MANILA, Philippines - The "Right of Reply" bill, both the senate and House versions, were obviously crafted and, in the case of the Senate bill authored by Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., already passed, with total ignorance of the workings of news organizations. They were done without undergoing committee hearings where journalists were invited as resource persons. If they had, they would have known that the bill is unnecessary and a waste of time. Persons and organizations that are the subject of news stories are already given the right to reply-in fact, asked for their comments-which are published at the same time as the first story. No need to wait one or three days.

When the reply or comment is not published at the same time as the story, it means one of two things: the subject is not available or withholds comment until he or she reads the story in the newspaper and/or he/she wants to consult his/her lawyer. In any case, the story says why there is no comment from the subject in spite of efforts to contact him. A third reason is that the subject is guilty or does not want to incriminate himself further or does not know what to say and would rather not say anything. You know, no talk, no mistake. Example: Senate President Manuel Villar who doesn't want to say anything one way or the other on the controversial C-5 extension project in spite of repeated questions from reporters. He doesn't even want to attend forums or be interviewed by anybody regarding the project. What can a news organization do with a person like that? It is not the fault of the organizations that he has no replies to accusations thrown his way by fellow senators. He doesn't want to reply. But you can be sure that the moment Villar-or any other person-recovers his wits and gives a statement explaining his role in the budget insertion, it would appear in all the front pages of the newspapers. It is that important a news story and the public is eager to hear his side.

Similarly, the public is still waiting until now to hear the explanation of President Macapagal-Arroyo on the "Hello Garci" tape. Was that her talking to Garci? What were they talking about? We haven't heard anything from her-yet. So it is not the fault of news organizations that her side was not published or broadcast by media. She doesn't want to give her side. Or maybe she has no side.

It is the policy and standard practice in newspapers-at least in the legitimate ones-to balance all stories by always giving both sides. (That is why the motto of the Inquirer is "Balanced news, fearless views.") This is drummed into the heads of journalism students. Editors keep reminding their reporters of this at every opportunity. And reporters who fail to do this get a tongue-lashing and ordered to get the other side. If the other side is not available or there is no more time, they are told to get it the next day or as soon as possible. If the subject calls to give his side while the press is already running, the press is usually stopped and his reply inserted even if that means delaying the print run and incurring additional costs.

I have been a journalist for almost my entire life working for different newspapers, and there is not one single instance that I can remember that a newspaper for which I worked refused the subject of a story the right to reply.

So you see, a "right of reply" law is superfluous and unnecessary.

What will happen is that certain publicity-hungry persons will use the law to force news organizations to publish their statements, no matter how trivial the original stories are. And you know how some people become windy when talking about themselves or defending themselves. What will happen is that the pages of newspapers will be full of long-winded replies (the bills mandate that the replies be printed word for word), thus elbowing out more important stories and the advertisements without which no newspaper can survive. Besides, these replies will probably be full of lies and half-truths, so the reading public gets neither the truth nor a balanced view of the story. Not only that, the first side will most likely demand to make its own reply to the reply of the other side, which will then reply again and so on, thus making the exchange of replies almost endless.

Those are the practical considerations that our lawmakers failed to take into account because their railroad was running too fast. The more important consideration is that it is unconstitutional, being against freedom of the press. It is prior restraint.

The Inquirer editorial of last Saturday also pointed out other considerations (read it), the most important being that if the original story was important enough to be the main headline, the reply, according to the law, should also be the main headline and with the same length, and not even a nuclear war can dislodge that reply from the headline, under pain of hefty fines or prison terms mandated by the law.

The authors of the two bills, Senator Pimentel and Rep. Monico Puentevella, claim they were not given the right to reply to derogatory stories about them in the past, that is why they filed their bills. But they were referring to provincial newspapers, not to the national broadsheets. They could have used good public relations or other more persuasive measures on the newspapers in their respective provinces (no national broadsheet would deny them the right of reply). Also, they were obviously motivated by pique and not by rational thinking. They were thinking of themselves and not the good of the public. They wanted to get even. That is not a justifiable reason to pass a law.

The other more sensible legislators should, for once, discard the camaraderie and "pakikisama" syndrome and reject the bills.