It’s probably too late now to stop Congress from passing the bill compelling media organizations to air the side of anyone who has been criticized or accused of wrongdoing. The Senate version of the bill, principally authored by Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., was approved last June, and a counterpart measure, sponsored by Rep. Monico Puentevella of Bacolod City, is scheduled for floor debates anytime soon in the House of Representatives.
The twin measures would require media organizations to publish or broadcast the reply of anyone who has been accused of committing any crime or who has been criticized “by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapses in behavior.” In the House version, the reply must be used not later than one day after delivery, while the Senate version gives a three-day deadline. And it would not be enough to print or broadcast the reply.
It has to be of the same length as the offending article and it must be published on the same space. Failure to comply would merit fines ranging from P10,000 to P50,000 in the Pimentel bill, while in Puentevella’s version the fine could go up to P200,000; offenders could be jailed for a period of up 30 days and the publication or broadcast station could be shut down for a month.
The authors and supporters of the bill cite the need for “fair play” and “equal treatment” to justify the measure. And while Puentevella complains that he has been “victimized” by “unscrupulous people [who] use newspapers to malign others,” Pimentel has said his bill is “not an infringement of the freedom of the press” but an “expansion of that right.” Pimentel said publishing or airing the side of aggrieved parties would even strengthen the media’s credibility and protect journalists by eliminating a source of grievance that has led some powerful individuals to file libel suits or hire criminals to harass or kill “defaulting journalists.”
The bill is, in fact, a poisoned chalice that cannot even pass the practicality test. Consider, for instance, a situation in which a newspaper has published an article deemed derogatory by a senator. If the story rated a banner headline, then his reply, once delivered, has to be the banner, too, and not even a nuclear explosion in Metro Manila can nudge it away from the most prominent space on the front page. Or consider a columnist who is not exactly enamored of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo: Under this bill, he must yield his space (and forfeit his pay) every time Ms Arroyo feels like taking issue with what he has written about her. And a letter to the editor will take the place of an editorial soon after a newspaper criticizes a government official.
What the bill will do is to turn a newspaper that takes its job seriously into a journalistic chameleon: watchdog one day, and lapdog the next day, a critical organ one day and an administration mouthpiece the next day. How is that for credibility?
If forcing media organizations to publish everybody’s own version of a story that put them in a bad light is supposed to help enhance their credibility, the media can do without the help. Journalists don’t need to be reminded that credibility is essential to any news organization’s survival. But substituting legal diktat for independent news judgment won’t enhance the credibility of any news organization. It just curtails a news organization’s right to exercise editorial judgment and discretion and it will ultimately kill press freedom.
With Congress dead set on mounting this fresh assault on the media’s independence and freedom, all that the press can do is trust the Supreme Court to rush to its defense when the time comes. It would be useless to ask the President to veto the bill once it is sent to her desk. Proclamation 1017, which the police and military used as an excuse to shut down one newspaper, should indicate where her sympathies lie as regards this piece of legislation. After all, this is an administration that didn’t think twice about handcuffing and detaining journalists for the “crime” of covering the standoff at Peninsula Manila.
The press is likely to have better luck with the Supreme Court. The Constitution clearly says: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press.” Following dictation is not an exercise of freedom.
Related articles:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20081002-164102/Solon-to-defend-right-to-reply-bill
Hi Ellen,
I agree that press freedom should not be curtailed in any form. And the bill filed by Pimentel and Puentevella is a curtailment of press freedom. But having said that, I also agree that an individual has also the right to defend himself (whether in court or in public) when accused or maligned by a news reporter.
There are some instances that a media person can actually use his influence to harass or intimidate someone he fancies. One example are broadcasters, especially block timers in the A.M. band, those so called crime busters on radio. A complainant would call up his program complaining about someone, what he (the broadcaster) usually does is call the accused to let him say his side of the story. But while the accused is still talking, this broadcaster would bad mouth and insult the accused and make it appear that the accused is already guilty.
Just because the complainant is poor and the accused is some rich businessman doesn’t mean that the complainant is telling the truth. He wants to make it appear that he is a crime buster, a judge and an executioner at the same time. Not fair for the accused.
My point is, while I do agree that press freedom shall by all means be protected, how about a person who is wrongly accused in public by some unscrupulous media person who had an axed to grind or for whatever reason? What protection can an innocent person have?
It’s no difference from your earlier thread about suspects being paraded in media.
Isn’t this blame the victim logic that excuses the behavior of ‘powerful individuals’ to ‘file libel suits and hire criminals to kill or harass defaulting journalist’?
04 October 2008
Off-topic if you may. At last our kidnapped seamen from Somalia arrive home safe and sound, except for one Jason Dumagay. But what catches my attention is why is VICE PRESIDENT NOLI DE CASTRO THERE???except for being (allegedly) the adviser by the boss woman on OFW, otherwise “NONE”. He who has no bearing in assisting our OFWs, is presenting himself as champion of the OFWs. What did he do for the release of these seamen??? your answers is as good as mine.
Yeah, he may have gone to the middle east to talked to an Emir, a Prince or a King, but only after getting instructions from the boss woman, otherwise, he act noting.
Pity these OFWs, being take advantage of our politicans, take for example villar, he may have help (???) some of out OFWs, but in exchange for what??? his bid for 2010??? If these so called bright leaders of ours is crafting a law that will make our kababayans stay in the Philippines, or laws that will benefit the good of all pinoys, by all means I will campaign for them. But these politicians are only using our OFWs (if I may borrow from PJEE) for POGI points only. I know you may disagree with me, but perhaps our friends from the Embassy has done more (with limited personnel and finances) they have done their job. But sad to say, they are the punching bags of the so-called civic organizations, who allegedly are after the welfare of OFWs.
These politicians are taking advantage of the weaknesses of our OFWs and do nothing if the “CIVIC organizations started attacking our frineds from the Embassy, whether from the DFA, DOLE, POEA or OWWA. I have no pity to the Embassy personnel if they neglect their job, but, if they do their job, nothing, no “SIMPLE THANK YOU”.
Going back, what has de castro, villar other notable politicians, particularly the bitch in red has done to our OFWs, what laws was passed in the August chambers of both houses, to ensure that our kababayans will not leave the country for their families???? NOTHING.
I’m not saying I can help our kababayans, but what I am implanting is how to help them, how to convince them to stay in the Philippines, otherwise, NONE at all.
KAYA ngayon pa lang ako ay nangangampanya na sa 2010 iboto si NOTA – None OF The Above!!!!! Dahil lahat naman sila ay sinasamantala ang kahinaan ng bawat Pilipino lal na ang ating mga OFWs.
prans
Natalo na ang concept ng right to reply 34 years ago sa Miami Herald v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241). Ang sabi ng US Supreme Court, in part:
“Compelling editors or publishers to publish that which “‘reason’ tells them should not be published” is what is at issue in this case. The Florida statute operates as a command in the same sense as a statute or regulation forbidding appellant to publish specified matter.”
Sino ang ponente? Si Chief Justice Warren Burger, isa sa pinaka conservative na naluklok sa Supreme Court. Siya ang kalaban nina Black, Douglas at Brennan. Pati itong konserbatibong ito ay tutol sa right to reply.
Ang ultra conservative na si Byron White ay naglathala ng sumasang-ayon (concurring) opinion kung saan sinabi niyang:
“A newspaper or magazine is not a public utility subject to “reasonable” governmental regulation in matters affecting the exercise of journalistic judgment as to what shall be printed. ”
“Regardless of how beneficent-sounding the purposes of controlling the press might be, we prefer “the power of reason as applied through public discussion” and remain intensely skeptical about those measures that would allow government to insinuate itself into the editorial rooms of this Nation’s press….”
Tingnan natin kung paano magpapasya ang mga posturing liberals sa ating Kataas-Taasang Hukuman.
is this our version of the Fairness Doctrine?
There will come a time we read blank pages of the newspapers. or hear deafening silence over the radio flash reports.
Related articles:
Under ‘right of reply’ bill, politicians will have last say:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20081002-164102/Solon-to-defend-right-to-reply-bill
Media Group to challenge measure in court:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081002-164103/Media-groups-to-challenge-bill-in-court
Fr. Larry Faraon is a Catholic priest. But, please read his view:
The battle between the Church and legislators on the Reproductive Health Bill is becoming a “brickbat,” “mudslinging” affair. The CBCP should bring the issue on its own level, namely moral persuasion. The issue should be free from the mire of politics such as threatening the pro-RH bill legislators with a “goner” in 2010 by exhorting their constituents not to re-elect them. But this arm twisting approach could backfire since in recent memory on the past elections, it would seem that even Catholics themselves ignore the bishops’ voting preferences. Remember how they campaigned against President Fidel Ramos because he was a protestant and the “Anybody but Erap” yet President Erap garnered the most number of presidential votes in Philippine election history?
