Strange tango?

Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara didn't duck flak stirred by his House Bill 162 to arm-twist media on replies to criticism. His explanation stresses what Mark Twain wrote: “Only presidents, editors and people with tapeworm, have the right to use the editorial ‘we'.”

In “Beneficent Purposes”, this column (PDI/Feb. 14) argued: under the mantra of press responsibility, HB 162 would shove government PR staff into editors' chairs. Sen. Aquilino Pimentel's Senate Bill 1178 is cut from the same cloth. Both threaten fines and jail to wring airing of replies.

Tagging suspects as “Muslim” or “Christian will be punishable if HB 100 becomes law. Reps. Angara, Pangalian Balindong and Mujiv Hataman are co-authors. “Such labels perpetuate stereotypes of Muslims as scary, law-breaking persons,” they said. “This is not an accurate picture”.

But like other democratic countries, our Constitution provides: ‘No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, expression, and of the press', Cebu Citizens-Press Council noted. There are no ifs and buts here.

"Media can not be told what to publish," CCPC stressed." (Likewise, it) can not be told what not to publish." But a legislated right to reply operates as a command. And so does muzzling of religious affiliations. “These are prior restraints."

Led by Chief Justice Reynato Punto, the Supreme Court underscored this constitutional capstone. It struck down, last week, Justice Department and National Telecommunications Agency warnings against airing “Hello Garci” tapes precisely because they constituted “prior restraint” -- and challenged “the most exalted of all civil rights, the freedom of expression.”

So why did the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkasters “inexplicably” join the NTC in a joint “ambivalent” statement that seemed to tango with the regime's unconstitutional warnings? No less than the Supreme Court raised its eyebrows. This strangely contrasts with Kapisanan's opposition against the Angara bill.

“Minds are like parachutes,” we're told. “They work only when open.” Angara 's reply shows an open mind. “I've listened to media groups around the country,” he wrote. “Their position is: As a matter of practice and self-regulation, media already grants right of reply to persons written about or criticized.

“This led me to decide, as early as two weeks ago, to no longer pursue this bill… I've written the CCPC outlining my decision to no longer push for the bill in view of current media practices. There may also be some practical difficulties in enforcement.”

Bill sponsor Rep. Bienvenido Abante agrees with yanking this sorry chestnut from the fire. Rep. Monico Puentevella will dialog with media, in home turf: Bacolod . He smarts from “unfair” drubbing from media in the last elections.

“These bills are subject to change (or potential inaction), “ Angara added. “We realize editorial functions are privately exercised prerogatives. Nonetheless, we appeal to our friends in media for fairness and judiciousness”.

Angara 's decision to withdraw HB 162 is welcome. Both legislator and journalist share a common commitment to freedom of expression. It will buttress on-going efforts, by the press, to reinforce internal mechanisms to ensure adherence to professional standards -- despite what San Beda graduate school of law dean Ranhilio Calangan Aquino sneers as “media's pretensions of being power brokers in this country.”.

Hindi ka nag-iisa Father. Many journalists are also turned off by “delusions” of some colleagues. And one scalpel to excise this – to swipe a Jun Lozada phrase: bukol – may be laughter. Remember the local spoof on newspapers by newspapers?

“The Inquirer is read by the people who run the country. The Philippine Star is read by people who think they run the country. The Manila Bulletin is read by people whose parents used to run the country. The Malaya is read by people who think Erap should run the country.

“Businessworld is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country .Whenever a copy is available, the Tribune is read by people who aren't sure there is a country but they oppose anything Malacañang says. And so on.

No journalist, worth his press card, believes it accords him special status: whether it be exemption from application of laws on wire-tapping law or libel. Nor does it guarantee kid-glove treatment in conflict-situations, even in five-star hotels. That said, patent “abuses” can not be denied. Pseudo-journalists a.k.a. walk-in block timers, for instance, smear with abandon as radio stations content themselves with disclaimers.

Discrimination against Muslims is a reality. Bias can range from names, head scarves, jobs to difficulties in getting land for cemeteries, Philippine Human Development Report notes. And in media, stereotyping the Muslim problem into one of “war reporting”, from Metro Manila perspectives, bugs news desks

But in-house training programs drill, with vary degrees of success, ethical standards. Desks delete religious tags unless relevant to reports. But the shredding constitutional anchors, like prior restraint, are not the way to go. Our Muslim community needs to be engaged in this point.

Otherwise, we will resemble Denmark : 10 of 12 cartoonists have still to confront assassination threats since the brawl over the Prophet being depicted in a cartoon. No one should be killed for a cartoon in a free country. In the Philippines , we are salvaged for less.*

back to top