Wake Up, Philippines!

The right to reply

Posted in Congress, Constitutional Rights, Legislation, Media by Erineus on March 11, 2009

By Isagani A. Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:20:00 03/08/2009

WHEN a senator or representative delivers a libelous accusation against another person, he incurs no liability because of his parliamentary immunity for any speech or debate within the halls of Congress. The usual recourse of the supposed victim is to challenge his detractor to repeat his charges outside the legislature so they can be litigated before a court of justice.

If the solon does not respond, the public will conclude that his charges are true except that he does not have the evidence to prove them. That is in fact the reason for his parliamentary immunity. But if he decides to accept his target’s demand, he then allows himself, at his own risk, to be subject to judicial action. If he is unable to prove his accusations, he will then be liable for civil damages or imprisonment and/or fine; otherwise, he will have established the truth of his remarks.

Sen. Claro M. Recto successfully employed this device to remove a high government official during the administration of President Elpidio Quirino. Not that it would have done him any good, but that person did not have the facility offered by the right to reply bill recently passed by the Senate. President Macapagal-Arroyo has already threatened to veto it although it has not yet even been approved by Congress.

Under this bill, any person attacked by the media, through the press, television or radio, is given the right to reply, in the same medium and with equal prominence, to deny or explain his side. The purpose is to enable him to refute the effects of the accusation upon his name, good or bad. The trouble is that this opportunity would normally be barred at the present time, given the power of the press over easily cowed judges and the expenses and other inconveniences of litigation.

The result, it is argued, would leave the accusation unpunished and the reputation of the innocent subject tarnished for lack of denial or explanation. In many cases, the barrel of the gun is the final answer against the accusing journalist, who is presumed by the bill as biased and with an evil motive when in fact his only purpose was to expose the wrong and reveal the truth.

In my view, the presumption of the bill is that all adverse criticism of any person, especially public officials who are often the object of journalistic attacks, is per se untrue and motivated by evil designs. This is unfair. It debases freedom of expression itself that Justice Sutherland described as “one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves.”

The bill dishonors the great writers who came to be known during the French Revolution as the Fourth Estate for their powerful influence in opposing the decadent aristocracy. It is an insult to our own freedom of expression that sustained our struggles to be free with the fiery words of Rizal, Plaridel, Lopez Jaena, Jacinto, Mabini and other heroes of our race. They did not need a right to reply bill to moderate their courage against the foreign invaders.

It is true that there are so-called journalists in this noble profession who would pollute it with their tabloid career of blackmail and extortion. But they constitute only a small percentage of its worthy membership. The great majority of its practitioners are dedicated to the pursuit of truth as their only goal even at the risk of their safety and the cost of their lives. Their accusations serve as a useful warning to the public against the persons they criticize and their suspiciously illicit operations.

The press should be given its full measure of encouragement and freedom in the dissemination of “matters that touch the heart of the existing order.” If vital news is suppressed to accommodate a senseless defense from the offended party, this will intrude not only upon the media’s editorial policies but also on their property rights to the space they have to reserve for the required statutory reply. This may placate the private person’s ego but not the general public that paid for but will not receive the needed but excluded information.

There should always be a proper balance between private rights and the public interest. It is true that under the Bill of Rights, the lone individual should be regarded as a majority of one against the entire, united nation. But in the case before us, it is hard to sustain this questionable right against freedom of expression—“at once the instrument and the guaranty and the bright consummate flower of all liberty”—as a correct exercise of the police power of the State.

Fortunately, the proposal is still only a bill and has yet to be debated in the House of Representatives where it is likely to be scrutinized and rejected if only because it is the approved act of its traditional rival and frequent antagonist. Even if the measure should also pass there, there is still the final deliberation of the conference committee on the still unresolved differences between the two chambers that may yet kill the controversial measure.

And, yes, even if the bill should reach Malacañang, remember that President Arroyo has already announced she would veto it. The only hitch is that she also promised in 2003 that she would not run in the 2004 presidential election but did.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090308-192922/The-right-to-reply

Advertisements

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Mariposa said, on May 11, 2009 at 3:15 am

    To be honest I do not see anything wrong with this. If the media has the right to write anything, the least they could do is provided balance journalism…and to let the other person’s side explained will not in anyway hamper press freedom but rather will let the people have all facts, then they can decide.

    If the media are prompt in gathering their information and are within the code of ethics, and are most importantly factual and truthful, letting the other party reply to an issue should not in anyway affect their write-ups, etc.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but journalism and media is there to give accurate and impartial information…right?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: