Still objectionable

Editorial
Philippine Daily Inquirer
06/02/2009

The House of Representatives appears to be dead set on passing the controversial right-of-reply bill before it adjourns sine die this week. The measure has been amended by removing a provision that would impose the penalty of imprisonment on violators and by reducing the fines for violations. Now the congressional railroad is ready to pass the measure, despite the strong objection of the media.

Despite the amendments, the right of reply bill remains objectionable. The congressmen seem to have missed the point we made at the very beginning of the discussion of the bill, and so we will say it again: The right of reply is better realized through editorial discretion and voluntary acts rather than statutory dictation through a state entity or process that infringes upon the freedom of the press.

It is best to allow the media to accord the right of reply to people who want to avail themselves of it through existing procedures and venues instead of giving government the power to dictate to the media what they should do. Give government an inch and there’s no telling what it would do to control media. There are already existing procedures and venues in the major newspapers: the office of the ombudsman or readers’ advocate, the letters to the editor section, the correction box of some newspapers, among other things. Complainants can write directly to the senior editors to ask to be given the opportunity to reply to news stories or articles that they consider adverse to them.

For the members of the Philippine Press Institute, there is the Philippine Press Council whose main concern now is to afford news sources and news subjects the right of reply.

Complaining parties can always file libel suits as a last resort.

These venues and procedures are all available in the major newspapers. They are also being adopted by the smaller papers and even by the community newspapers. So, why does government want to have a say in enforcing the right of reply and why does it want to have coercive power in implementing this right?

We reiterate our objection to the right of reply—yes, even to the so-called “watered-down” version—on the following grounds:

1. A right of reply bill would violate the right of journalists under the freedom of the press clause of the Constitution to edit or determine the contents of their publications.

2. A statutory right of reply would have a chilling effect on free speech; it would discourage journalists from commenting on controversial issues when they know they can be coerced to provide free space and free air time for all replies.

3. It would impose a penalty on the basis of the contents of a newspaper. The first phase of the penalty resulting from the compelled printing of a reply is exerted in terms of the cost of printing. It would take away space that could be devoted to other material that the newspaper may have preferred to publish.

4. It would impose the virtue of responsibility on the media. Former Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger of the US Supreme Court said that “[p]ress responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated. “

5. It would affect not just the traditional media—newspapers, radio and TV—but it could also lead to Internet censorship because it also covers bloggers, websites, e-mail, social networking sites, texters and even iPod users. This was noted by Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino last week.

Even if the measure is passed by Congress, it could be a futile exercise because it would be vetoed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The Inquirer reported last Feb. 27 that President Macapagal-Arroyo pledged not to sign any bill curtailing press freedom and suggested that she would veto the controversial right of reply measure if Congress passed it. Similar stories were carried by the Philippine Star, Page 1, Feb. 27; Malaya, Page B14, Feb. 26; and the Manila Times, Page 1, Feb. 27.

If the right of reply bill is passed by Congress, we will hold the President to her promise. If she reneges on her promise, then the press will have no recourse but to wage its fight against the controversial measure all the way to the Supreme Court.