Quite simply, either Senate bill 2150 or House Bill 3306 delves only on one, the right to reply and the penalties for violating thereof, on the other. No wonder then that both are titled the same, namely – ‘An Act
Granting Right of Reply and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof’.
On either bill, this section is found – ‘The publication of the reply or correction does not preclude the exercise of other legal rights or remedies available to the party or parties concerned’. Nothing here
implies that the existing law on libel will be placed in the back burner. On the other hand, the proposed RORB is the warning shot and the libel law is like Dirty Harry’s magnum 44. This RORB is intended, as if it were, as an armor vest of public figures against their nemesis – or members of the Fourth Estate.
This double protection from the old law as it is from the new law is cause for alarm. Why do we overprotect public officials against possible accusations or criticisms by media if its purpose be not to muffle dissent,
cripple freedom, perpetuate corruption, and bastardize democracy? At the very least, for a publication or broadcast station to afford the offended party the equal space and air time is already a serious violation against private ownership – for what else is it?
It allows the offended party, presumably public official, to already retaliate by issuing out a reply that shall be published within the prescribed period of time with equal space and length quite aside from being able to file libel charges or recourse to other legal remedies. If this is not class legislation, what is it? Everybody simply knows too well how precious print space or air time is in terms of the economic cost of production and this the law simply has taken this for granted – on purpose.
It implies giving “landing rights” for any offended party to issue a statement that will have free boarding pass in a publication or broadcast. How indeed could anyone have appropriated upon himself such permanent right over corporate businesses without regard for its economic survival in a scheme and scene too vicious to occur in untold frequencies?
It certainly is too disconcerting to know that various fines, penalties and sanctions will be imposed against the editor of a publication or station manager of a broadcast medium if and when he refuses to abide by what this law prescribes – print or air the statement within three days in the case of the Senate version or not later than one day in the House version.
This section in the Senate version of the bill is rather misleading, and let me quote – ‘Editing reply – The reply as such shall be published except for libelous allegations’. Presumably, this leaves it to the editorial prerogative or discretion of either the editor or station manager to print or air what comes as the written or scripted reply. How indeed can the libelous part of the reply be edited if it will depend on the party who
is supposed to have offended the other? Isn’t that tantamount to throwing the monkey wrench?
Further, that part of the whole equation that delves on a whole range of penalties depending on first, second, third offense and so on indicates simply that the State will tighten the noose over anybody’s neck each single time one’s supposed honor has been violated through so-called innuendo, suggestion, or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life. Thus, the Senate bill calibrates first, second, third, and
thereafter offense with fines of P10k, P20k, P30k, and P50, respectively aside from other proper sanctions as the court may recommend. Is that fair altogether?
For its part, the House suggests the following formula – first offense fined with P10k, second offense with P30k, third offense with P50k and imprisonment of not more than 30 days, fourth offense with P100k and
imprisonment for not more than 30 days, and for fifth and succeeding offenses will be ‘awarded’ the following package – P200k, imprisonment for not more than 30 days, and the closure and suspension of the franchise of the publication or broadcast media outlet or station for 30 days. If that is not giving more teeth to what the crocodile already has, what is?
All these are intended to cast shadows of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’ and one other novel rich in their political satire. Come to think of it, this proposed law carries with it a lifespan of 7, more or less, tumultuous if punishing years in so far as the editor, the publisher, the station manager, the publication, the broadcast medium – are but concerned.
This either bill could only have been drafted with quite a great degree of dishonesty especially when finally these two bills sponsored by both Houses of Congress would have been fused into one. In the end, Article 353 in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines on libel may be deemed insufficient still for our favored politicians who already have the full powers at their disposal what with such immunity from suit or their privilege speeches as being beyond the bounds of libel. Perhaps, what we are in fact seeing here is one saying – “Me, Tarzan. You, Tarzan?”
