CONSIDERING THAT

The Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC) has been holding consultations since the second quarter of 2009 with the stakeholders in the elections, during two CCPC en banc meetings and one session between journalists and the said stakeholders;

CCPC also sent Cherry Ann T. Lim, assistant executive director, to a Philippine Press Institute (PPI) seminar in Cagayan de Oro last Oct. 19 to 21, 2009 to gather information on national media concerns that also bear on local media coverage;

All CCPC consultation and research are aimed principally to improve media coverage of the May 2010 elections;

Some recommendations need to be implemented before the campaign season and election day and may help guide media organizations as well as other stakeholders, including Comelec, police, C-Cimpel and other non-government organizations that strive for the holding of free and honest elections by an enlightened citizenry;

NOW THEREFORE

The Cebu Citizens-Press Council, in an en banc session assembled, hereby adopts these initial recommendations to news organizations and others concerned:

1. Training of journalists on election laws, procedures and ethics, in in-house sessions or joint seminars;

2. Familiarization of news reporters and photographers with the area of coverage, the people they cover, and the political situation in said area of coverage, including customs and habits of the community;

3. Helping educate the voters, through news and features, on a) procedures of voting, especially the shift to automation, b) qualifications of candidates and the issues on competence and integrity, enabling them to make informed choices, and c) safeguards against fraud, inspiring them to help protect the voting and its results;

4. Setting up of a joint Comelec-C-Cimpel-PNP Press Center that will issue updates and clarifications and thresh out problems during the campaign season on election day, during canvassing, and until the winners are proclaimed;

5. Seeking from Comelec guidelines on access to information and disclosure policy regarding such matters as:

(a) data on campaign spending;
(b) which media outlets get copies of the advance results and printed
election returns;
(c) and other unclear or unsettled issues that require Comelec
en banc decision;

6. A reminder on ethical journalism standards and safeguards on safety of journalists so that the practitioners may not themselves become victims of violence, calling their attention to their in-house rules and primers issued by media groups, including the CCPC’s “Tabang!” brochure;

HEREBY URGING

Editors-in-chief of newspapers, news directors of broadcast stations, and heads of the Comelec, Philippine National Police, C-Cimpel, and other partner organizations to implement these recommendations.

ADOPTED this second day of December 2009, in the 17th en banc meeting of the Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC), at MBF Cebu Press Center in Sudlon, Cebu City, Philippines.

Acknowledging

The good intentions of Sen. Loren Legarda for her Senate Bill #1398 and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada for his Senate Bill #9, as recited in the preamble of each proposal;

The merit of some provisions in the bills that are aimed at protecting and improving the welfare of journalists;

Believing, however,

There are sufficient laws in the Labor Code and special laws that regulate employees’ relations with their employers and the proposals of the two good senators might duplicate existing legislation;

Journalists are not special people who seek more benefits than those extended to other laborers in the working class; even their request for protection against impunity killings is no greater than the plea of all other citizens that their government assure their personal safety;

Affirming

Our belief that the press, with all the laws already in place to make it responsible–including laws on libel, contempt, national security, and obscenity–doesn’t need any more form of regulation;

Our strong conviction that government interference with workings of the press will be seen as, or result into, erosion of its freedom; thus, a national coordinating council under the said bills will abridge freedom of the press;

Our faith in self-regulation of media: within each news organization or outlet and with the moderating influence of such bodies as citizens-press councils and print and broadcast associations;

Our trust that competition and other market forces, as well as public reproach of erring media, help in curbing any excess or abuse by the journalist or his media outlet.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, that the Cebu Citizens-Press Council thank Sen. Loren Legarda and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada for their concern about journalists’ protection and welfare but earnestly request them to reconsider their bills;

BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER to ask the two good senators to support instead current proposals to amend the libel law to make it less stringent and oppressive.

APPROVED AND SIGNED this 24th day of March 2008 at the MBF Cebu Press Center in Sudlon, Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines.

(Adopted by Cebu print and broadcast editors and representatives of the Cebu Media Legal Aid at a meeting held March 12, 2008 at Cebu City Marriott Hotel)

[1] Government interference.

Proposed creation of a national coordinating council for media and the drafting of a code of conduct for journalists by the office of the press secretary will interfere with functions of the press and impair its freedom.

Newspapers and other print media, broadcast stations, news agencies, and online news organizations are guided by their own codes of standards and ethics and/or the codes of conduct adopted by national media associations such as the KBP and the Philippine Press Institute (PPI); in addition, regional press councils adapt or modify standards that suit to the media environment in their respective communities.