Recently, we discussed about former Senator Orly Mercado’s appointment as Ambassador to China. Grizzy mentioned that Orly did not accept the appointment. He actually did. It’s under confirmation by the CA as reported below:
On Oct. 8, before the afternoon plenary session, the CA’s committee on foreign affairs, chaired by Sen. Miriam Santiago, would hear in the morning the nominations of 13 new ambassadors and 12 other senior officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The ambassadors pending confirmation are former senator Orlando Mercado (to China, North Korea and Mongolia); retired Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Generoso Senga (Iran, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan); Gilberto Asuque (Lebanon); Pedro Chan (Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan); Rey Carandang (Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia).
I didn’t read if it also covers tv and radio, and can only be resorted to by the person named. if so then let’s all ask the radio commentators to malign Gloria every hour of the day including late night programs. That way, she will only have time to exercise her right to reply and no time left to steal!
That bill will not make it in the SC. Puno has already given explicit orders of removing jail sentence for libel cases and is leaning toward decriminalization of libel, which bill is sponsored by father-and-son tag team Escudero. The libel conviction of Tulfo, Pichay’s son and his editors was the first to be upheld but with jail sentence removed.
What’s wrong with Pimentel? Gone nuts? Maybe too much exfolation has exposed his onion skin.
Under ‘right of reply’ bill, politicians will have last say:
*********************
To level the playing field kuno. But they already have parliamentary immunity. They can never be questioned for anything said within their hollow (sorry hallowed daw) halls. Mediamen, on the other hand, will have to deal with libel suits and paid hitmen.
Pimentel said publishing or airing the side of aggrieved parties would even strengthen the media’s credibility and protect journalists by eliminating a source of grievance that has led some powerful individuals to file libel suits or hire criminals to harass or kill “defaulting journalists.”
******************************
Magnifico. Kung may right to reply, wala nang papataying mediamen. How logical. Tell that to Jonas Burgos.
Time to pass the baton to your son sir. Too bad your wisdom in your sunset years has not mellowed like Old Man Tañada’s or your running mate’s (Jovy Salonga).
Tumanda na talaga si Nene!
Tongue,
No man is an island. There must be a tether that connects him somehow with malacanan subtle ways.
Tongue, you can’t be sure with the Supreme Court. Puno, together with Carpio, has become “the great dissenter” lately.
I agree, Ellen. I personally believe Puno is doing a great job at SC. And I hope other justices come to their senses soon like Carpio.
Tongue, this is also for you:
A recent Ateneo bonfire celebration has added fuel to the varsity animosity between the Blue Eagles and the De La Salle University Green Archers, prompting an apology from top officials of the Loyola-based school.
Ateneo de Manila University president Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, SJ, recently apologized to the La Sallian community for an irreverent incident during the bonfire on the Ateneo campus last Sept. 30 to celebrate the UAAP championship won by the Eagles at the expense of the Archers.
Some of the firewood used at the bonfire had the names of the entire La Salle roster bannered by JV Casio, Rico Maierhofer and coach Franz Pumaren.
“Despite our rivalries in sports, we are both committed to Christian values and what was done is certainly a violation of values we share,” Nebres said in a letter to De La Salle University System president Br. Armin Luistro, FSC, dated Oct. 2.
As reports and photos of the incident circulated in blogs and online basketball forums, students and alumni from La Salle, and even Ateneo, branded the act distasteful regardless of the rivalry between the two elite squads.
Nebres said none of the school officials “saw it ahead of time, because the wood pile was covered by a tarp against the rain until the time came to light it.”
An alumnus already claimed responsibility for “producing the materials” and apologized to Nebres for “the backlash it created.”
“Our community accepted [Ateneo’s apology],” Br. Bernie Oca, FSC, La Salle’s representative to the UAAP board, said Sunday. “We are also awaiting the results of their investigations which they said they will do.”
….Does Ateneo have the moral authority to talk about values? Aren’t FG Mike Arroyo, Nani Perez and the many corrupt lawyers products of Ateneo? Right inside the DOJ, there’s an Ateneo Mafia.
Okay lang yan BE, sa CR ng La Salle-Taft meron ding pangalan ng Ateneo sa sandalan ng water closet e.
Paano naman yung mga tinitira nila sa government networks? Gaya nung mga recorded nilang paninira kay Lacson nila Mawanay, Rosebud, at Mon Tulfo. Ipinalalabas tuwing may expose si Lacson. Igagawa ba nila si Lacson ng recorded response?
I share your observation, Tongue. Whenever Lacson makes noise against Malacanang and its allies, they resurrect his old cases, true or not true. Lacson is all by himself in this crusade against corruption and corrupt government officials. He’s likened to that Gov. Panlilio whose local executives are ganging up on him since he assumed office as Governor. Gambling lords headed by the ever untouchable Bong Pineda, GMA’s compadre, keep hitting Panlilio’s back. What about Lacson-Panlilio team in 2010?