True enough, going to court as a form of redress might be too cumbersome if the first dose as in an RORB can already prescribe. How are we to believe what old Nene says about the bill if it is stipulated in the very text of the proposed law this non-preclusion of recourse to other legal rights or remedies by the offended party against the offending party? There is some dishonesty somewhere.
A law with a shelf life of 7 years ought to be a rather long nightmare for those whose profession carries the inherent hazard of being slapped with libel as a form of harassment by the powers that be or any other private persons, however untypically, or for what is there to criticize about the behavior of someone not reposed any public trust?. At the end of the day, the Fourth Estate would have lost its raison d etre in a playing field where the strong ruling elites dictate the rules of the game. This is kaput!
Popularity: 2% [?]
Primer,
There is a separate bill being pushed for the Decriminalization of Libel, but the author of RORB said on national television on Tuesday night to Pia Hontiveros that at the Bicam Stage of the RORB passage, he would be pushing for inclusion of a provision stating that a person availing of ROR gives up something under the new Libel Bill.
You cannot look at the Senate bill as it stands today for something its author acknowledges is not in it. In fact it is that very provision you quoted that will probably be changed at the Bicam level.
I make this firm prediction to you that he will offer the very quid pro quo between ROR and Libel that he told Pia Hontiveros he would last Tuesday night. He is a man of his word is he not?
But if that is what ROR will be about, then I am four square against it!
RORB is really just the ring on nose of the libel cow to lead it, and our defenses against Malicious Journalism, to slaughter.
With all due respect, the rest of this post is a reverberation from the Echo Chamber about Nene Pimentel’s Red Herring provisions, which he knew would elicit just this kind of response–a mindless trancelike tantric dance that Right of Reply is a suppression of Press Freedom. Just the right state of mind to be in for the anaesthetic overdose shot to be delivered on Libel Laws.
How good indeed can a sort of ‘rider’ provision be incorporated into the final bill during and after the bicameral conference that would read as a quid pro quo especially when this has been offered unilaterally by the RORB’s chief author? I am just plainly asking. For now, that is just a promissory note nonetheless if better still akin to more “passengers’ running after the train just when it left station.
Perhaps, we need to read two or more technical papers from the academe assailing whether or not a bill like an RORB would impact badly (or goodly)on such freedoms that are rather zealously enough being protected against attacks.
Surprisingly, it is when the bill was taken up in the House, that this “uproar” has gathered more steam. In any case, we did hear that this bill, in so far as the House is concerned, will not wait.
But revealingly so, Congress has left open the door for some accommodations of already overly stated concerns. It then bears watching in the meanwhile.
Gents,
Many of the unthinking co-authors of Pimentel’s bill, which he simply regurgitated from 1972, just before ~Martial Law’s imposition, have beaten a retreat.
This measure will either be fully neutered or will even be vetoed by you know who to gain pogi points with the working press.
Wow, the Czarine as Press Freedom’s Joan Of Arc! :)
Ding,
There was a time not so long ago, when the Shoe was on the Other Foot. That time was called Martial Law. How easy it is to forget. But let this be a continuing objection to belittlement of EQUAL PROTECTION as a cornerstone of fairness, over which we should not cry when next the footwear arrangement changes.
As bloggers, as textual and literary critics, we have to believe that Good Ideas are our allies and we must not be fair weather friends to them.
Just kidding – must be right foot from the left one from the same guy? He he, joke lang.
More than fairness, the bedrock of equal protection is equality such that if in the weighing scale, one is more equal than another, I would have to tag that as such – unfair.
The law is a Trojan Horse against: Freedom of the
Press, Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of
Speech.
All angles I have seen. It is a virtual way to
curtail such freedoms.
Timoteo, those who are against RORB also wanted Freedom of not-to-be-corrected, Freedom for people to see their stupidity, Freedom to oppress people of their unprofessional news gathering,
Listen, people, our journalists are only good in impeccable speakengese goot country club enlgischtzes but zero iQ.
Extremely, clueless and oblivious.