1. The Right of Reply Bill is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that violates two of the most cherished freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, those of the press and of expression.
2. It is both unfortunate and ironic that the principal authors of the bill in the two chambers of Congress ought to have known better, Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr. having earned his reputation as a champion of civil rights and Bacolod Representative Monico Puentevella having been president of the Negros Press Club.
3. It is also clear, from the pronouncements of both lawmakers, that this bill is a product of the sorriest excuse for legislation – personal pique.
4. The House version of the bill, HB 3306, parrots the Senate’s SB2150 except it would have the reply run a day after receipt instead of the three days the Senate grants, and seeks to impose heftier fines and the absence of self-regulation (in the case of block-timers) and sunset clauses.
5. Both bills state that “all persons…who are accused directly or indirectly of committing, having committed or intending to commit any crime or offense defined by law, or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life shall have the right to reply to charges or criticisms published or printed in newspapers, magazines, newsletters or publications circulated commercially or for free, or aired or broadcast over radio, television, websites, or
through any electronic devices.”
6. They also would mandate that these replies be “published or broadcast in the same space of the newspapers, magazine, newsletter or publication, or aired over the same program on radio, television, website or through any electronic device.”
7. The danger in the right of reply bill is that it would legislate what the media OUGHT to publish or air, while casting a chilling effect that could dissuade the more timorous from publishing or airing what they SHOULD.
8. The bills would free public officials, especially the corrupt – and they are legion – of accountability and give them carte blanche to force their lies on the suffering public.
9. As one article on the right of reply bill says, “It lumps together imputations of a crime with simple criticism ‘of any lapse in behavior in public or private life’ or what would otherwise be considered ‘fair comment.’ There is no judicial review. It does not differentiate direct and indirect criticism. It has been noted that under the proposed law a journalist does not even have to be in error to draw a right of reply claim.”
10. We would be the last to say that the Philippine media are without fault. Yes, we understand perfectly the frustration and anger of Pimentel and Puentevella over some media outlet’s refusal to air their sides on issues.
11. Alas, but we cannot allow the sins of the few to be an excuse for the wholesale muzzling of a free press and the suppression of free expression. To do so would allow bad governance to triumph.
12. We call on Senator Pimentel and Representative Puentevella to withdraw their bills.
13. We urge the media and the people to close ranks against the passage of this bill, to challenge it before the Supreme Court if it is passed, and, if even that fails, to defy it by refusing to comply.
14. No less than our freedoms are at stake. This is a battle we cannot afford to lose.
Please sign your name and your media outfit. Thank you
By: Jaime Espina, Vice-chairperson-NUJP
On Tuesday, December 2, Leo Luna Mila, 35, of Radyo Natin in San Roque town, Northern Samar, was gunned down by still unidentified killers as he left the radio station, becoming the seventh journalist to be murdered this year and the 62nd since 2001, when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo came to power.
The NUJP calls on everyone, journalists and the public we serve, to express our outrage and condemnation over continued assaults on the exercise of press freedom and free expression.
Every murder is one murder too much, and each additional death and every case that remains unsolved is an indictment of government’s inutility in fulfilling its supposed mandate to protect its citizens’ rights and uphold their rights and liberties.
It does not help at all when government officials such as Justice Undersecretary Ricardo Blancaflor treat the solution of these cases as a matter of claiming credit instead of a matter of duty, as he did in the case of Gingoog radio commentator Arecio Padrigao, who was murdered November 17.
We appreciate the speedy manner with which Blancaflor’s Task Force 211 managed to identify and file charges against the suspects in Padrigao’s murder and hope it acts with the same dispatch in the case of Mila.
We likewise hope Blancaflor’s aversion to criticism spurs him to solve the other murders of our colleagues. It may behoove him to remember that the record of media killings under this administration is the worst under any sitting president, including the 14-year dictatorship of the late Ferdinand Marcos and the combined death toll under former presidents Aquino, Ramos and Estrada.
We would not begrudge him all the credit then.
But neither should Blancaflor begrudge us the right to criticize the official inaction and apathy, as well as this administration’s actual attempts to curtail press freedom, that have nurtured the culture of impunity responsible for this carnage.
We would like to remind him that of the two (please correct) cases that have resulted in convictions, only the gunmen have been punished while the doubtless powerful and wealthy masterminds remain free.
Until this government shows a true resolve to put an end to this killings – which time and again, we have said, requires an unequivocal order, with threats of sanctions for failure to comply, from the President to government’s law enforcement agencies – and to solve the other murders.