Legislative Threats to Press Freedom in the Philippines:

Toward a Human-Centered ASEAN Integration Process1

Gary Mariano
De La Salle University

Abstract

Several countries in the region have adopted diverse approaches to media, thus
rendering difficult the vision of a socially or culturally integrated ASEAN. For instance, only
the Philippines and Indonesia share a more-or-less similar view on press freedom; Thailand,
too, but it is under martial law. These are the only three countries in the region with press
councils. The rest are authoritarian (in Siebert's sense), or state-centered.

This paper argues that: 1) human-centeredness is on one end of the pole, while state-
centeredness, or organization-centeredness, is on the other; 2) civil liberties (including press
freedom) cater to this orientation rather than the state-centricism of authoritarian regimes, and
3) media should be free (from prior restraint/compulsion, subsequent punishment) if the
integration would be human-centered and free.

This paper also discusses various bills that affect “freedom of the press.” These are: 1)
Decriminalization of Libel – Sen. Angara has sponsored SB 918 calling for the removal of the
prison term for libel; 2) Magna Carta for Journalists – Sen. Jinggoy Estrada has re-filed SB
515, which is NOT emancipatory since it calls for the creation of a professional class of
journalists, and 3) Right-of-Reply bills – Sen. Pimentel's SB 1178, Rep. Puentevella's HB
01001 and Rep. Angara's HB 162’s call for automatic and mandatory right of reply.

Key words: Press Freedom, Right of Reply Senate Bills, Decriminalization of Libel,
Magna Carta for Journalists

1
Published in the Philippine Communications Society Journal (2010)
 Mariano 2

Introduction

This paper tackles the legislative threats to press freedom in the Philippines. It

discusses, particularly, three types of bills pending in both houses of the Philippine

Congress that pose some kind of threat to press freedom, and how any diminution of

freedoms can affect the human-centeredness of the proposed integration of ASEAN,

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Gill (1990) defines human centeredness as “a new technological tradition

which places human need, skill, creativity and potentiality at the center of the activities

of technological systems.” A sampling of the literature shows that human centeredness

is an area of concern in both information designs (Rosenbrock, 1989; Gill, 1996;

Earthy, 1998; Rauner et al., 1988; Brandt & Cernetic, 1998; Earthy et al., 2001;

Plumwood, 2002; Khosla et al., 2005; Gill, 2007), as well as environment studies

(Elliot, 1991; Hayward, 1997; Benson, 2000; Stibbe, 2004; Williams & Millington,

2004; Hailwood, 2005; Buhr & Reiter, 2006; Palmer, 2006; Miller & Spoolman,

2007).

Even in systems design, there has been an attempt to link human-centeredness

to critical theorists (Warren, 2000). Human-centeredness is seen as a departure from

the previous thinking that has given primacy to technology, or systems; to the users of

technology, rather than the technology itself; and, to humans with “abilities and limits”

(Nemeth, 2004). Clarke and Lehaney (2000) describe human-centered methods as

“interpretivist.”
 Mariano 3

While ASEAN integration is primarily economic – the transformation of

ASEAN into “a single market and production base, a highly competitive economic

region, a region of equitable economic development, and a region fully integrated into

the global economy” (ASEAN, 2007), there is no doubt that the main beneficiaries,

key players and, possibly, even the victims, of such integration are the individual

citizens of each member-nation.

Individuals will be the capitalists, managers, laborers, distributors, sellers and

consumers. They are the individuals, who will either benefit from an economic

integration or possibly lose their jobs and income, as a result of the same integration.

In short, the process of economic integration will be conceptualized, operationalized,

executed and ultimately lived and experienced by individuals.

The human-centered approach considers the welfare of the individual

participants in the economic integration process now being effected and experienced

by ASEAN.

In mass media theory, Siebert et al. (1963) propose the authoritarian-libertarian

continuum. Under this theory, authoritarian societies place the State over the

individual, who is able to attain his full potential only as a member of society. It states

that the State is essential to the full development of man and that the State supersedes

the individual, since, without the state, the individual is helpless in developing the

attributes of a civilized person. In and through the State, man achieves his ends.

Conversely, man remains a primitive being without the State (Siebert et al. 1963: 10-

11).
 Mariano 4

On the other hand, libertarians hold that the happiness and well-being of the

individual are the goals of society, whose prime function is to advance the interests of

its individual members. The State exists as a means of providing the individual with a

milieu in which he can realize his own potential, and that government is the servant of

the people (pp. 40-41).

Accordingly, this paper attempts to establish a connection between

libertarianism, or democracy, and human-centeredness. It implies that a human-

centered society should also be a free society, and that any proposed human-centered

integration for ASEAN ought to be done in a libertarian, democratic environment.

