4 senators, DOJ chief favor right of reply bill

MANILA, Philippines - Even as Malacañang said it would veto the “right of reply” bill, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and three other senators said yesterday Congress should go ahead with the passage of the controversial proposal.

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez also joined the senators in support of the bill, which he said would regulate the media industry and require journalists to always get two sides of a story.

“The Right of Reply Bill (RORB) is not violative of freedom of the press. It does not mean to curtail the media’s right to print stories. It merely seeks to provide the personality (cited in the news report) the venue and the right to air his side,” he said.

Gonzalez said the reply proposal “is merely an exercise of fair play.”

Pimentel, principal author of the counterpart bill in the Senate, said a number of his colleagues believe the proposed measure does not infringe on press freedom but recognizes the right of any person to present his side in response to an adverse report or commentary.

The lawmakers that gave their support for Pimentel’s proposal include Senators Gregorio Honasan, Edgardo Angara, Joker Arroyo, Richard Gordon, Panfilo Lacson and Juan Miguel Zubiri.

The six senators joined Pimentel in calling on critics to acknowledge the inherent merits of the bill. They pointed out the proposal upholds the freedom of expression on both sides and enhances responsible journalism.

The House of Representatives, on the other hand, yesterday decided to hold in abeyance plenary debates on the Right of Reply Bill.

Speaker Prospero Nograles ordered Majority Leader Arthur Defensor (Iloilo) to “hold the discussions” on the issue until after the ASEAN leaders’ summit in Thailand.

Nograles said this would allow stakeholders to participate in the discussions over the inputs by various media organizations on the proposal.

Nograles has invited representatives of media organizations to a dialogue next week on the proposal.

Nograles said the dialogue could clear up the “misunderstandings” between lawmakers and the media on the proposed law.

“Let’s look for a win-win solution,” he said.

Nograles said media practitioners and critics should blame the Senate over the proposal that it had approved in compelling media organizations to give the same space or airtime to replies of persons to adverse reports on pain of being fined or imprisoned.

“Media are looking at the House when it was the Senate that voted 21 to zero for this bill. Now we are the one in the hot seat? Am puzzled,” Nograles said.

Nograles pointed out Bacolod City Rep. Monico Puentevella introduced the counterpart version of the proposed law in the House.

The House also approved on second reading on Wednesday the companion-measure (House Bill 5760) and a counter-balance – the decriminalization of libel.

According to Nograles, the House survey showed an overwhelming majority supports the RORB.

“But my personal position on this issue is this: I would like to conduct more dialog and consultations with the stakeholders before recommending the committee on public information to endorse this to the plenary,” Nograles said.

“Personally, I support this measure but it should go hand-in-hand with the proposal to decriminalize libel,” he said.

Nograles also noted the complaints of media practitioners that public officials do not answer calls when they are asked to reply on issues raised against them.

Nograles said he would propose that all government agencies and public officials should designate accessible spokespersons to answer calls from the media “so they can be given the chance to reply when issues are raised against them.”

‘Innovative’

Secretary Gonzalez, on the other hand, stressed the RORB would promote fairness in media reports.

He further argued that every freedom granted under the Constitution is not absolute.

“The right of reply bill could be a successful mechanism to promote fairness in public information as long as it does not become a form of harassment,” he said.

“And besides, editors and publishers have the last say on whether they will print the personalities’ reply or not. They can judge for themselves whether the contents are merely frivolous or noteworthy,” Gonzalez added.

Honasan, one of the senators supporting the RORB, stressed the measure is necessary to curb irresponsible journalism and trial by publicity.

Honasan pointed out that some media practitioners have allowed themselves to be used by unscrupulous law enforcement and military authorities for disinformation and demolition campaign against certain individuals by leaking unverified intelligence data.

“In some extreme cases, this particular aspect of media irresponsibility spells the difference between freedom and incarceration, preserving a good name and the destruction of that name,” Honasan said, relating to his experience as a former renegade soldier turned politician.

For his part, Sen. Arroyo said the bill does not diminish whatsoever the rights that are already granted to the media.

“What this bill provides is a methodology whereby an aggrieved party may have immediate redress if the media should in any manner offend him,” Arroyo said.

Arroyo, a human rights lawyer, believes that the people “will gain more out of the right of reply bill” and the media practitioners should not be scared of its enactment into law.

Arroyo urged the House of Representatives to immediately approve the RORB “because it is a very innovative, a very original and very novel bill.”

Arroyo urged critics to appreciate the inherent aspects of the bill.

Angara, for his part, noted the adverse criticisms on the reply bill, which he said, primarily stemmed from fear that it will undermine editorial freedom.

Pimentel though emphasized that the right to valuable space being controlled solely by the media has to be balanced by a corresponding right of the people to be heard in their own defense.

On the other hand, Senators Francis Escudero, Loren Legarda, Manuel Roxas II and Manuel Villar Jr. — all presidential wannabes –- expressed their apprehensions on the passage of the RORB at the Senate.

If only

Legarda said an “untrammeled” press is better that a press that is dictated to by authority, which was the reason why she withdrew her support for the RORB.

According to Legarda, the RORB is an “infringement on editorial prerogative and the freedom of expression” guaranteed under the Constitution.

Legarda, a former broadcast journalist, said she has expressed her reservation over RORB when it was hotly debated in the Senate.

Vice President Noli de Castro, a media practitioner himself, said the RORB is unnecessary if only some of his colleagues should have observed fair reporting and avoid sensationalism.

“I don’t see the need for a law requiring journalists to give the opportunity for their subjects to reply. This is already ensured in their sworn duty as journalists based on their Code of Ethics, giving the chance of rejoinder to the parties involved (to air their side) in their respective stories,” he said.

De Castro said lawmakers were prompted to file the RORB because of the fact that some of them “became victims of irresponsible journalism.”

“What is really important is for media practitioners to be faithful to the ethical standards required of them. The basic tenets of fairness will impel a journalist to air both sides of every issue,” he said.

Commission on Human Rights (CHR) chairperson Leila de Lima also said the RORB is not necessary.

De Lima said current media practices could already be considered “forms of the right of reply.”

De Lima mentioned the institution has implemented self-regulation mechanisms such as correction or errata boxes, letters to the editor, emails, and text messaging, among others, where the media “actively solicits reply to issues it presents.”

“The right of reply is already ensured and exercised with media policing its own ranks. Self-regulation is the key to ensuring a responsible media, not putting strings on the exercise of the freedom by legislating a ‘right of reply’,” De Lima pointed out.

The Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) said the move to postpone the floor deliberations on the RORB at the House only shows the proposal is inherently weak.

KBP president Herman Basbano said the deletions and several amendments made by congressmen over the bill indicated the proposal has not been well studied.

“I appreciate the congressmen for being sensitive to public clamor by trying to amend the bill but the move is short of what should be done. The bill should not only be toned down but put down,” he said. –With Edu Punay, Jess Diaz, Delon Porcalla, Pia Lee-Brago, Jose Rodel Clapano, Katherine Adraneda, Roel Pareño