The Right of Reply vs Freedom of The Press

There has been a growing controversy over the potential passage of The Right of Reply Bill (SBN 2150). This propsoed legislation seeks to give persons who are the subject of a media article; publication; radio or TV program, be it for a crime, acts in public or private or mere rumors, the right to respond to such comments through the same medium.

Journalists have been up in arms against this bill, arguing that such bill was merely proposed to protect the self-serving interests of the politicians who are usually the subject of media talk and criticisms. They also argue that it is a violation of press freedom, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. On the other hand, proponents of the measure argue that the bill is a measure of fairness, which merely gives an aggrieved person the opportunity to answer and have a chance to air his or her side of the story.

The bill, which can be accessed through this link (http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/70916334!.pdf), is simple and straight to the point. It gives the reasons for granting the right to reply, how it is to be granted and what are the penalties for its violation. On first reading, it would seem that the bill has good intentions and it merely seeks to provide a fair playing field for those who are the butt of media controversies. Thus, if one has no working knowledge or is not aware of the Constitutionally guaranteed right of press freedom, one would immediately jump to the conclusion that the bill should indeed become a law. After all, if you were put in the shoes of those people who become the subject of media controversies, then you would of course want to have the chance to give your side of the story.

We all know that press freedom is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, this has been ruled on by our courts time and again. Sometimes, the press and the media are the only way by which the people can put a check on the actions of the government; the media serves as the watchers of the people. This puts the media in a very powerful position, which can be easily abused. Perhaps our journalists, and even some people, are scared that a martial law type of situation will occur because media men and women will be afraid of becoming the subject of retaliatory attacks through the Right of Reply. These are valid concerns, and I myself would not want the country to fall into that kind of situation. However, we cannot deny the fact the a level playing field should be given and that there are instances when false accusations and baseless attacks are indeed made by some journalists.

Perhaps the media can provide an alternative to this bill, by policing their own ranks better or even sanctioning erring members. They can even give aggrieved persons the opportunity to reply or respond in some other way. Right now, I am all for press freedom and I agree that the Right of Reply bill should be scrapped. The bill is too one-sided, and it seems as if it simply wants to threaten media entities with retaliation. Even the US Supreme Court shot down a similar bill in one state and declared it unconstitutional. I'm guessing our own SC will rule in the same way since press freedom, as I said, is highly valued and protected by our courts. Let's just wait and see if this issue will even reach the courts.