What's Your Reply?

To be published in Cebu Gold Star Daily

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press.

- THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

The Philippine Senate is in the process of reducing our rights as members of the press. It recently approved Senate Bill No. 2150, which gives any person the so-called ‘Right of Reply’. The proposed law criminalizes media practitioners and shuts down their operations if they fail to publish the reply of their subjects. It commands that the reply should have the same space, time and prominence as the original article or news segment. The reply must also be published within a number of days after the original article is published. All this must be made free of charge.


This law is so wrong on several levels. 


First, it reduces the freedom of the press to navigate through the truths they wish to expose to the public. The obligations imposed by this bill are an artificial deterrent against truth-telling. It sends a message to media that revealing bad news about a person or group of persons will probably cost them double compared to talking about other mundane things. 


Second, it corrupts the judgment of media by forcing them to base their actions on avoidance rather than fearless pursuit. It is the worst form of censorship pretending to be some form of reputation protection mechanism. 


Third, it is just bad for business. Imagine if this law were put into action. Our front pages and new clips will contain one reply after another. Our newspapers will become public forums, setting aside today’s most important items for a person’s reply to yesterday’s news. This form of compulsion will degrade the news into a mere chatroom of endless debates. What publisher in his right mind would want to do business under these conditions?


Fourth, it ignores the ideal that the press must be the ultimate check and balance over government and other powerful persons. It is the mechanism that is capable of keeping people in line by scrutinizing their words and actions. Such an institution is the people’s best defense and weapon against corrupt practices. Such an institution provides the transparency that the rich and the powerful are unwilling to supply freely. 


Both the Supreme Courts of the United States and the Philippines have long been clear that any law, which seeks to limit civil liberties has to pass a three-point test of strict scrutiny to be valid: 

1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. 
2. It must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. 
3. It must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. 

On its face, the proposed Right of Reply Bill does not present any compelling government interest but only protects the reputation of individual public figures -- people whose words and actions should be open to full public scrutiny in the first place. 

It is not narrowly tailored because it does more harm than good. It attempts to protect a single person’s reputation while depriving the rest of the people of a free, independent and fearless provider of information.


Finally, it is not the least restrictive means available because it commands media to provide free reply space and time with very specific parameters, thereby compelling them to forego more important matters. It is confiscatory and oppressive at the mere whim of any person who gets too sensitive about his or her feelings. Such conditions are too unreasonable and burdensome for media to function in a normal manner.


Our laws against libel and slander already hold media responsible for any lies or malicious information that it might spread to the public. The Right of Reply Bill is an unnecessary chokehold on the free press and must be rejected if the truth is to continue flowing through our papers, our airwaves and in the minds of our people.