Superfluous

I have been consistent in my belief that the Consultative Constitutional Commission (Con Com) is a superfluity in the whole process of changing our charter. It is not one of those authorized by the charter itself to propose amendments or revisions therein. The results of its deliberations and the fruits of its labors are nothing but suggestions that can be made by any civic or political group, club or NGOs at the actual start of the process of amendment by the duly authorized Constituent Assembly. Its avowed and much heralded exhaustive studies and thorough grassroots consultation prior to coming out with its proposals do not prevent or deter the duly authorized Constituent Assembly from repeating what it has done or conducting another such studies and consultations over the same proposals especially in view of its fixed and limited working period. Indeed, there is some truth to the observation that the ConCom was put up only as a pressure mechanism to hasten the cha-cha. Any debate on its proposals is therefore useless or untimely until they are already presented and are being deliberated upon by the real body authorized to propose amendments to our charter.

But as the debate goes on, I am beginning to realize that discussing some of its proposals now may really be necessary just to save time. One of them is the politically self serving proposal to cancel the 2007 elections. Another is that obviously unnecessary amendment introducing the "Bill of Duties" to complement the "Bill of Rights" which I recently learned after watching Pia Hontiveros’ TV talk show "Strictly Politics". It was really appalling to hear Commissioners Apostol and Bengzon talked their heads off as they vehemently defended the introduction of the term "responsible" to qualify the freedom of the press or freedom of expression guaranteed by and embedded in all the charters of any democratic country. It has a chilling connotation of imposing "prior restraint" and removing the protection against any responsibility for exercising this freedom as long as it does not violate the law or injure someone’s character, reputation or business.

First of all the term "responsible" is too broad and ambiguous. Indeed the two commissioners themselves could not give a definition of the very term they introduced, leaving its interpretation up to the Supreme Court. If that be the case, this amendment is unnecessary because there are already plenty of SC decisions setting the parameters in the exercise of this most valuable freedom. Not only is the ConCom superfluous, even some of its proposals are.

More chilling is the explanation of the rationale behind the proposal. Our good Con Commissioners talk of media’s too much "focus" on the bad news that drives investors away. This kind of argument gives the impression that the Press should not publish the bad news picturing our country’s true situation just for the purpose of luring investors to come in with their money. Doesn’t this look like some kind of deception? Besides, restrictions on Press freedom have never been based on a very subjective question of what is good news or bad news. To do so may lead to abuse by the government authority entrusted with determining what is good news or bad news. It must be pointed out that the bill of rights in our Constitution, including the freedom of the press is designed as a "charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power of the State" (1 Cooley 534-535). The proposal expands rather than limits that power. It provides the government that has already vast powers with another potent tool to suppress this most important freedom. There is no need therefore to still amend the present provision on Press freedom. It has sufficient limitations based on a clearer, more definite and more objective criterion of whether the news to be published is true and correct or false and contrary to law.

Maybe the importance of the freedom of expression in a democracy bears repeating as a friendly reminder to the cha-cha movers. Firstly, it insures a responsive and popular government. It is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that a government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected (De Jonge vs. Oregon 299 U.S. 353). Secondly, it makes possible the scrutiny of acts and conducts of public officials by an enlightened public opinion and heightened political vigilance (Tañada and Fernando p. 313); and thirdly, it promotes the growth of the individual and the nation. It is an inalienable human right that flows from the very nature of man. Without it, the full and proper growth of the individual, nay, the nation is invariably stunted (De Leon, New Philippine Constitution p. 127).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]