Hence, it is proposed that democracy and press freedom go hand-in-hand, one being a

function of the other. The author further submits that a free press is a key feature in this

human-centered integration.

Freedom and Press Freedom in ASEAN

Based on the Freedom House rankings, ASEAN member-countries have a lot

of catching-up to do. Freedom House conducts two world-wide surveys on freedom:

Freedom in the World (Freedom House, 2010a), which covers political rights and civil

liberties, and Freedom of the Press (Freedom House, 2010b).

In the first and broader survey done in 2008, only Indonesia was listed as a

“free society,” and even then, as a marginal case. Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore

and Thailand were classified as “partly-free”; the rest were “not free.”
 Mariano 5

Data on press freedom were not any better: none of the ASEAN countries was

reported to have a “free press.” Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand were rated as

“partly-free”; and, all the others, “not free.”

Table 1. Freedom and Press Freedom in ASEAN, 2010

Country Freedom Classification Press freedom Classification
Brunei 5.5 Not Free 75 Not Free
Cambodia 5.5 Not Free 61 Not Free
Indonesia 2.5 Free 52 Partly Free
Laos 6.5 Not Free 84 Not Free
Malaysia 4.0 Partly Free 64 Not Free
Myanmar 7.0 Not Free 95 Not Free
Philippines 3.5 Partly Free 48 Partly Free
Singapore 4.5 Partly Free 68 Not Free
Thailand 4.5 Partly Free 58 Partly Free
Vietnam 6.5 Not Free 82 Not Free
Mean 5.00 Partly Free 68.70 Not Free
(SD) (1.45) (15.08)
Pearson’s correlation .903
Freedom scores: 1-2.5=free 3-5=partly free 5.5-7=not free
Press Freedom scores: 0-30=free 31-60=partly free 61-100=not free
Source: Freedom House

A question arises as to what these data say about the link between democracy

and press freedom that libertarians have for so long been trying to establish.

Comparing the Freedom House figures for both surveys, a very strong positive

statistical correlation (.903) is observed between them. The press will be free in a free

society, and vice-versa.

Freedom House defines freedom as “the opportunity to act spontaneously in a

variety of fields outside the control of the government and other centers of potential

domination,” as “experienced by individuals (Freedom House, 2010c).” In the press

 Mariano 6

freedom survey, “the starting point of the study is the smallest, most universal unit of

concern: the individual (Freedom House, 2010d).”

These data and definitions boost the link between human-centeredness and

press freedom, specifically, that any erosion of press freedom could significantly and

negatively affect human-centeredness.

The Philippines, which has for so long prided itself in having the “freest press”

in Asia, tends to be on the free side. An examination of data over the past eight years –

2002 being the earliest year with available data from the Freedom House Web site –

shows a slight, but steady, downward trend from free to partly-free. For 2010, the

Philippines rating has dropped by three points, meriting a special mention for

“worrying declines” along with Mexico and Senegal (Freedom House, 2010c).

Likewise, these data reflect an even higher correlation between political freedom and

press freedom.

Table 2. Freedom and Press Freedom in the Philippines, 2002-2010

Year Freedom Classification Press freedom Classification
2002 2.5 Free 30 Free
2003 2.5 Free 30 Free
2004 2.5 Free 34 Partly Free
2005 2.5 Free 35 Partly Free
2006 3.0 Partly Free 40 Partly Free
2007 3.0 Partly Free 46 Partly Free
2008 3.5 Partly Free 45 Partly Free
2009 3.5 Partly Free 45 Partly Free
2010 3.5 Partly Free 48 Partly Free
Mean 2.94 Free 39.22 Partly Free
(SD) (0.46) (7.12)
Pearson’s correlation .912
Freedom scores: 1-2.5=free 3-5=partly free 5.5-7=not free
Press Freedom scores: 0-30=free 31-60=partly free 61-100=not free
Source: Freedom House

Press Freedom
 Mariano 7

In the Philippines, the notion of press freedom is patterned very closely after

that of the United States’, which was influenced by French and British philosophers of

the period of Enlightenment. Press freedom is anchored on guarantees (Teodoro &

Kabatay, 2006):

• from prior restraint – licensing, censorship;

• from subsequent punishment of harmless publications;

• of free access to public information, and

• of free circulation.

A fifth notion, not very well known, but part of United States jurisprudence, is

the freedom from prior compulsion (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 1974).

