Kill bill: Media groups unwavering in stance vs right of reply measure

MANILA, Philippines – These days, the media has a pet campaign: the call for the outright dismissal of the Right of Reply bill, a measure that they say will curtail press freedom. Ever since members of various media outfits and organizations intensified their vehement opposition to Senate Bill 2150 and House Bill 3306 this year, the bills' authors in Congress have expressed willingness to amend the bill to make it more palatable to members of the media. Some senators, including those reported to be running for president in 2010, have even pulled out their support for the measure, which the Senate approved as early as July 2008. Under heat from media groups, the leadership of the House of Representatives decided last week to defer deliberations on the bill - which is currently on second reading - until media are properly consulted. In an interview with GMANews.TV, House Public Information committee chair Bienvenido Abante Jr. said he will send letters addressed to media editors and owners requesting for their position papers and suggestions on how the controversial measure ought to be tackled. The measure will be amended over the month-long Congress break to include the input of media organizations, Abante said. "We plan to consolidate all of those inputs and all of the amendments proposed," Abante said. "The chance of that being deliberated on the floor at this point in time is nil because there will still be discussions and consultations, and there are dialogues," said the lawmaker. But why consult the media only now? One hearing in Senate The Right of Reply bills mandate media outfits to publish or broadcast the replies of personalities accused or criticized in news stories, whether directly or indirectly. The House version gives media outfits one day to publish or air the reply from the time of receipt, while the Senate gives a three-day deadline. SB 2150 was filed by Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. in July 2007. It was not the first time Pimentel made the proposal, as he has filed a similar measure in the 12th and 13th Congresses. In his explanatory note, Pimentel said the measure was meant “to enable all persons to equitably exercise their right of reply in the field of broadcast and print media and protects its exercise by providing penalties for violation of such right." Pimentel’s proposal included the penalty of imprisonment for not more than 30 days of the editor-in-chief, publisher, station manager, or owner of the broadcast network or newspaper. However, this provision was removed when the bill passed through the committees on Public Information and Mass Media and Justice and Human Rights chaired by Senators Ramon Revilla Jr. and Francis Escudero, respectively. In the only public hearing the committees held before endorsing the bill for plenary debates, Pimentel said his main concern was fairness. “My main concern really is to be fair. If we are fair, I don’t think people will disagree with the proposal," he said. “We who are politicians are really fair game of criticism. I don’t mind that, that's part of the turf. Pero kung minsan nga nasosobrahan naman. Especially at the local level, mas mababa ang tolerance nila doon [But sometimes the media go too far. Especially at the local level, where the tolerance for criticism is low]. All of us know that for criticisms that are aired their way and every often the solution goes out to the barrel of a gun," said Pimentel. Pimentel said the main target of his bill were block-timers, because no organization regulates them. Pimentel’s bill was eventually passed after only one public hearing. According to the office of Revilla, the bill went through one public hearing to comply with the legal requirement because a couple of hearings were already held in the previous Congress on a similar measure. According to Senate records, present in the hearing were Juan Dayang, president of the Publishers Association of the Philippines (PAP); lawyer Rudolph Jularbal, legal counsel of the Kapisanan ng Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP); Leo Omoso, deputy director general of the Philippine Information Agency; lawyer Dexter Calizar of the Commission on Human Rights; Justice assistant secretary Teresita Reyes-Domingo; Angelique Umbac, chief for Legislative Liaison Office of the Civil Service Commission; and Nicanor Bon and Brenda Villafuerte from the Department of Labor and Employment. Invited but failed to attend the hearing were Benjamin Romualdez of Philippine Journalists Inc; Roy Mabasa of the National Press Club; Amado Macasaet of the Philippine Press Institute; Dr Nicanor Tiongson, dean of the University of the Philippines-College of Mass Communication and Inday Varona of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines. Senators who recently withdrew their support for the bill claimed that it was only now that they heard opposition to the bill, but the transcript of the February 19, 2008 hearing showed that the KBP and PAP have already manifested their concern on the proposal. Lawyer Rudolph Jularbal, KBP legal counsel, even said during the hearing that while the organization recognizes the right of reply as a proper ethical practice in journalism, they are wary about making it a legislative measure. He said the right of reply or the opportunity to respond to an adverse