PROSPERIDAD, Agusan del Sur - Twelve hostages released. Thirty-six hours without proper sleep. Fourteen live reports.

That’s a recipe for a journalistic pass-out if I ever saw one.

But instead of saying hello to my soft hotel bed, here I am, pontificating.

In 2009, immediately after covering Andal Ampatuan Sr.’s arrest in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre, I was sent by my editors to the little town of Prosperidad in Agusan del Sur to cover a hostage crisis.

Seventy-five people were held captive by a bandit group led by Ondo Perez, a Manobo tribesman and a former CAFGU [Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit]. His demand was for the government to drop a multiple murder charge against him in exchange for the release of the hostages.

Days later, Perez surrendered after pressure from the authorities. The hostages were released. And, like every good story book hostage crisis, it ended with officials declaring the outcome a happily ever after.

Or so they thought.

Sixteen months later, I got a call from a source that Ondo Perez’ nephew, Ken-Ken, had rebuilt the group, and that he had taken hostage 15 individuals, 9 of them teachers and 2 students who just came from their school graduation. Their demand? The release of Ondo Perez.

No starving Hollywood writer could have come up with a grander plan for a sequel than this.

The next call came from the bosses, telling me that the next flight to Prosperidad was waiting for me.

So, 16 months later, I was back in Agusan del Sur.

But 16 months after, it was a different Agusan del Sur.

Sixteen months later, it was a redux of some sort for myself who, on paper, was an older, more experienced journalist.

But 16 months later, it was a different world for journalists working on a hostage crisis story.

In light of the August 23 hostage crisis at the Quirino Grandstand, where 8 Hong Kong tourists tragically lost their lives, the ways of covering a hostage incident had dramatically been altered.

Hostage crises are no longer coverage-by-numbers. No longer a walk in the park. Every minute was like walking on eggshells.

In 2009, reporters broke any story they could gather in Agusan del Sur.

Reporters, including myself, climbed up a mountain to interview the hostage-taker. Reporters raced against each other to interview family members of both the perpetrators and the victims, not so much of a second thought on how those interviews would influence what was at stake.

No one questioned our moves. Not even the officials.

To a certain extent, they even encouraged it. Negotiators were the ones who brought the reporters to the hostage-takers.

The crisis in 2009 ended well. The bad guy was arrested. The good guys won. The media celebrated after a successful coverage. It was a good ending for all, so why question the ways?

But again, the August 23 incident changed that. It was like your parents telling you that Santa Claus wasn’t real.

How we used to cover hostage crises had to be fixed. Every word said in a live report now counts.

So, in our coverage this time around, things were different.

Reporters were made to stay in a specific area – a makeshift town hall basketball court to be specific. Here, reporters waited for hours on end for any information served on a platter by the Crisis Management Committee.

Reporters from different networks tapped each other on the back and asked if the information we were given could even be reported on TV.

We asked each other if it was ethical. We asked if the news we were about to give to the public would have any effect on the ongoing negotiations.

Debates and arguments ensued, but at the end of the day, majority ruled. Ethics ruled.

Of course, things weren’t perfect. If the national media were well aware of the pitfalls of a hostage crisis coverage, some of the local media weren’t as informed. Some still managed to make contact with the hostage-takers. But still, it was a breath of reality, a dose of fresh air.

Most of the journalists were more sensitive in gate-keeping information and learning anew how things really should be covered. It was like learning how to walk again.

Like in 2009, this year’s Agusan del Sur hostage crisis ended well. The bad guys lost. The good guys won. The media celebrated another successful coverage.

It’s a good ending. But this time around, reporters slept soundly at night, knowing that things were different. Things were better.

And that’s my cue to call it a night.