Legislation as State Policy

The Freedom House rankings do not merely consider “governments or

government performance per se, but rather the real-world rights and social freedoms

enjoyed by individuals. Freedoms can be affected by state actions, as well as by non-

state actors, including insurgents and other armed groups. Thus, the survey ratings

generally reflect the interplay of a variety of actors, both governmental and

nongovernmental” (Freedom House, 2008c).

The downgrading of press freedom in the Philippines cannot be attributed

directly to official state policy, but rather to the “excessive use of defamation suits to

silence criticism of public officials, the government’s clampdown on opposition media

 Mariano 8

during the state of emergency in February [2007], and the continued threat posed by

journalist-targeted violence (Freedom House, 2007).”

Legislation is different. Whatever law the Republic of the Philippines enacts

becomes official state policy. Adopting bills perceived to be inimical, or otherwise, to

press freedom would constitute an official position.

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines bears an explicit press freedom

clause: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of

the press (Philippine Constitution, Art. III)." Yet, there were, at the time this article

was originally presented, three types of legislation that could be detrimental to press

freedom in the Philippines. These concerned a mandatory right of reply, various

versions of libel law amendments, and the creation of a corps of accredited

professional journalists. While none of these was enacted by the time the 14th

Philippine Congress adjourned in May 2010, they could still be re-filed in the next one.

Mandatory Right of Reply

There were three bills, entitled, “An Act Granting the Right of Reply and

Providing Penalties for Violation thereof,” seeking to grant an automatic and

immediate right of reply to persons (SB 2150, 2008; HB 162, 2007; HB 1001, 2007):

accused directly or indirectly of committing, having committed or

of intending to commit any crime or offense defined by law or are

criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in

behavior in public or private life, shall have the right to reply to the

charges published or printed in newspapers, magazines,

 Mariano 9

newsletters or publications circulated commercially or for free, or

criticisms aired or broadcast over radio, television, websites, or

through any electronic device.

One of the proponents, Rep. Monico Puentevella, viewed press freedom as a

two-way street, and not a one-way highway, that was subject to abuse (HB 1001,

2007). The other proponents, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and Rep. Juan Edgardo

Angara, said that press freedom involved a “correlative right of reply” (SB 2150, 2008;

HB 162, 2007).

Their bills sought to require the respondent-media to publish a reply not later

than one day from its delivery. Otherwise, the concerned editor and publisher (or

station manager) would be liable to graduated fines of up to P200,000 (US$ 4,800).

For repeated offenses, they could be imprisoned for up to 30 days or, with HB 1001

(2007), they could even called for a 30-day closure of a media outlet.

Several jurisdictions have a mandatory right of reply, whether mandated by

their constitutions or legislated. Cambodia, Indonesia and Singapore are among those

in the ASEAN (Mariano, 2007).

The Indonesian Press Law has a rather stiff fine for failure to “heed” the right

of reply. According to Atmakusumah Astraatmadja, former Indonesian Press Council

chairman, taking heed does not mean compelling the publication of a right of reply

(personal communication, Feb. 29, 2008).

In Cambodia, any person “asserting a right of retraction or reply may, at the

same time, bring a suit in defamation, libel or humiliation. In the event that a person
 Mariano 10

brings a civil suit in defamation, a court may order the press to publish a retraction, pay

compensation, or both. Courts may, in addition to the orders and awards just

mentioned, impose fines of between 1m and 5m riels and may order the publication of

its decision at the expense of the defendant (not to exceed 1m riels)” (Article19.org.

2004).

Greece, El Salvador, Spain, France, Finland, Korea, Holland, Norway,

Germany and Georgia also have mandatory right-of-reply provisions in their laws

(Mariano, 2007).

However, the right of reply is not obligatory in democracies like Britain and the

United States. In 2005, the British Parliament rejected a right-of-reply bill (Watkins,

2005), while the United States Supreme Court in 1974 ruled that a statutory,

compulsory right of reply is unconstitutional (Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 1974).

In Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the Court maintained that:

[1] press responsibility cannot be legislated (IV of the main opinion), ;

[2] the choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to

limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public

issues and public officials – whether fair or unfair – constitute the exercise

of editorial control and judgment (IV);

[3] a newspaper or magazine is not a public utility subject to ‘reasonable’

governmental regulation in matters affecting the exercise of

journalistic judgment as to what shall be printed (from Justice White’s

concurring opinion);
 Mariano 11

[4] prior compulsion by government in matters going to the very nerve

center of a newspaper – the decision as to what copy will or will not be

included in any given edition – collides with the First Amendment

(from Justice White); and

[5] the press cannot be forced to print an answer to a personal attack made

by it (from Justice White).