or derogatory statement is best left in the realm of self regulation. "We believe that there are constitutional issues, particularly prior restraint in the subject matter of the bill and also the matter of laws that try to restrain press freedom are better aired in the side of excess rather than on strictness," Jularbal said. "Although we believe that there are issues pertaining to the right of reply and there are valid concerns regarding this matter, in our consultation with our members, their position is we leave this to the area of self regulation," he added. Meanwhile, an NPC official said he did not attend the hearing because they do not want to engage in "futile debate." Then NPC President Roy Mabasa, however, told GMANews.TV that the organization already submitted its position paper on the proposal. Despite these inputs, the committee submitted its report on April 3, 2008 and was approved on third reading in July of the same year. It was then transmitted to the House. Executive session in House The House version of the Right of Reply Bill, meanwhile, is a consolidation of two bills passed by Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara and Bacolod City Rep. Monico Puentevella. The bills were consolidated and approved in one executive session in December 2007 because similar bills had already been passed in the committee-level during the 12th Congress, and another one was re-filed in the 13th Congress. Angara—who withdrew his authorship of the bill in mid-2008 after hearing from newspaper editors and publishers—said that like in the Senate, there was a policy to fast-track the approval of measures that were already passed and heard in previous Congresses. "Yun ang policy ng House noon e, pagka previously passed and heard already ipa-fastrack na sa committee. In the Senate merong similar policy [That is the policy of the House then, if there is a previously passed and heard bill it will be fast-tracked in the committee. In the Senate there is a similar policy]," said Angara in an interview with GMANews.TV. Angara said he filed his HB 162 because he found some media outfits unfair, saying he himself was maligned in the media—and was not given a chance to air his side—when he was running for congressman for the first time. "There are some media outfits who are not really fair, who do not even bother to get the side of their subjects," Angara said. Puentevella likewise said he filed his HB 1001 because he found the idea of giving public figures a chance to air their sides “practical," particularly during the campaign period. “I find it very practical during the campaign period when everybody is allowed to use any microphone, write any article to malign any candidate," the lawmaker told GMANews.TV in an interview, adding that he himself had been maligned in the media “plenty" of times during previous campaign periods. Puentevella added that he also crafted the bill for “the movie industry," which he said is filled with libelous stories that easily destroy people’s lives. Puentevella noted, however, that most of the supposedly bad reportage comes from media outside Metro Manila. Puentevella—a former president of the Negros Press Club who still maintains a weekly TV program in his region—said his bill will help “improve the quality of journalism." "In media today everyone admits that there are bad traits in the media, who abuse the ethics of journalism, using it to their advantage for their vested interests, using the freedom of the press," he said. Puentevella is standing by his bill despite widespread media criticism, but Angara has long withdrawn his authorship of the controversial measure. Angara said he withdrew his authorship of the bill in the middle of 2008 after several newspaper editors and publishers told him the bill was practically unnecessary. "Maraming sumusulat sa akin na newspaper editors, publishers, sabi nila they practice already the right to reply [Several newspaper editors and publishers wrote me, they said they already practice the right to reply]," Angara said. Under the committee-approved measure, the reply of the accused or criticized personality must be printed in the same space that the article in question was published. Newspapermen said this would be difficult to operationalize - and may even translate to lower profit - because not all replies are worth being given the same treatment as the original story, Angara said. 'Kill Bill' This is just one of the arguments echoed by the media outfits and organizations calling for the outright junking of the Right of Reply bills. Aside from the KBP and the NPC, these include the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Business World, ABS-CBN, and GMA Network Inc. “Once again, press freedom is under siege from political forces insidiously trying to further their personal agenda, this time through legislature," NUJP vice chairperson Nonoy Espina said in a press conference. