Filtered By: Topstories
News

Journalists say bills on right of reply 'too vague'


MANILA, Philippines - Journalists on Monday opposed the bill granting a right for redress to persons unfairly portrayed by media, saying its provisions should be made clearer, as its current version could be open to abuse. In a round-table discussion in Quezon City, heads of various print, broadcast, and online media companies agreed that both versions of the “Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties in Violation Thereof" are “too vague." Aside from its vagueness, the bills - according to the media practitioners – have also yet to trigger a lively public discussion that could help shape the measures even before they are passed, in a way that would fit the Philippine context. The Senate (Senate Bill 2150) and the House’s (House Bill 3306) versions of the “access to media" bill were born out of an attempt to ease the tension triggered by the “clash" between the freedom of speech and the right to protect one’s reputation. According to both bills, all persons accused of a crime or criticized for any lapse in behavior shall be given the right to reply. Their reply needs to be published in the respective medium where the accusation was published or aired. The Senate directs the media outfit to publish or air the reply within three days, while the House gives a shorter one-day deadline. In what was perceived by media practitioners as a rather “swift passage," the Senate version was approved in July 2008. Meanwhile, its counterpart at the House of Representatives remains pending at the committee level. “The [speed with which it was passed] should be a concern for media because of its contents," said Rowena Paraan of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines. The content of these respective bills had been particularly the focus of criticisms during Monday’s discussion, which was attended by lawyer Carlos Medina Jr., executive director of the Ateneo Human Rights Center. Medina discussed if the right of reply violates any provisions in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and compared the two Philippine versions with laws and guidelines in other countries. The lawyer said that there should be no question on the constitutionality of the goal being aimed by both the Senate and House bills to give public access to media. But Medina raised concern over the “vague" manner by which the two bills seek to empower the public against questionable reports. “We should not be against the concept itself because it’s constitutional. It’s reasonable and intended for practice in the Philippines… Pero ang batas natin maraming Malabo. Hindi kasi natin alam ang distinction ng opinion sa facts [We have vague laws. We don't know the distinction between facts and opinions] ," Medina told GMANews.TV. “Dapat linawin ang parameters ng law. Ano ang context ng application? [The law’s parameters should be made clear. What is the context of the application?]... How can you comply with a law that is vague," added Medina. Unlike their counterparts in other countries, the Philippines’ two-page versions in Congress seemed “too short" to set clear demarcations on certain aspects of the proposed bills. For instance, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had specifically stated that a person’s right of reply only exclusively covers statements of facts and not opinions printed or broadcast in the media. The Philippine versions both use the general term of published or broadcast “criticisms" as being covered by the proposed law and do not differentiate between media reports and mere commentaries. Both Philippine versions also do not specify which agency or body would draw up the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) if ever the measure were approved. “If that would be the case, it will be the court which will come up with the IRR. And that would undergo litigation and take up a long period of time," he added. This “vagueness" has also been hindering Medina from deciding whether or not the penalties specified in the proposed law are too harsh a sanction “It will only be reasonable if the law itself is reasonable," Medina said. In both versions, an offender is ordered to pay at least P10,000 for the first offense with the penalty climbing up for every subsequent offense. In fact, the maximum penalty in the Senate version is a payment of P200,000, imprisonment of not more than 30 days, and suspension and closure of the publication or broadcast firm for one month. US vs the world Citing two grounds as its basis, a 1974 US Supreme Court decision reversed an earlier ruling that declared the right of reply of an individual as constitutional. In the later decision, the US high court said that giving the public a secured space to air their response would restrict public debate and hamper editorial independence. As it turned out however, the US high court’s sentiment was not shared by a majority of courts and human rights conventions in other countries. Medina said that in other nations, especially those in Europe, the public is entitled to invoke the “access to media" right. For instance, the European Union had created a resolution on the people’s right of reply, although with some exceptions. According to the EU resolution, the right does not cover an article that did not come at a “reasonable period," was unreasonably lengthy, interspersed factual content and opinion, and violated the interest of a third party. The right of reply could not also be invoked if the complainant failed to show proper interest to the issue tackled and replied “in a language different" than the media report in question. The differences between the opinions of the US Court as opposed to other world courts, according to Medina, lies in the fact that the US seems to give more priority to the people’s freedom of speech, while other countries try to maintain a balance between press freedom and an individual’s right to protect his reputation. “Minsan mas mahalaga sa kanila [European countries] ang reputation because it is the role of the state to protect the individual," Medina said. Citing their own studies, European countries - in their guidelines – said that the public’s right of reply is “rarely linked" to the creation of a chilling effect on the press. Remedy Granting that the purpose of SB 2150 and HB 3306 were to be proven as valid, Rey Hulog, executive director of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas, said that the focus of public discussions should focus more on the manner of implementing the right of reply. “The means is not right. It’s more harmful than good. Nado-dominate na ng [ibang tao] ang airwaves at newspapers," Hulog said. To begin with, the public – according to Hulog – had long been enjoying the privilege of a number of remedies to assert their opinions whenever they find a media report unfair or questionable. “May power na nga ang public over us. And with the Right of Reply, we will even reinforce that power. Eh di lalo mong hinahawakan ang media," he said. Other media representatives seconded Hulog and cited some of these remedies including among others the news consumers’ option to write letters to the editors, purchase advertising space to explain their side, bring the matter before a press council, and ultimately go to court by using the libel suit card. Journalists raised concerns that if not made clearer, private citizens and politicians could invoke their right of reply in every opportunity that they can get whenever a news report comes out where they are portrayed in an unfavorable light. Medina and the journalists believed that when abused, such a right could not only mean additional expenses for the media outfits – having to print or air endless replies – but ultimately create a chilling effect to the Philippine press. Jose Pavia, executive director of the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), said Filipino journalists are subjecting the House Bill under scrutiny not only to protect the media but ultimately the public. “The eventual losers are the readers, the people," said Pavia, who agreed, like most of the media representatives present at the meeting, to discuss the matter among their colleagues. “Make the public aware of the Right of Reply and not just the journalists… I think the people will welcome it," Hulog seconded. Given that the Senate version was suddenly approved at the upper chamber in “record time" without much public discussion, the journalists urged the public to take an active role this time in monitoring the other version’s progress at the House. Paraan said they are in the works of staging a series of protest movements against HB 3306, the interpolation for which has yet to be scheduled. - GMANews.TV
LOADING CONTENT