Two Philippine media organizations – the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) and

the Cebu Citizens Press Council (CCPC)– have opposed these bills on the same

grounds raised in Miami Herald. The Cebu council asserted that the right of reply

“cannot be legislated, much more criminalized.” (Cebu Citizens Press Council, 2007)

Both organizations have set up a right-of-reply mechanism that would allow

subjects of news reports and editorial opinions to respond in the same publication. The

Philippine Press Council has ethical jurisdiction over around 100 member-news-

publications in the Philippines, but this does not cover all the newspapers, including

four “broadsheets” publishing out of Manila. Complainants must show proof that they

have sent their reply to the subject newspaper, and editors are encouraged to print them

promptly. In case complainants feel that their replies have been ignored, they may

approach the press council. The council may urge a member-publication to publish a

reply, but this is not automatically done, provided the paper explains its decision. (A

newspaper would have the option to provide an explanation, if it did not wish to print a

reply.)
 Mariano 12

On the other hand, the council may likewise impose sanctions, ranging from a

statement of censure to expulsion from the Institute, on a member-publication that

refuses to cooperate when a legitimate complaint is filed against it (Philippine Press

Institute, 2007).

Actually, the right of reply is already a law in the Philippines, as evidenced

during elections. Section 10 of the Fair Election Act (2001) grants a right to reply to all

registered parties and bona fide candidates. It requires the mass medium that has

originally carried the charges to publish the reply with “the same prominence or in the

same page or section or in the same time slot as the first statement.” Offenders can be

punished with up to six years of imprisonment (Omnibus Election Code, 1985). This

provision is similar to an election-related right-of-reply clause of Florida Statute 104

(1973) that Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974) has found unconstitutional.

A Magna Carta for Journalism

Senate Bill No. 515 (2007), “Providing for a Magna Carta for Journalism,” was

filed in July 2007 by Sen. Jose Pimentel Ejercito, Jr., better known as Jinggoy Ejercito

Estrada. In his explanatory note, Estrada says that it is necessary to enact a law “that

will ensure a living wage, an atmosphere conducive to productive journalism work,

reiterate value of ethics, provide for development programs that will deepen the

practice of their profession, and promote the defense and protection of freedom and

human rights of journalists and their organizations.”

The main provisions of the bill are the following:

• Creation of the Philippine Council of Journalists;

 Mariano 13

• Considerations for journalists’ salaries and wages;

• Promulgation of a code of ethics;

• Concern for journalists’ security and protection;

• Conduct of training programs and development;

• Incentives, and

• Inclusion in the journalism curriculum.

Estrada has envisioned the Council for Journalists as a development center and

self-regulatory body that would accredit and offer training programs for journalists. It

would be a super-umbrella organization of eight umbrella organizations of existing

media organizations in the Philippines –the National Press Club, the Philippine Press

Institute, Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas, Press Photographers Association

of the Philippines, Overseas Press Club, National Union of Journalists, Publishers

Association of the Philippines and the Federation of Provincial Press Clubs (Section 5,

SB 515).

The Council would conduct the Professional Journalist Examination, a

requirement for accreditation. According to the bill, accredited journalists would be

“entitled to all benefits and privileges that may be accorded to them by law, by their

employers and by the PCJ.” According to Section 5(c), non-accredited journalists

would not be barred from exercising their “duties and rights as journalists,” but they

would be limited to those benefits and privileges accorded them by their employers.

The Council would also adopt a Code of Ethics, violations of which should be

grounds for appropriate sanctions, which might involve the permanent withdrawal of

one’s professional accreditation (Section 7).

 Mariano 14

Salaries of journalists must be comparable with those in other occupations with

the “same degree of training and qualifications.” Their salaries must also consider the

cost of living and the “imperatives of economic and social development” (Section 6).

The bill would require that the service of a search or arrest warrant against a

journalist in job-related cases be done in coordination with the Council. The Council

should also be immediately informed of any journalist under custodial investigation. It

also would want to require the heads of the military and law-enforcement agencies to

immediately relay to the Council any citizen’s arrest of a journalist.

Likewise, law enforcers would be ordered to investigate with dispatch any

reported killing, abduction or harassment of a journalist, and relay the results to the

Council, or the local media organization of the journalist’s employer. Law enforcers

would also be called upon to extend their “utmost cooperation and courtesies” to

journalists “to ensure the unhampered media exercise of their calling” (Section 8).

The Council would be required to hold annual seminars to upgrade the skills

and instill professionalism among journalists. These seminars would be a must for

those seeking accreditation. The Council would also offer incentives by way of awards,

cash incentives, scholarship grants and exchange programs (Section 9).

Finally, schools teaching journalism should include the Act and the Code of

Ethics in their curriculum (Section 12).