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) itself denounced the proposed measure as unconstitutional. "While the exercise of the freedom of expression is not absolute but subject to constitutional limitations and restrictions, it is the position of the Commission on Human Rights that proposals to legislate a right of reply fails to pass the test of necessity and crosses the 'prior restraint' prohibition of the Constitution by requiring the publication without regard for editorial prerogative," CHR chairperson Leila de Lima said in a statement. Even Abante himself said he has his own reservations about the bill, admitting that there might be issues of constitutionality such as whether it will infringe on press freedom. "We're still trying to gather and ask some comments from different legal luminaries on the constitutionality of the bill," said Abante, adding that in hindsight, it probably would have been better if his committee had invited media people as resource persons in committee deliberations early on. Abante later said in a press conference that he himself would pull out his support for the bill if he is convinced that the media opposed to it are right. “I am willing to withdraw my support if I am not convinced that the Right of Reply Bill should become a law," Abante said. Three senators have already pulled out their support for the bill even though the Senate has already passed it on third reading. These are Escudero, Loren Legarda, and Manuel Roxas II. Escudero said he withdrew his support from the bill because he wanted to stand on the side of press freedom. He said that then Senators Ambrosio Padilla, Mamintal Tamano, and Rene Espina sponsored a similar bill, Senate Bill No. 903, in the pre-martial law Senate. The issues raised in the Padilla, Tamano and Espina bill, are basically the same issues replicated in the Pimentel-Puentevella measure, he said. He said that the NPC at that time, then led by Eddie Monteclaro, pointed out that "the right to reply is better realized through editorial discretion and voluntary acts rather than through forcible dictation through state machinery which infringes upon a basic freedom." According to Escudero, the NPC position paper submitted during a Senate hearing in May 1972 also said: "The proper remedy for public officials or private persons who may be aggrieved by any publication or radio-TV broadcast is to file criminal charges for libel or slander, should they feel that such publication or broadcast commentary had violated their right to a good name or reputation. "The remedy does not lie in dictation or the curtailment of editorial discretion in the evaluation of news items or articles, or in requiring broadcast commentators to say something they may not want to say, which are essential elements of free speech and press." Escudero said that the Padilla bill did not prosper and languished at the committee level, and was eventually overtaken by the imposition of martial law. "Many of my Senate colleagues have began to express misgivings in voting for the bill," he said. "The issues have been joined. It is time for closure. It did not pass the first time, it will not pass this time." "This bill, if passed, might end up being used by the unscrupulous and corrupt, who have the means, to handcuff the media. It puts an additional burden on media which is already saddled with a libel law that treats journalists as criminals," Escudero added. For her part, Legarda withdrew her support from the bill having realized “that an untrammeled press is better than a press that is dictated by authority." She said the media have their own codes of ethics that compel them to be objective and fair in their reportage and commentaries. “They have professional organizations that oblige them to observe these principles with sanctions. The check to the power of media is the public which can hold its patronage if the media organization is unfair, biased or malicious," Legarda. Pimentel is firm in his stance that his proposal should be passed, but he has expressed willingness to amend the bill to make it more palatable to the media. Pimentel said he will propose the insertion of a provision stating that “any person who has already been accorded the right to reply by the mass media over an objectionable story or commentary could not sue for libel anymore over the same item." Pimentel said the amendment could be made during the bicameral conference committee meeting on the measure. In the House, Puentevella and other authors of the bill have also introduced amendments to the measure, including the removal of the provisions providing that repeatedly non-complying media organizations can be closed down. The one-day deadline was also extended to three days, like in the Senate version. Puentevella said he is hoping lawmakers and the media will be able to find a “win-win solution" to the controversy. He also brushed aside criticisms of the measure as unconstitutional, and challenged critics of the measure to take the issue to the Supreme Court. “That's (constitutionality) for the Supreme Court to decide. I would be glad if they bring this to the Supreme Court so that we can end these arguments as soon as possible," Puentevella said. When session resumes on April 13, members of the House will either conduct a survey or hold an all member caucus wherein they will determine whether they will put the final draft of the measure—which ideally involves input from media members—to a vote. For many media members, however, the only option is to kill the bill—even if the proposed measure to decriminalize libel, which is being presented by lawmakers as companion measure of sorts, is also passed. NPC Director Joel Egco said in a press conference, "We'd rather go for the outright junking of the bill. “We'd rather go for an entirely libelous media than a partly regulated one." - GMANews.TV