PRESS STATEMENT OF REP. TEODORO L. LOCSIN, JR.

I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT

and it was not from a KGB lamp shining in my face

LAST night, as I sat beside the sponsor of what he promised would be the much watered down
House version of the unanimous Senate Right of Reply bill, I felt not only the heat of his
interrogation by the Left but also saw the light in our dilemma.
This House has been trying to fix, piecemeal, what a unanimous Senate approved: a Right
of Reply bill giving to people attacked by media the right to answer those attacks in the same
media that attacked them. On the ground, US Chief Justice Rehnquist said, that while press
freedom is a constitutional value, it is not the only value. Another is personal honor.
It makes no difference if “a corrupt congressman”—why does the Left like to use only
corrupt congressmen as an example?—how would the Left like it if we use “a murdering
communist” as our only example of murder?—indeed it makes no difference if a man is
ultimately found guilty of thus far unsubstantiated news reports, a unanimous Senate felt that he
has the right to answer in media the charges published by media against him. Failure to do so
should be punishable on its own because his trial by publicity for crimes media accuse him of is
separate from the judicial trial he may—or may not—undergo regarding those charges.
In the judicial trial of his alleged crimes, his side must be heard. In the prior publicity of
those same accusations, he is equally entitled to be heard. It makes no difference if he is
convicted or acquitted. I don’t know if the unanimous Senate is right about that. In Communist
Russia, accusation is proof.
A unanimous Senate believed that this right to be heard in media as in a court of law
includes politicians, even if members of Congress can answer in Congress with impunity attacks
against them in media. But what if media will not print the answer? Unless media report what
Congress does, Congress may as well not exist—until we make our answer law. Then everyone
sits up and listens or he goes to jail or is fined.
But last night, having listened to the Left, I realized that none of them is interested in
amending the Senate’s Right of Reply bill. I also realized that even media are not interested in
amendments to the Senate’s Right of Reply bill, whose unanimous passage was met by media
only with a mysterious silence. In contrast, attempts of the House to water down, tightly limit, if
not outright emasculate the unanimous Senate Right of Reply bill have been met by media with
indifference or vilification. The superb writer Jessica Zafra posted my amendments on her
website. It got only two reactions: one from an Australian who said they were “genius” and the
other from a “moron” who said I was “a phony Amboy”. If that is a sampling, foreigners support
my amendments while idiots are clueless. She deleted it all.
Now, I have been a journalist since I wrote one of the first reports out of Red China in
1967. But I must admit that when it comes to journalism and press freedom, the Left has a thing
or two to teach me still. And when it comes to chilling effects on media, the Left has a thing or
two or three to teach us all—and I don’t mean the effect of Siberia on editorial independence and
authorial autonomy.
Therefore, I withdraw all my amendments to the House-adopted Senate Right of Reply
Bill. That famous columnist whose name escapes me was right: the Senate Right of Reply Bill is
beyond amendment, just put it to a vote and let it sink or swim on its original merits or demerits.