The phrase magna carta refers to documents that offer a package of significant

rights and privileges. It was first used to refer to King John’s Magna Carta of 1215,

which recognized the limitations of the King’s powers and the rights of ordinary

citizens, especially against royal abuse.

 Mariano 15

In the case of SB 515, there are no real, substantial rights and privileges offered

to journalists that are not already subject to existing laws or are not being provided by

existing media organizations. On the other hand, one of its key provisions, the

accreditation of professional journalists, while tantalizing to the title-conscious and

especially the undeserving, is, at best, an empty title and, at worst, unconstitutional.

Accreditation is a form of licensing, which is foremost among prior restraints.

If accreditation were not a condition for the practice of journalism, then why bother

with passing an exam and practicing journalism according to a code?

Here would arise the questions: Who is a journalist? Who determines who is a

journalist? What about independent journalists, such as bloggers, who are not formally

employed by any news organizations?

Another relevant question is whether or not journalism is a profession, in the

same manner as medicine, engineering, accountancy or law. Professionals are

practitioners engaged in an endeavor extended with a very high degree of public

interest. This holds true for journalists in their pursuit of truth and justice. Journalists

are professionals when they possess the necessary, although not uniform, competencies

to report or comment on the many events unfolding in society. They are professionals

when they recognize and respect the power of the published word, and the influence

they have on the general public.

On the other hand, journalism cannot be truly called a profession. Unlike

physicians or lawyers, journalists have no common academic preparation. Schools do

not offer a standard curriculum for journalism, mass communication and

communication arts. Not that uniformity is necessarily a desired feature. A degree in

 Mariano 16

communication is not a requirement for one’s being a journalist. In some instances, a

college degree is not even a requirement, neither is it a guarantee of excellence. In this

country, anybody can be a journalist.

Journalists have disparate sets of skills. Chemists and nurses are expected to

have a basic set of competencies common to all of them. The same is not true for

journalists. There are excellent news photographers who have trouble writing captions

or conducting meaningful interviews. There are terrible reporters, but excellent writers,

and vice-versa. Copy editors have different tasks than those of news editors. Police

reporters may not adequately and instantly fill vacancies for covering the courts.

This writer believes that a journalist can be professional – competent,

responsible, compassionate, committed – without having to be an accredited

professional. A person becomes a journalist the moment he embarks on a career of

gathering information which is made available to a public. In the conventional sense,

one becomes a journalist when an editor gives him an assignment. But this does not

preclude un-affiliated radio block-timers and bloggers who may be doing as much

competent and quality journalism.

Other than the title, what would substantially distinguish the accredited

professional journalist from the non-accredited one?

According to the bill (SB 515), accredited journalists are those who have

passed the Professional Journalist Exam given by the Philippine Council of Journalists

(PCJ). They would receive benefits and privileges accorded by law, their employers

and the PCJ. Non-accredited journalists would only receive the benefits and privileges

given by their employers. Considering that the Philippine Constitution grants the same
 Mariano 17

right of free expression to all its citizens, no special privileges for accredited journalist,

aside from a plastic card that would identify them as “Professional Journalists”, can be

gleaned from the bill.

Decriminalization of Libel

The bill (SB 515) also interprets press freedom as freedom from subsequent

punishment for harmless publications. There are instances when the mere reporting of

facts can harm persons, but, for as long as the reporting is done without malice, the

publication cannot be held liable or accountable..

There are no official statistics about convictions for libel in the Philippines. The

recent conviction of a showbiz columnist is considered rare (Requero, 2008). Yet

Freedom House has attributed the rash in the filing of libel suits against journalists to

the downgrade of press freedom in this country. According to the blog site of the

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), Philippine First Gentleman

(PFG) Jose Miguel Arroyo is seeking P141 million in damages from 43 journalists he

has sued for libel in 2006 (Lorenzo, 2006).

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines says these defendants

include reporters, columnists, editors, publishers, and even a subscription manager

(Pabico, 2006). One of these defendants has claimed that Mr. Arroyo’s taking the

journalists to court is eroding the watchdog function of the press (Galvez, 2007). In
 Mariano 18

retaliation, these defendants have filed a P15 million class suit against Mr. Arroyo

(Tordesillas, 2006).

According to news reports, there are eight bills seeking to amend Philippine

libel laws as contained in the Revised Penal Code. The present discussion is limited to

these five Senate bills: SB 5, 2007; SB 110; 2007; SB 223, 2007; SB 917, 2007; SB

2108, 2007.

