether an utterance was seditious or not”
(Teodoro & Kabatay, 2006, p. 5). They added that “total censorship of all forms of
mass media available” (Teodoro & Kabatay, 2006, p. 5) happened during Japanese
occupation from 1942 to 1945. In terms of contemporary history, they noted, “The
Martial Law period (1972-1986) clearly illustrated that freedom of expression is
usually the first freedom curtailed in the name of national security and public order”
(Teodoro & Kabatay, 2006, p. 5). At present, they stressed that media-related laws,
particularly the ones on libel and obscenity, are being used “to harass and silence
journalists” (Teodoro & Kabatay, 2006, p. 389). What proved to be more alarming for
them was the “continuing assassination of […] journalists since 1986 [because the]
killings have seriously undermined the often-repeated claim that the Philippine press
is ‘the freest in Asia’” (Teodoro & Kabatay, 2006, pp. 389-390).

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 228

Understanding Culture of Impunity

The amended version of the “Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of
Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity” – submitted on February 8, 2005
to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights – defined impunity as the
impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account
– whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings – since they
are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried
and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to
their victims. (Equipo Nizkor & Derechos Human Rights, 2005, Definitions section,
para. 1, italics supplied)

In the context of journalism, Lisosky and Henrischen (2011) said that the journalists
they interviewed have identified impunity as a major occupational concern. They said:

The majority of the people interviewed [by the authors] considered impunity
as one of the primary reasons journalists are in danger around the world [...]
This issue of impunity was described as a problem in nations where
governments are not only corrupt but also fail to recognize the importance of a
free press to democratic progress. (p. 176)

The “UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity”
(approved on April 13, 2012) highlighted the urgency of putting an end to impunity
worldwide and made a unified stand against media repression. The introduction
stated:

The safety of journalists and the struggle against impunity for their killers are
essential to preserve the fundamental right to freedom of expression,
guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Freedom of expression is an individual right, for which no one should be
killed, but it is also a collective right, which empowers populations through
facilitating dialogue, participation and democracy, and thereby makes
autonomous and sustainable development possible. (“UN Plan of Action”,
2012, Introduction section, para. 4)

Not surprisingly, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO) has issued a global call to end the culture of impunity:

When attacks on journalists remain unpunished, this sends a very negative

message that reporting the ‘embarrassing truth’ or ‘unwanted opinions’ will
get ordinary people in trouble. Furthermore, the population loses confidence in
its own judiciary system that is meant to protect everyone from attacks on
their rights. Perpetrators of crimes against journalists are thus emboldened
when they realize that they can attack their targets without ever facing justice.
(“International Day”, 2014, p. 2)

These points are consistent with Simon’s (2015) analysis that “[t]he culture of
impunity can only be defeated by ensuring that those who carry out the killings of
journalists face justice” (p. 180).

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 229

Alarming Case of the Philippines

The International Day to End Impunity which started in 2011 is commemorated every
November 23 to ensure that the world does not forget the massacre on that day in
2009 of 58 people, including 32 journalists and media workers, in Ampatuan,
Maguindanao (located in the southern part of the Philippines). It elicited worldwide
support due to the prevalence of “unresolved cases of aggression against individuals
who were simply exercising their free expression rights” (“About the Campaign”,
n.d., para. 5).

Beyond the annual commemoration of the Ampatuan massacre, impunity can be

better contextualized by analyzing relevant statistics on media killings. From 1992 to
2015, the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) documented 77 Filipino
journalists killed as a result of their work as journalists. There were others listed but
the motives behind the killings had not been clear. Quoting from CPJ’s methodology,
“When the motive is unclear, but it is possible that a journalist was killed because of
his or her work, CPJ classifies the case as ‘unconfirmed’ and continues to investigate”
(CPJ, n.d., para. 4).

