Responsible Journalism and the Right to Reply Bill

The Freedom of Speech and of Expression is the linchpin in the wheel of a true, responsive, and relevant democracy. Any act or omission of a government that unwarrantly intrudes into its domain and unjustifiably limit its purpose must be struck down with the vigour, assiduousness, and the swiftness of a Paul Bunyan taking down a Sycamore tree.

The importance of the freedom of the press can never be overstated. It is both a sword and a shield for media men and journalists to use in quest to convey the truth in the interest of the general public. It is a trite argument to say the press performs an essential function in a true democracy as a watchdog on matters of public interest and concern.

In the Philippines this freedom is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. Section 4 of its Bill of Rights [Article 3] thus clearly mandates-"No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances". It has proudly withstood against all those who tried to fetter its power in the guise of the common good. Of late, however, it must once again rise above the challenge that may be brought about by the Right to Reply Bill [House Bill No. 3386 and Senate Bill No. 2150] should the bills become law, imposing upon publishers, editors-in-chief the mandatory publication of a person's reply to the news or article written about him/her and providing penalties for failure to do so.

From my viewpoint, both bills are insidious, unjustifiable, and indirect attempts to delimit press freedom. Both bills brazenly aim at tilting the fragile balance between a person's privacy and reputation against the demands of public interest, to muzzle the guns of responsible journalism. Their effect is to impose unjustifiable control on what editors would publish in matters of public concern. Accusations are rife about alleged scalawags and unscrupulous journalists and mediamen in the ranks of Philippine media and one can symphatize with those persons whose reputations were forever unfairly destroyed by irresponsible reporting.

Should these bills become law and taking aside strong arguments about their unconstitutionality, are these bills the panacea to this conundrum? For one, the bills do not impose a limitation period within which the person in interest must make a reply to the article/news about him/her. A publisher's or editor-in-chief"s compliance of the law would depend entirely on the person in interest to send a reply. The consequences of a waiting game would hang over the heads of the publishers and editors-in-chief like the proverbial sword of Damocles thereby hindering a responsible journalist from performing his job. Moreover, what if the reply is sent months or years after the imputing article or news were published and the publisher or editor in chief have changed by then, or much worse, the publication no longer exist? What comes of it?

On this issue of press freedom and responsible journalism, much can be learned from the decisions of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom. In the seminal case of Reynolds versus Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127, the House of Lords had the occasion to rule on this matter. In this case, the plaintiff Albert Reynolds [a former Prime Minister of Ireland] filed an action for damages for defamatory statements in an article published by the Sunday Times asserting that the words in the article, in their natural and ordinary meaning were meant and were understood to mean that he had deliberately and dishonestly misled the Dail [the Irish Parliament] and his cabinet colleagues in connection with the appointment of the then Attorney-General that led to the government's collapse. In this case, the defendants failed to record and include the plaintiff's own account of his conduct given to the Dail in which he denied any misinformation. He won in the trial court and in the eventual appeal to the House of Lords, the defendants argued that the House of Lords must recognize a new category of qualified privilege defence in all circumstances to the media reporting of political issues.

In its majority decision the House of Lords through Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead denied the defendant newspaper's argument as without merit, stating that it would not be an appropriate remedy. In the course of this decision, the House of Lords suggest a non-exhaustive guideline on how a United Kingdom court may approach a similar case [thus prescribing how a responsible journalist should behave in the conduct of his professional affairs]. The House declares that depending on the circumstances, the matter to be taken into account are, and I quote:

"1.The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true;

2.The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern;

3.The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events.Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories;

4. The steps taken to verify the information;

5. The status of the information.The allegations may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect;

6. The urgency of the matter.News is often a perishable commodity;

7. Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary;

8. Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story;

9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise questions or call for an investigation. It need mot adopt allegations as statement of fact;

10. The circumstances of the publication including the timing."

While this decision comes from a common law country, there is no reason why the Philippine media, both Philippine Houses and the Courts should not reflect on this. My point is the intended Bills are not necessary to protect a person's privacy or reputation. The Philippines have sufficient laws to measure this task. The affected person can sue for libel or damages if he believed his reputation has been besmirched or privacy violated. What the journalists should do is to police its own ranks and weed out the unscrupulous ones who would hastily rush for the sake of a "scoop" and sensationalism publish about something with the barest of materials to deal with. Both Bills are not the magical cure-all to the disease of irresponsible journalism. Should they become law, that law would be an unjustifiable intrusion to press freedom and susceptible of a legal challenge on the issue about its constitutionality.

The freedom of the press does not gleefully embrace in its shield of protection the publication of defamatory statements. Aggrieved persons can seek proper redress of their grievances against the media through an appropriate criminal action for libel or a civil action for damages. The need for a strong, vigilant, and vigorous press to keep the public informed is one of the foundations of any democracy. The Filipino people must oppose the passage of House Bill No. 3386 and Senate Bill 2150 as unjustifiable intrusions to press freedom. With the unresolved extrajudicial killings of media persons on the rise, the freedom of the press has never been in such danger since the dark days of martial law.