‘We believe that the need to file libel cases can be greatly diminished if, in the first place, journalists — including radio commentators and vloggers on social media — would seek the other side or sides to a story before the initial publication.’
LET us balance the discussion of press freedom, which is constitutionally protected, with a bit of the right of reply, which in the Philippines is not legally mandated. At least not yet, and we hope will not be.
But the right of reply, or more accurately, honoring the right of reply, is the press community’s commitment to fairness. It can also be an “amulet” or antidote to a suit for libel, the “public and malicious imputation of a crime,” because it is a gesture of goodwill on the part of the journalist.
The right of reply is borrowed from parliamentary procedure. In Australia, it is the right of citizens offended by remarks by legislators to “ask for their responses to be published in the parliamentary record.” In Singapore, it is the right of the mover of a motion to speak when all other members have spoken.
The concept has been adopted in the media as the “right to defend oneself against public criticism in the same venue where it was published.” This idea of balance and fairness is reflected in most codes of ethics for journalists. The Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists states that “The notion of urgency or immediacy in the dissemination of information shall not take precedence over the verification of facts, sources and/or the offer of a reply.” The Ethical Journalism Network emphasizes fairness and impartiality: “Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context.” The Philippine Press Institute and the National Press Club subscribe to a common code which recognizes “the duty to air the other side.”
Journalists can avoid this situation where a complainant has to invoke his right of reply by already publishing the criticized person’s version alongside the criticism. However, that is not always possible. For good measure, editors must make it a point to reach out to that person for comment and to state in the story that they did so. As a further sign of good faith, the news desk should repeat the request for comment until the person criticized responds, or says he is choosing not to comment.
Sometimes the offended person may contact the news organization. This can happen when a person is mentioned in a news report and the editors do not see a need to get that person’s side. For example, when a police officer is quoted in a homicide investigation and the officer thinks he was misquoted in the ensuing report, it might give an unnecessarily bad impression of that law enforcer.
There have been instances where the press has refused to publish a valid right of reply. In some countries, the right of reply is backed by law and can result in penalties for non-publication. In Britain, the aggrieved party may approach the Press Standards Adjudicator if there is no response from the publication. The Adjudicator may make a decision, which can be appealed to the Press Standards Board. Sweden has a Media Ombudsman (a Swedish word) and a Media Council (Mediernas Etiknämnd) that function almost similarly to a press council.
It is important to distinguish between a legal, statutory, mandatory, obligatory, court-enforceable right of reply and one that is voluntary on the part of the press.
During the 18th Congress, a House bill sought to punish “writer, broadcaster, editor-in-chief, segment reporter, publisher, producer, responsible manager or officer” for ignoring a reply with progressive penalties ranging from a minimum fine of P20,000 up to 60 days imprisonment.
In 2007, during the 14th Congress, the Senate approved a bill that would have authorized fines of up to P50,000 on media executives for the next seven years. In the same year, the Philippine Press Council reached an agreement with Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., who promised not to push SB2150, provided the editors of PPI member-newspapers committed themselves to a voluntary right of reply.
These bills, to our relief, were never enacted. At present, there are no bills yet in the 20th Congress and again we heave a sigh of relief. We feel that a legislated, automatic and mandatory right of reply would intrude “into the function of editors in choosing what material goes into a newspaper and in deciding on the size and content of the paper and the treatment of public issues and officials,” as the US Supreme Court decided in the 1973 Miami Herald v. Tornillo case.
Nevertheless, defamation law has since included the more severe penalty against the digital version of libel, and the updated schedule of fines in the Revised Penal Code.
We believe that the need to file libel cases can be greatly diminished if, in the first place, journalists — including radio commentators and vloggers on social media — would seek the other side or sides to a story before the initial publication. Or to publish replies when they are made, or at least explain to the complainant why their reply cannot be published.
It is our hope that libel and cyberlibel will be decriminalized in this current Congress (for further discussion in this column), and that the right of reply remains a voluntary, ethical obligation rather than a legal imposition.