The Senate bills range from a complete repeal (SB 1403, 2007) of Article 355,

which defines libel as “a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or

defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance

tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or

to blacken the memory of one who is dead”; to selective amendments, such as:

• removal of prison terms;

• raising of criminal fines;

• reduction of the criminal prescription period;

• limiting the persons responsible;

• venue for trial of civil libel suits;

• making malice an explicit requirement, and

• conditions for invoking truth as proof.

It is not easy to judge these bills as a whole, especially those calling for the

wholesale decriminalization of libel.

Most journalists and lawyers, whom the author has consulted, are in favor of

decriminalization. Among the reasons they have cited are the following:

• journalists can say whatever they want without fear of harassment;

 Mariano 19

• journalist-respondents would no longer be arrested when facing libel

charges, as required in criminal procedure;

• respondents no longer have to post bail;

• court fees for civil suits will discourage the indiscriminate filing of

lawsuits, hence minimizing harassment, and

• Philippine jurisprudence does not have a history of awarding moral

damages (“for sleepless nights”).

An exception is the Cebu Citizens Press Council, which opposes the

decriminalization of libel (Cebu Citizens Press Council, 2008):

Freedom comes with responsibility and being made to account for excess

or abuse helps to sharpen the journalist’s sense of responsibility. Libel as a

crime requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which serves as a

safeguard for the journalist.

This view is shared by Amado Macasaet, then head of the Philippine Press

Institute (personal communication, May 29, 2008).

Three of these bills (SB 5, 2007; SB 110, 2007; SB 918, 2007) call for the

decriminalization of libel. However, this is a bit misleading. While the bills call for the

removal of the prison terms, libel itself would remain punishable under the Revised

Penal Code, subject to a prescription period albeit reduced. Hence, libel would remain

covered by criminal procedure, which requires the arrest of defendants and the posting

of bail. And, once convicted, the journalists would have a criminal record.
 Mariano 20

In fairness, it must be stated that these bills would either make it harder to

punish journalists for good-faith reporting, or make the penalties lighter. These bills

should, therefore, be seen as beneficial to the press, except for SB 223 (2007), which

seeks penalties of up to P300,000 or US$7,200. Every journalist would be heaving a

sigh of relief at the news that they no longer have to go to jail for libel. Community

journalists facing libel suits – filed by out-of-town complainants – could now defend

themselves in courts closer to home.

It must be stated that, except for SB 1403, the aforesaid bills would not be

decriminalizing libel.

Strengthening Press Freedom

There is a silver lining in the sky.

In October 2007, the Press Council presented its views in a Right of Reply

forum. Sen. Pimentel said that he was amenable to a private – in lieu of a statutory –

right of reply, nonetheless adding that he would not withdraw his bill (Philippine Press

Institute, 2007). He floated the possibility of inserting a “sunset” clause that would

provide for a time frame within which all the news media would be setting up credible

right-of-reply mechanisms, after which the law would expire.

This seems unnecessary since the very notion of a statutory, automatic,

legislated, mandatory, compulsory right of reply already constitutes prior compulsion

and violates the constitutional provision on press freedom.

In December 2007, the Cebu council sent a resolution and a position paper to

the three legislators. In February 2008, Rep. Angara replied that he was dropping his
 Mariano 21

support to HB 162 (2007). Angara also hinted that Rep. Puentevella “may follow suit”

with HB 1001 (SunStar Cebu, 2008).

Phone calls to the House of Representatives confirmed the withdrawal of

Angara’s bill and the pending status of Puentevella’s own bill. (Personal

communication with “Jing Sumalpon”, Secretary, House Committee on Public

Information, April 7, 2008).

Finally, seven bills related to press freedom were found still pending in the

House of Representatives, and one in the Senate, entitled, “An Act Implementing the

Right of Access to Information on Matters of Public Concern,” the enabling law for the

constitutional provision that recognizes the citizens’ right of “access to official records,

and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as

well as to government research data used as basis for policy development” (SB 109,

2007).

In 2008, the House of Representatives passed HB 3732 (2007). On the last day

of the 14th Congress, however, it failed to ratify said bill for lack of quorum

(Dalangin-Fernandez, 2010).

Another promising bill then was HB 430 (2008), which sought to extend to

non-print journalists protection from being compelled to reveal their confidential

sources.

Conclusion

The Right-of-Reply bills pose threats to press freedom because they constitute

prior compulsion. The Magna Carta (for Journalism), despite its lofty name, has no
 Mariano 22

emancipatory features; in fact, it represents a prior restraint. Hence, these bills must be

opposed as being anti-press freedom.

Furthermore, these bills may have expired upon the 14th Philippine Congress’

adjournment in May 2010, but these may still be re-filed in the 15th Congress, which

opened in July 2010.

Section 10 of the Fair Election Act (2001) must be repealed by Congress, or

challenged before the Supreme Court.

