“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
This is provided for under Section 4, Article III or the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The English dictionary meanwhile defines “abridging” as to “shorten, edit, condense, reduce, abbreviate, or cut.”
To reduce the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech is unconstitutional. Senate Bill 2150 or the Right of Reply Bill is literally that. It reduces the freedom of the press because it seeks to impose limitations on the process of journalism work.
In a country that is plague by corruption, clipping the muscle of the press is tantamount to tolerating scams and more illegal activities.
It was reported that the Senate already passed the bill on third reading. The bill provides the news subjects right to air their side over the same media outfit that has published or aired the news.
Senate Bill 2150 provides that violators will be penalized with P10,000 for initial offense, P20,000 for 2nd offense and P30,000 and imprisonment of not more than 30 days for the third offense.
The bill requires the reply of a news subject to have equal space and length of airtime as the original news. The bill also states that reply must be aired or printed not more than 24 hours after the publication or broadcast of the original article or broadcast.
Thus, taking into context the intent and rationale of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Senate Bill 2150 is truly unconstitutional because it is directly negating the very purpose of the fourth estate — that is to be the watchdog of the government.
Recently, several media organizations have already aired opposition to the approval of the bill. This includes the National Press Club Cebu, Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC), the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP). They claimed that the legislators are curtailing press freedom in the guise of the Right of Reply bill.
The Pampanga Press Club and NUJP Pampanga join these groups for it is not only unconstitutional but also unnecessary.
To start with, the approval of such bill is tantamount to assuming that all media outfits in the country are irresponsible, unethical and unprofessional. This is not true though. Many media outfits strictly impose balanced reporting, responsible journalism and equal treatment of news.
Only a few media are actually abusive. I won’t argue that there were none. In fact, there were several. But this does not mean that a new law is needed to clip the power of the media and mess with the procedures of journalism work.
In fact the 1987 Philippine Constitution likewise provided both public and private individuals recourse should they feel aggrieved by a news item.
Anybody can file libel case against any media outfit and journalist who could have maligned or discredited him through publication, including broadcast.
The Right of Reply bill will only be abused by politicians involved in scandals, scams and corruption. It is likewise unpractical because giving the subject the same length of space and airtime will rob the media outfits of the valuable airtime and space needed for more news. It was said that only 10 percent of all the news that reach the newsrooms are printed or aired.
This is provided for under Section 4, Article III or the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The English dictionary meanwhile defines “abridging” as to “shorten, edit, condense, reduce, abbreviate, or cut.”
To reduce the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech is unconstitutional. Senate Bill 2150 or the Right of Reply Bill is literally that. It reduces the freedom of the press because it seeks to impose limitations on the process of journalism work.
In a country that is plague by corruption, clipping the muscle of the press is tantamount to tolerating scams and more illegal activities.
It was reported that the Senate already passed the bill on third reading. The bill provides the news subjects right to air their side over the same media outfit that has published or aired the news.
Senate Bill 2150 provides that violators will be penalized with P10,000 for initial offense, P20,000 for 2nd offense and P30,000 and imprisonment of not more than 30 days for the third offense.
The bill requires the reply of a news subject to have equal space and length of airtime as the original news. The bill also states that reply must be aired or printed not more than 24 hours after the publication or broadcast of the original article or broadcast.
Thus, taking into context the intent and rationale of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Senate Bill 2150 is truly unconstitutional because it is directly negating the very purpose of the fourth estate — that is to be the watchdog of the government.
Recently, several media organizations have already aired opposition to the approval of the bill. This includes the National Press Club Cebu, Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC), the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP). They claimed that the legislators are curtailing press freedom in the guise of the Right of Reply bill.
The Pampanga Press Club and NUJP Pampanga join these groups for it is not only unconstitutional but also unnecessary.
To start with, the approval of such bill is tantamount to assuming that all media outfits in the country are irresponsible, unethical and unprofessional. This is not true though. Many media outfits strictly impose balanced reporting, responsible journalism and equal treatment of news.
Only a few media are actually abusive. I won’t argue that there were none. In fact, there were several. But this does not mean that a new law is needed to clip the power of the media and mess with the procedures of journalism work.
In fact the 1987 Philippine Constitution likewise provided both public and private individuals recourse should they feel aggrieved by a news item.
Anybody can file libel case against any media outfit and journalist who could have maligned or discredited him through publication, including broadcast.
The Right of Reply bill will only be abused by politicians involved in scandals, scams and corruption. It is likewise unpractical because giving the subject the same length of space and airtime will rob the media outfits of the valuable airtime and space needed for more news. It was said that only 10 percent of all the news that reach the newsrooms are printed or aired.