The differences in statistics notwithstanding (see Table 1), the Center for Media
Freedom and Responsibility or CMFR (2016) said that the “number should by itself
be disturbing” (para. 4). CMFR reacted to the statement of the CPJ that there were no
work-related killings of journalists in the Philippines in 2015, “for the first time since
2007” (Beiser, 2015, para. 14). Out of nine journalists killed in 2015, CMFR said that
“at least three [of them] were killed in the line of duty” (CMFR, 2016, para. 2).
Regardless of the motive, the fact that there were Filipino journalists killed in 2015 is
said to be “indicative of both the state of law and order in the Philippines and of
continuing impunity” (CMFR, 2016, para. 4, italics mine).

Table 1
Comparative Statistics on Work-Related Killings of Journalists and Media
Workers According to Administration (1986 to 2015)
CMFR CPJ a/
No. % share No. % share
Corazon C. Aquino (February
21 14.0% --- ---
1986 to June 1992)
Fidel V. Ramos
11 7.3% 6 7.6%
(July 1992 to June 1998)
Joseph E. Estrada
6 4.0% 3 3.8%
(July 1998 to January 2001)
Gloria M. Arroyo
82 54.7% 63 79.7%
(January 2001 to June 2010)
Benigno S. Aquino III
(July 2010 to December 2015 30 20.0% 7 8.9%
only)
TOTAL 150 100.0% 79 100.0%
Sources of basic data: CMFR and CPJ, as cited in Arao, 2015, p. A16
a/ CPJ’s database started in 1992; the cited statistics are under the classification
“Motive Confirmed” and do not include the 53 killed journalists from 1992 to
2015 classified as “Motive Unconfirmed”

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 230

The CPJ’s Global Impunity Index in 2015 ranked the Philippines as the fourth worst
offender (after Somalia, Iraq, and Syria). The CPJ explained:

Though it has dropped to fourth from third on the Impunity Index, the
Philippines remains the only country within the top five impunity offenders
not engulfed by conflict and acute political instability. At least 44 murders
have taken place since September 2005 with complete impunity; seven have
occurred under the current administration of President Benigno Aquino III.
(“Getting Away with Murder”, 2015, 4 The Philippines section, para. 1)

The CPJ's Impunity Index calculated “the number of unsolved journalist murders as a
percentage of each country's population” (“Getting Away with Murder”, 2015,
Methodology section, para. 1). As regards the 2015 index, the CPJ analyzed
“journalist murders that occurred between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2015,
and that remain unsolved. Only those nations with five or more unsolved cases are
included [in the 2015] index” (“Getting Away with Murder”, 2015, Methodology
section, para. 1). The CPJ listed 14 countries in its Global Impunity Index 2015 (see
Table 2).

Table 2
CPJ Global Impunity Index 2015
Rank Nation Unsolved Population Rating
Cases of (in millions, (Unsolved
Journalist based on Cases ÷
Murders World Population)
(Sept. 1, 2005- Bank’s 2014
Aug. 31, 2015) World
Development
Indicators)
1 Somalia 30 10.5 2.857
2 Iraq 84 34.8 2.414
3 Syria 11 22.2 0.496
4 Philippines 44 99.1 0.444
5 South Sudan 5 11.9 0.420
6 Sri Lanka 5 20.6 0.242
7 Afghanistan 5 31.6 0.158
8 Mexico 19 125.4 0.152
9 Pakistan 22 185.0 0.119
10 Russia 11 143.8 0.076
11 Brazil 11 206.1 0.053
12 Bangladesh 7 159.1 0.044
13 Nigeria 5 177.5 0.028
14 India 11 1,295.0 0.008
Source: Getting Away with Murder, 2015, Statistical Table section

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 231

Framework for Understanding Press Freedom, Governance, and Impunity

In its 2012 report, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (UNOHCHR) said that a comprehensive approach to fighting impunity should
be within the framework of “[e]stablishing effective mechanisms to ensure that those
who commit human rights violations do not go unpunished” (“Impunity and the Rule
of Law”, 2013, p. 30). According to the report, this “provides a framework for the
rights to justice, truth, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence” (“Impunity and
the Rule of Law”, 2013, p. 30).