The bills seeking to “decriminalize” libel, except for one, do not truly

decriminalize the offense.

These bills are inimical to press freedom.

On the other hand, free speech can be enhanced with the enactment of

legislation on freedom of information, and the protection of non-print journalists from

being forced to reveal their sources.

We must keep the news media free. We must recover lost ground. We must

strengthen press freedom where it exists.

ASEAN can benefit from a free media, in an environment that will allow the

free flow and access to adequate, accurate, relevant, timely, useful and credible

information that will help individuals in our countries make wise and intelligent

decisions, especially as we venture into integration.

Notes:

Originally presented at the 8th ASEAN Inter-University Conference on Social Development, May 28-
31, 2008, Manila.
 Mariano 23

References

An Act Decriminalizing Libel by Means of Writing or Similar Means Repealing

Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, SB 1403, 14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).

An Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof, HB

162, 14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).

An Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof, HB

1001, 14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).

An Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof, SB

2150, 14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2008).

An Act Prescribing Different Penalties for Political and Private Libel Cases, Amending

Article 354 and 361 of Republic Act No. 3815, as Amended, Otherwise Known

as the Revised Penal Code, for this Purpose, SB 2108, 14th Cong., 1st Sess.

(2007).

An Act to Abolish the Penalty of Imprisonment in Libel Cases Amending for the

Purposes Articles 355 and 360 of Republic Act No. 3815, as Amended,

Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, and for Other Purposes, SB 5,

14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).

An Act to Abolish the Penalty of Imprisonment in Libel Cases and Providing for the

Venue for the Civil Action in Libel Cases against Community Journalists,

Publications or Broadcast Stations, Amending for the Purposes Articles 355

and 360 of Republic Act No. 3815, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the
 Mariano 24

Revised Penal Code, and for other Purposes, SB 110, 14th Cong., 1st Sess.

(2007).

An Act to Abolish the Penalty of Imprisonment in Libel Cases, Amending for the

Purpose Articles 355, 357 and 360 of Republic Act No. 3815, as Amended,

Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code and for Other Purposes, SB 223,

14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).

An Act to Abolish the Penalty of Imprisonment in Libel Cases, Amending for the

Purpose Articles 355, 356, 357 and 360 of Republic Act No. 3815, as

Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code and for Other

Purposes, SB 918, 14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).

Article19.org. (2004). Article 10, Cambodian Law on the Press. Retrieved from

http://article19.org.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2007, November 20). Declaration on the

ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. Retrieved from http://aseansec.org.

Benson, J. (2000). Environmental ethics: An introduction with readings (pp. 32-34).

London: Routledge.

Brandt, D., & Cernetic, J. (1998). Human-centred approaches to control and

information technology: European experiences. AI & Society, 12(1-2), 2-20.

doi:10.1007/BF0117977.

Buhr, N., & Reiter, S. (2006). Ideology, the environment and one world view: A

discourse analysis of Noranda’s environmental and sustainable development

reports. In M. Freedman & B. Jaggi (Eds.), Environmental accounting:

Commitment or propaganda (Vol. 3, pp. 1-48). Oxford: JAI Press.

 Mariano 25

Cebu Citizens Press Council. (2007). Position paper on bills legislating the right to

reply. Retrieved from http://cebucitizenspresscouncil.org.

Cebu Citizens Press Council. (2008, March 26). CCPC arguments on decriminalizing

libel. Retrieved from http://cebucitizenspresscouncil.org.

Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2000). Human centered methods in information systems:

Current research and practice (p. 5). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Dalangin-Fernandez, L. (2010, June 4). House fails to ratify Freedom of Information

bill. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from http://inquirer.net.

Earthy, J., Jones, B. S., & Bevan, N. (2001). The improvement of human-centred

processes: Facing the challenge and reaping the benefit of ISO 13407.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 553-585.

doi:10.1006/ijhc.2001.0493.

Elliot, R. (1991). Environmental ethics. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics (pp.

284-293). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Fair Election Act, §10 (2001).

Florida Statute 104, §38 (1973).

Fredom House. (2010a). Freedom in the world. Retrieved from

http://freedomhouse.org.

Fredom House. (2010b). Freedom of the press. Retrieved from

http://freedomhouse.org.

Free Information Act, S. 109, 14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).

Freedom House (2010c). Restrictions on press freedom intensifying. Retrieved from

http://freedomhouse.org.
 Mariano 26

Freedom House. (2010d). Map of press freedom: Philippines. Retrieved from

http://freedomhouse.org.

Freedom of Information Act, HB 3732, 14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2008).

