‘… we are hoping that if an agreement is reached to mediate even the civil aspect, the ensuing understanding and good faith might lead to the eventual withdrawal of the criminal component as well.’
IT’S been three years since the creation of the first media-citizen councils in Batangas, Iloilo and Davao cities. With the addition in between of seven others, we pop the question: How many complaints have they resolved, or received? The answer is none. Yet.
But first, some basics. We need a free press to help us make informed decisions in our democratic context. In doing so, journalists may ruffle a few powerful feathers, or make mistakes. At times, they get sued, usually for libel and more recently also for cyberlibel. Most of these suits are dismissed, usually for the inability to prove malice. But the process takes time, costs a lot of money and can be a true emotional burden.
The goal of the media-citizen councils (MCCs) is to provide a venue where grievances against journalists can be settled out of court. While similar to the more common press councils in their goal, today’s MCCs being cultivated nationwide by the Philippine Press Institute are not a form of self-regulation because their composition is not limited to media owners or journalists.
Neither are they co-regulated in the sense that regulation is shared by government and media. MCCs are an independent form of co-regulation, and their regulatory partner is the community in general. This model was first mentioned in South Africa. The Philippine version is community-based independent co-regulation.
During their initial organizational period, the 10 MCCs which the PPI helped in setting up from Central Luzon to Davao already have representatives who completed last year a comprehensive course on mediation and arbitration given by the Department of Justice’s Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR). They are also at various stages of achieving their registration status with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Bureau of Internal Revenue and local governments.
The true test lies in the next six months, or so, to see whether they will indeed succeed in salvaging or deflecting libel cases against journalists from the courts. To do so, they need to proactively introduce themselves to key publics in their respective communities on whom the success or failure of the independent news media depends. (We borrow from a widely accepted definition of public relations.)
For pending cases in areas where such ADR-accredited councils exist, the MCCs may make representations with the plaintiffs, through counsel, to offer their services.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not a magic bullet. Both parties in a lawsuit must agree to settle and only the civil aspect of a case. And libel is a crime. However, we are hoping that if an agreement is reached to mediate even the civil aspect, the ensuing understanding and good faith might lead to the eventual withdrawal of the criminal component as well.
The council can also intervene with presiding judges and/or prosecuting officers. In this regard, the MCCs through the PPI, can seek an endorsement from the OADR. We suggest an issuance similar to DOJ Circular No. 031 of 2023 which mandates mediation for cases like libel and cyberlibel in the National Capital Region, as prosecutors in the region have already completed ADR training. The MCCs can fill the gap in those areas where ADR-trained MCCs exist.
In the absence of live cases, MCCs can hold orientations before potential complainants, the people who might take offense at news coverage they perceive to be injurious to their reputation. These include public personalities such as politicians, uniformed-service officers, business persons and celebrities.
The MCCs would also be well advised to do the rounds of newsrooms to discuss press ethics in general and honoring right-of-reply requests in particular.
Also, MCCs may approach potential litigants when they sense a potential case. The simplest is to encourage the journalist concerned to extend the right of reply to the offended party, and to honor a right of reply request. The council may also advise the offended party to consider ADR.
The hope is to settle pending cases out of court, and to resolve disputes even before they reach the courts.
So far, MCCs with trained ADR representatives can be found in the Cordilleras, Central Luzon and Eastern Visayas regions; Aklan, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur provinces, and Batangas, Cotabato, Davao, Iloilo and Cotabato cities. (Strictly speaking, the Kordilyera Media-Citizen Council was not organized by the PPI, but because of a common goal, training opportunities were also extended to them.)
The PPI, which turned 61 last week, signed another memorandum of understanding with OADR to extend their partnership in ADR training through 2026. This newspaper is a long-time PPI member.
