There has been much talk about this piece of law for several months now. And it seems to be reaching its crescendo from the beginning of the year. The proposed Right of Reply bill is not a concern of media alone. In the time where blogs and other online media are contributing to the news and opinion that can be accessed and read, it just seems but natural to look closely and scrutinize this bit of legislation. Since, Its impact might and probably will have a lasting impact on all.
I came across the right to reply bill last year. And I asked more knowleagable bloggers about it and the reply was that it was a bit vague. And recently I had the opportunity to look more closely after the NUJP invited bloggers into the discussion. Documents were sent and receive. A date was set for the roundtable talk.
It was unfortunate that the bloggers, including myself, were not able to attend the Roundtable Talk on the Right to Reply Bill. Not all bloggers were able to attend the roundtable talk because :A number of us still have day jobs and as such it is harder to go to events on a weekday and if it is far from the office. But we did get to see the pdf version of the bill and the statement of the NUJP.
And after reading the bill. As a blogger a few thoughts come to mind. In a blogging platform it is easier to put in the right to reply. For it is easiest platform to do such changes. And of minimum cost. And initially it seems a better alternative to libel.
But … a few things have to be explained further.
A document emailed after the NUJP roundtable talk points to concerns over the proposed bill. Here is the statement of the NUJP about the proposed Right To Reply Bill:
UNIFIED STATEMENT ON RIGHT TO REPLY BILL
1. The Right to 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 to 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 to 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 to 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.February 9. 2009
One the contentions or things that needs further explanation is this passage:
All persons natural or juridical who are accused directly or indirectly of committing or having committed or of 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 the charges published or printed in newspapers, magazines, newsletters or
publications circulated commercially or for free, or to criticisms aired or broadcast over radio, television, websites, or through any electronic device.
You can download and read the Senate version of the proposed law here.
The office of Senator Aquilino Pimentel, one of the Authors of the proposed law, explained it in a letter that was published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer last October 31, 2008:
The fear of media practitioners that the bill on right of reply will curtail the freedom of the press is completely unfounded, based on the following reasons:
The bill on right of reply merely gives persons to express the other side of a controversy in which they are unduly maligned, with more or less equal treatment as the report being questioned.
This bill will instill a greater sense of responsibility among journalists, and even boost the credibility and objectivity of the media, while at the same time, enhance the freedom of expression of the people.
This bill recognizes the fact that the freedom of the press in this country is not absolute. The spirit of fair play and balanced reporting ordains that both sides of the controversy are presented, thereby requiring the corresponding obligation to allow the publication of replies from persons unduly maligned by the media.
Ultimately, the enactment of the right of reply will redound to the benefit of the media practitioners.
LUZVIMINDA D. LAVARIAS, director 4, Office of Sen. Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr., os.pimentel@senate.gov.ph
- Source
It might be useful to note that media outfits like the BBC have their right to reply policy:
When we make allegations of wrong doing, iniquity or incompetence or lay out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or institution the presumption is that those criticised should be given a “right of reply”, that is, given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations before transmission.
Our request for a response must be properly logged with the name of the person approached and the key elements of the exchange. We should always describe the allegations in sufficient detail to enable an informed response. The response should be reflected fairly and accurately and should normally be broadcast in the same programme, or published at the same time, as the allegation. There may be occasions when this is inappropriate (usually for legal or overriding ethical reasons) in which case a senior editorial figure or commissioning editor for Independents should be consulted. It may then be appropriate to consider whether an alternative opportunity should be offered for reply at a subsequent date.
In very rare circumstances where we propose to broadcast a serious allegation resulting from our own journalism without giving those concerned an opportunity to reply the proposal must be referred to a senior editorial figure and Controller, Editorial Policy or for Independents to the commissioning editor and Controller Editorial Policy. The allegation must be in the public interest and there must be strong reasons for believing it to be true. Our reasons for deciding to make the information public without requesting a response from the individuals or organisations concerned may include possible interference with witnesses or the possibility of legal action to delay or even prevent transmission.
- Source
As of February 23 it seems that the proposed law is being scrutinized anew, given the concern aired by members of the media or media group: Senator Escudero has said,“he will review the right to reply bill before it goes to the bicameral committee for final deliberation”.
The Right of Reply bill like any piece of law will have a large impact on all those who are covered or to be covered by it. And it seems that feedback and concerns about the proposed law should be considered. And if there are reservations and fears about it then there is a need for the authors and lawmakers to address it. And although as a blogger I personally believe that it would be easier for us to comply with the proposed law, there is a need to answer and address the concerns and fears of our fellow-citizens in media. Especially at present when almost anyone can publish or broadcast from the Web this is very important. This covers us all.
I definitely agree :D