‘Isn’t the right of reply a good thing? Definitely, but not as a legal obligation.’
THE 20th Congress opens in eight weeks following President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s State of the Nation Address. Here are some bills that were introduced but not passed in the previous Congress that we would like to see re-filed and which we’d be happy to support.
• Anti-Political Dynasty. Section 26 of Article II of the constitution prohibits political dynasties “as may be defined by law.” Legislators have been struggling with this for almost 40 years. In the last Congress, three bills — Senate Bill 2730, SB 548, and House Bill 1157 — expired at the committee level. Today, every branch of government nationwide is replete with examples of what even ordinary folks know is a dynasty.
• Freedom of Information. Article III Section 7 is one of the constitutional provisions that has yet to be perfected by legislation. Nine years ago, President Rodrigo Duterte issued an executive order for a Freedom of Information Program, which, in the absence of a more comprehensive law, does not apply to the two other branches of government. An executive order can also be recalled by another executive order. Before the last Congress recessed, five earlier bills were replaced by SB 2880.
• Party-List System. Section 5(2) of Article VI of the constitution declares that one-half of seats allotted to party-list representatives be filled from “labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law.” That law, RA 7941 of 1995, intended to enable the marginalized and underrepresented to participate in the House of Representatives. Twelve years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that organizations under this system need not represent any particular sector.
We support the refiling of HB 1211 which sought “to ensure that the party-list system is reserved for the marginalized and underrepresented.”
• Decriminalization of libel and cyberlibel. Five bills were filed in the last Congress — SB 2521, SB 2403, SB 1593, HB 5372 and HB 1769. The version we’d love is that which repeals all the provisions in the Revised Penal Code pertaining to libel. These are Articles 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 360 and 361. Likewise, Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Libel is punishable with prisión correccional (from six months and one day to four years and two months, as computed by a law firm), and cyberlibel with the more severe prisión mayor (from four years, two months and one day to eight years). Plus a fine of up to P1.2 million.
Decriminalized, libel can still be pursued as a civil case or a tort. Further, civil libel may be resolved alternatively. Department of Justice Circular No. 31 mandates in the National Capital Region mediation of the civil aspect of libel and cyberlibel.
• Ending reporters’ mandatory participation in drug busts. Should journalists be required to sign copies of inventories of items seized in anti-drug operations? A 2002 law (RA 9165) said so, but was made optional by RA 10640 of 2013. HB 572 proposed to leave out reporters altogether in Section 21(1) of RA 9165. Some reporters complained that they were being forced to sign such statements even if they were not present at the operation or inventory.
On the other hand, we hope we don’t see the following.
• Right of Reply. While no such bill was filed in the 19th, there were proposed laws in earlier congresses and there might just be another one in the 20th. Isn’t the right of reply a good thing? Definitely, but not as a legal obligation. In journalism, it is the courtesy extended by editors to people in the news who may disagree or dislike how they were mentioned in a story, and wish to be heard.
Legally enforcing that “right” becomes a challenge to press freedom because, as the US Supreme Court ruled in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, of the “intrusion into the function of editors in what material goes into a newspaper.”
• A magna carta law should be emancipatory. Hence a proposed Magna Carta for Journalists should only be liberating for journalists. But one feature of HB 5345 — accreditation by a yet-to-be-formed Philippine Council of Journalists which will administer a Professional Journalist Examination — sticks out like a sore thumb. Non-accredited reporters will be entitled to the same rights so we don’t see the need for this law. Further, including in the journalism curriculum a yet-to-be promulgated code of ethics is superfluous because it is already in the existing curriculum approved by the Commission on Higher Education.
***
Gary Mariano taught full time for 35 years at De La Salle University where he once chaired the Department of Communication. A former chair of the Philippine Press Council, he was also a member of the CHED Technical Committee for Journalism. In retirement, he helps promote local media-citizen councils, teaches part time, and serves at Our Lady of Beautiful Love parish.