With regard to my ongoing doctoral thesis, I have prepared a diagram which attempts
to make sense of how culture of impunity permeates society (see Figure 1) and
consequently affects governance and press freedom. The problem of impunity
happens frequently in society based on the given statistics on media killings and other
forms of harassment and intimidation not just in the Philippines but in other selected
parts of the world. This is not surprising when considering the IFJ’s statement that
“when a government fails to stamp out impunity, it becomes embedded and
normalised in the national psyche” (IFJ, 2016, p. 48).

Figure 1. Culture of Impunity and Culture of Resistance. This figure shows how
impunity affects society.

Within this society are two competing cultures – one of impunity and the other of
resistance. The UN stressed that impunity “has a chilling effect on society including
journalists themselves” ("International Day", 2014, para. 5). In addition, acquiescence
happens within a culture of impunity as many journalists exercise self-censorship
(Owens, 2014, p. 52) and other members of society live in a climate of fear. Schatz
(2008) also described a cautionary tale of the state acquiescing to extra-judicial

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 232

killings as a result of the impunity afforded the perpetrators (p. 287). Consciously or
unconsciously, those who end up afraid (due to the chilling effect) and docile (as a
result of acquiescence) would have the perspective to retain the status quo and
consequently discourage or end any resistance to it. Journaliste en Danger (JED, or
Journalists in Danger) General Secretary Tshivis Tshivuadi said that, as a result of
repression, “Journalists are currently limiting their work to...the minimum level of
service: to produce news content without getting into trouble” (Chadwick, 2016, para.
19). However, the social tension becomes apparent as the culture of resistance spawns
two kinds of movement to change the status quo – reform on one hand and revolution
on the other (McQuail, 2013, p. 73). While the culture of impunity promotes a sense
of deceptive normalcy (essentially a “business-as-usual” discourse on the situation),
the culture of resistance seeks to expose the oppressive reality in society (mainly
characterized by highlighting the cases of harassment and intimidation experienced by
members of the mass media and the mass movement).

Amid the two competing cultures of impunity and resistance, there are victims of
impunity and movers of resistance coming from the ranks of the mass movement
(activists) and the mass media (journalists). Simon (2015) stressed that even
journalists – the need to be objective in their reportage notwithstanding – cannot be
fence-sitters as regards the issue of impunity. He said that journalists “must actively
defend the rights of all people everywhere to gather news, express their opinions, and
disseminate information to the public” (p. 171).

Given the nature of impunity and resistance, the impunity victims and resistance
movers could be swayed either way. It is possible, for example, for the impunity
victims to be enlightened by the necessity of either reform or revolution so that they
would be convinced to join the campaign to end impunity instead of continually
imbibing the chilling effect and acquiescence. On the other hand, the latter two effects
of the culture of impunity could sow fear and apathy among the resistance movers,
grinding to a halt their participation in the movement for change.

Conclusion

Without preempting the conclusion of my ongoing doctoral research, it remains

imperative that “the culture of resistance win over the culture of impunity” (Arao,
2015, p. A16). From a normative viewpoint, journalists cannot be neutral observers as
they should participate in the struggle to promote and uphold human rights and the
people’s basic freedoms. Only then can we achieve effective governance toward
creating an atmosphere conducive to press freedom, free from the specter called the
culture of impunity.