Galvez, J. K. (2007, May 24). Class suit against Mike Arroyo to be pursued. Manila

Times. Retrieved from http://manilatimes.net.

Gill, K. S. (1990). Summary of human-centred systems research in Europe, Part 1.

Systemist, 13(1), 7-27. doi:10.1007/BF01205277.

Gill, K. S. (1996). Human machine symbiosis: The foundations of human-centred

systems design. London: Springer-Verlag.

Gill, S. P. (2007). Designing for inclusivity. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal Access

in Human-computer Interaction: Coping with diversity (pp. 98-106). Berlin:

Springer.

Hailwood, S. (2005). Environmental citizenship as reasonable citizenship.

Environmental Politics, 14(2), 195-210. doi:10.1080/09644010500054921.

Hayward, T. (1997). Anthromorphism: A misunderstood problem. Environmental

Values, 6(1), 49-63.

Khosla, R., Ichalkaranje, N., & Jain, L. C. (2005). Design of intelligent multi-agent

systems: human-centredness, architectures, learning and adaptation. Berlin:

Springer.

Lorenzo, I. (2006, September 21). License to libel. The Daily PCIJ. Retrieved from

http://pcij.org/blog.

Magna Carta for Journalism, SB 515, 14th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007).
 Mariano 27

Mariano, G. (2007, October). Should there be a law on the right of reply? Philippine

Journalism Review Reports, pp-8-9.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo. 418 U.S. 241 (1974).

Miller, G. T., & Spoolman, S. (2007). Sustaining the Earth: An integrated approach

(p. 333). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Nemeth, C. P. (2004). Human abilities and limits. In Human factors methods for

design: Making systems human-centered (pp. 33-66). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Omnibus Election Code, §264 (1985).

Pabico, A. (2006, October 1). A wanton disregard for press freedom. The Daily PCIJ.

Retrieved from http://pcij.org/blog.

Palmer, C. (2006). Stewardship: A case study in environmental ethics. In R. J. Berry

(Ed.), Environmental stewardship: Critical perspectives, past and present (pp.

63-75). London: T&T Clark.

Philippine Press Institute (2007, October 19). Sen. Pimentel open to compromise on

right of reply bill. Retrieved from http://pressinstitute.ph.

Philippine Press Institute. (2007). About the Philippine Press Council. Retrieved from

http://pressinstitute.ph.

Plumwood, V. (2002). Environmental culture: The ecological crisis of reason (pp.

130-134). London: Routledge.

Rauner, F., Rasmussen, L., & Corbett, J. M. (1988). The social shaping of technology

and work: Human centred CIM systems. AI & Society, 2(1), 47-61.

doi:10.1007/BF01891442.
 Mariano 28

Requero, R. E. (2008, April 4). TV hostess fined P1m for libelling Gutierrezes. Manila

Standard Today. Retrieved from http://www.manilastandardtoday.com.

Rosenbrock, H. H. (1989). Designing human-centred technology: A cross-disciplinary

project in computer-aided manufacturing. London: Springer-Verlag.

Siebert, F., Peterson, T. B., & Schramm, W. Four theories of the press: The

authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility and Soviet communist concepts.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Stibbe, A. (2004). Environmental education across cultures: Beyond the discourse of

shallow environmentalism. Language & Intercultural Communication, 4(4),

242-260. doi:10.1080/14708470408668875.

SunStar Cebu (2008, February 19). Author drops support for right-to-reply bill.

Retrieved from http://sunstar.com.ph.

Teodoro, L. V., & Rosalinda V. Kabatay. (2006). Mass media laws and regulations in

the Philippines (3rd ed.) Manila and Singapore: Center for Research and

Communication, and Asian Media Information and Communication Centre.

Tordesillas, E. (2006, December 28). Class suit versus Arroyo. Retrieved from

http://ellentordesillas.com.

Warren, L. (2000). Critical thinking and human centered methods in information

systems. In S. Clarke & B. Lehaney (Eds.), Human centered methods in

information systems: Current research and practice (p. 177). Hershey PA: Idea

Group.

Watkins, P. (2005). UK government legislative programme 2004-05: Outcome of bills,

National Assembly for Wales. Retrieved from http://wales.gov.uk.

 Mariano 29

Williams, C. C., & Millington, A. C. (2004). The diverse and contested meanings of

sustainable development. Geographical Journal, 170(2), 99-104.

doi:10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00111.x.

______________________

Gary Mariano is an assistant professor of the Department of Communication of De LaSalle

University - Manila. He earned his MA in Communication, major in Journalism, from the
College of Mass Communication, University of the Philippines. From 2004 to 2008, he
chaired the Philippine Press Council. His other research interests are Philippine press history
and the new media.