OPINIONS / COLUMNS (October 6– October 12, 2008) In-Depth Juan L. Mercado Gun at out temples An Inquirer headline said it all: “Under Right of Reply Bill, Politicians Will have Last Say.” Bacolod Rep. Monico Puentevella claims he’s been systematically maligned by newspapers “identified with his political opponents”. Now, he wants that “say”. His House Bill 3306, compels, by law, the right-of-reply. Its sanctions range from fines to suspension of publication. “ The Senate approved, in June, a counterpart measure: SB 2150. Authors were: Aquilino Pimentel, Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. and Francis “Chiz” Escudero Both bills stipulate a reply must be published. Immediately says Puentevella. Within three days, insists Pimentel. The reply must appear on the same page or the same program. They should be of the same length or time. And charges couldn’t be dunned. “Government may not force a newspaper to print copy which, in its journalistic discretion, it chooses to leave on the newsroom’s floor,” Justice Byron White wrote in 1974. That still holds today—unless these bills become law. Before Christmas, the bills will be in the books, Puentevella predicts. “We need to level the playing field in journalism.” These bills strip editors of constitutionally-protected functions. Who’d exercise them? Malacañang? Press Secretary Jesus Dureza? Or PR men of senators, congressman? And what if a more newsworthy event occurs, like say a President dies? That’d be irrelevant. Pimentel, Puntebella, or even MILF’s commander Bravo or Kato and local politicians can overrule the editor of this paper. They can insist on their replies. Or the journalists face sanctions they’d clamp on. The sanctions seem lifted from Burma. Pimentel & Co would penalize with a fine up to P50,000 fine recalcitrant editors or station managers. Puentebella jacks that up to P200,000, plus up to 30 days in jail. A paper could be padlocked. .Or the franchise of “offending” broadcast stations suspended or cancelled. Marcos did that. Even after the reply has been published or aired, offended parties may sue for libel... The bill has a “sunset clause”. It self-destructs seven years from approval. But even sunset clauses can not validate constitutional infractions. After all, our Constitution, like charters of other democratic countries, provides: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, expression and of the press.” There are no ifs and buts about this provision. “There are absolutes in our Bill of Rights,” Justice Hugo Black once wrote. “They were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant, and meant their prohibitions were absolute.” The Cebu Citizens Press Council makes this point in its 14 December 2007 position paper. The press has no quarrel with the right of reply, says this self-regulatory body. In fact, all Codes of Ethics from the Sun Star, Inquirer to Philippine Press Institute, stress fair play. And press councils were set up to tackle such ethical issues. But only dictatorships muscle their way into newsrooms and usurp editorial functions on excuses of “leveling the playing field”. “Legislated right to reply operates as a command,” states its legal study submitted by the Cebu Media Legal Aid group earlier. (It resembles) a statute… forbidding the newspaper to publish specified matter. This is prior restraint. If media can not be told what to publish, it can not be told what not to publish.” Makati Rep. Teodoro Locsin, Jr. put his finger on the core of the controversy. “The main issue is whether a person could interfere with editorial judgment and dictate to publishers or editors on how to publish and present a written response to a newspaper article?” In 1974, the US Supreme Court ruled on a right-of-reply protest brought by Florida congressional candidate Pat Tornillo against the Miami Herald, Locsin recalled. Tornillo sued the Herald, citing Florida’s right to reply statute. But the newspaper argued: the law violated the free press provision of the US Constitution. (Here, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility here pledges to raise the same issue.) “A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising,” the US Supreme Court ruled. Decisions made as to limitations on content and size of the paper, and “treatment of public issues and public officials—whether fair or unfair—constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” Florida statute “intruded into the function of editors.” A free press is not necessarily an angelic press. Abusive radio commentators, otherwise known as “blocktimers” are a special notorious breed. “And all too often, the press is morally smug, factually careless, and on our worse days, both,” Washington Post’s Meg Greenfield once wrote. More important are self regulatory mechanisms where editorial lapses are corrected. The Cebu Citizens Press Council’s code already provides that failure to grant right of reply is basis for a complaint. Other provinces have a model to work by. We don’t always succeed neither do officials always live up to the Ten Commandments. But shredding the Constitution is not the way forward. Shoving a gun against our temple, as Pimentel, Puentevella, Escudero and Revilla suggest, won’t work. Marcos discovered that too late. (E-mail: juan_mercado@prime.net.ph) Ilocos Times copyright 2008 Back to top

Opinions / Columns Right of reply bills Gun at out temples Iodine on wound Tarlac Bishop: Catholics must show displeasure vs. HB 5043 The APEC cooperation model in a local setting Tale of tales Of weight loss and flimsy revolutions Outrage against the demeaning portrayal of Filipina migrant workers