Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 02:08:00 10/04/2008
MANILA, Philippines—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.
Copyright 2008 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
To
subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines,
call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the
Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk.
Believe this article violates journalistic ethics?
Contact the
Inquirer's Reader's Advocate.
Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino RocesAvenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets,
Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
![Zoom Image](javascript:popwin("http://images.inquirer.net/media/opinion/inquireropinion/editorial/images/pic-10040242370723.jpg", 640, 480))
Zoom