References

Ables, H.A. (2003). Mass communication and Philippine society. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press.
About the campaign. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://daytoendimpunity.org/about
Arao, D. A. (2015, November 22). Reporting, fighting impunity. Philippine Daily
Inquirer, 30, 346 (November 22), p. A16.
Beiser, E. (2015). Syria, France most deadly countries for the press. CPJ Committee
to Protect Journalists, (December 29). Retrieved from

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 233

https://cpj.org/reports/2015/12/journalists-killed-syria-france-most-deadly-
countries-for-the-press.php
Chadwick, P. (2016). In the Democractic Republic of Congo, journalists struggle with
threats and self-censorship. Internews, (January 22). Retrieved from
https://medium.com/local-voices-global-change/in-the-democratic-republic-
of-congo-journalists-struggle-with-threats-and-self-censorship-
7fc200d07d72#.5yfyfrr4b
CMFR. (2016). In the Philippines: Three journalists were killed for their work in
2015, (January 6). Retrieved from http://cmfr-phil.org/autonomy-press-
freedom/press-freedom/in-the-philippines-three-journalists-were-killed-for-
their-work-in-2015/
CPJ Committee to Protect Journalists. (n.d.). Methodology. Retrieved from
https://cpj.org/killed/methodology.php
Equipo Nizkor, & Derechos Human Rights. (2005). Updated set of principles for the
protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity,
(June 24). Retrieved from
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/impu/principles.html
Full text. (n.d.). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Getting away with murder. (2015). CPJ Committee to Protect Journalists, (October
8). Retrieved from https://cpj.org/reports/2015/10/impunity-index-getting-
away-with-murder.php
History of the document. (n.d.). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/history.shtml
IFJ International Federation of Journalists. (2016). Journalists and media staff killed
1990-2015: 25 years of contribution towards safer journalism. Retrieved from
http://www.ifj.org/fileadmin/documents/25_Report_Final_sreads_web.pdf
Impunity and the rule of law: Combating impunity and strengthening accountability,
the rule of law and democratic society. (2013, May). In OHCHR Report 2012,
30-43. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.
Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ohchrreport2012/web_en/
allegati/downloads/1_Whole_OHCHR_Report_2012.pdf
International day to end impunity for crimes against journalists (2 November 2014)
and 3rd UN inter-agency meeting on the safety of journalists and the issue of
impunity (4 November 2014) concept note. (2014, August 25). United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/I
DEI_2014/idei_concept_note_en.pdf
Kovach, B., & Rosentiel, T. (2001). The elements of journalism: What newspeople
should know and the public should expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Lisosky, J. M., & Henrischen, J. (2011). War on words: Who will protect
journalists?. USA: ABC-CLIO.
Malinao, A. L. (1997). Journalism for Filipinos. Mandaluyong City: National Book
Store.
McQuail, D. (2013). Journalism and society. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Owens, K. (2014). Honduras: Journalism in the shadow of impunity. C, Cheung,
B. de Caires, T. Mitchell, & T. Thawar (Eds.). (B. Mattiussi, Trans.). London:
PEN International. Retrieved from http://www.pen-international.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/Honduras-Journalism-in-the-Shadow-of-
Impunity1.pdf

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016
 234

Schatz, S. (2008). Disarming the legal system: Impunity for the political murder of
dissidents in Mexico. International Criminal Justice Review, 18(3),
(September). 261-291. USA: SAGE Publications.
Simon, J. (2015). The new censorship: Inside the global battle for media freedom
[Google Play version]. New York: Columbia University Press. Available from
http://play.google.com
Teodoro, L. V., & Kabatay, R. V. (2006). Mass media laws and regulations in the
Philippines (3rd ed.). Pasig City & Singapore: Center for Research and
Communication Foundation, Inc. & Asian Media and Information &
Communication Center.
The 1987 constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. (1987). Mandaluyong
City: National Book Store.
The CMFR ethics manual: A values approach to news media ethics. (2007).
Makati City: CMFR.
UN plan of action on the safety of journalists and the issue of impunity. (2012, April
12). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/
CI/CI/pdf/official_documents/UN-Plan-on-Safety-Journalists_EN_UN-
Logo.pdf.

The 4th International Conference on Magsaysay Awardees:

Good Governance and Transformative Leadership in Asia, 31 May 2016

View publication stats