Government and media, though guided by a common interest of public welfare, often disagree on how it is achieved. Media also serves as watchdog on government, a function of check and balance that may be frustrated with government overseeing the press, in whatever guise or form that may take.

[2] Government laws and self-regulation.

Media practices self-regulation, for which news organizations have equipped themselves with their own standards and guidelines.

On top of that, there are already laws and regulations that hold media and journalists accountable for any excess or abuse, such as the laws on libel, contempt, national security, obscenity, and the like. Besides, in case that is overlooked, all other penal laws apply to journalists as well.

[3] Labor laws adequate.

There are existing laws, in the Labor Code and special laws, that protect members of the labor sector, including journalists.

Situations not applicable under those laws, because of some peculiar conditions in the journalists’ work environment and practices, can be covered by negotiation and persuasion in dialogues with employers as well as by the influence of market forces.

While journalists are grateful for the concern of legislators, especially Sen. Loren Legarda and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada who filed Senate bills aimed to promote the welfare of journalists, Cebu print and broadcast editors and lawyers representing Cebu Media Legal Aid (Cemla) believe the press can serve its public more fully and efficiently with the least interference by government.

Knowing that

There are at least six (6) bills filed with the Senate–SB 918 (Sen. Edgardo Angara), SB 110 (Sen. Mar Roxas), SB 223 (Sen. Loren Legarda), SB 1403 (Sen. Francis Escudero), SB 5 (Sen. Jinggoy Estrada) and SB 2108 (Sen. Richard Gordon)–and one bill with the House: HB 2802 (Speaker Prospero Nograles), all aimed to amend some provisions on libel in the Revised Penal Code and special laws.

All the bills are motivated by public good and aimed to enhance press freedom without diminishing press accountability;

The press and media organizations such as the Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC) are committed to protect freedom of the press and heighten journalists’ sense of responsibility;

Legislation affecting media also affects functions of the press in society, and thus newspapers, broadcast stations, and media-involved organizations like the CCPC, as well as media practitioners, have a large stake in how Congress will decide on those bills;

Affirming that

The CCPC works with the press and the public on issues affecting media, as in fact it has done with regard to the bills regarding libel in the Senate and the House, studying the proposals and consulting media practitioners about their experiences with libel complaints on their work and their personal lives;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cebu Citizens-Press Council, meeting en banc in its first regular quarterly meeting for 2008, as it hereby resolves,

That it inform the House and the Senate through the authors and sponsors of the pending bills on libel, that the Cebu press, comprising both print and broadcast, supports the provisions in the said bills:

[1] Removing the penalty of imprisonment from the crime of libel;
[2] Keeping libel as a crime but retaining only the penalty of fine;
[3] Raising the fine as penalty but not in large amounts that community journalists cannot afford to pay;
[4] Limiting the venue of libel to the court of the province or city where the principal office of work and business of respondent journalists is located;
[5] Reducing prescriptive period of libel from one year to six months from publication;
[6] Exempting from liability any editor, publisher, newspaper or station manager, or news director who has not reviewed the alleged libelous material before printing or airing.

RESOLVED FURTHER that the position paper adopted by newspaper and broadcast editors and representatives of the Cebu Media Legal Aid (Cemla) at a meeting held last March 12, 2008 at Cebu City Marriott Hotel be made as annex to and part of this resolution.

APPROVED AND SIGNED this 24th day of March, 2008 at the MBF Cebu Press Center in Sudlon, Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines.

ARGUMENTS FOR PROVISIONS IN SENATE AND HOUSE BILLS THAT THE CEBU PRESS SUPPORTS

(Adopted by newspaper and broadcast editors and representatives of the Cebu Media Legal Aid at a meeting held last March 12, 2008 at Cebu City Marriott Hotel)

[1] Removing jail term as penalty
No journalist wants to end up in jail for what he writes or says. Five bills in the Senate and one in the House all seek to abolish imprisonment as penalty for libel. We agree with the legislators that removing the threat of jail term will enhance freedom of the press.

[2] Keeping libel as a crime

We are for retaining libel as a crime, not fully abolishing it, as Sen. Francis Escudero proposes. 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 safeguard for the journalist.

We also want complainants of excess or abuse of the press to have means of redress in the courts instead of using violence or intimidation.

[3] Raising the penalty of fine but within range not oppressive to community journalists

The fine under existing law of P200 to P6,000 is too low these days, but the P100,000-P300,000 as proposed by Sen. Loren Legarda is excessively high, considering the weak financial capability of community journalists.

Between the P20,000-P50,000 range proposed by Rep. Prospero Nograles and Senator Legarda’s proposed P100,000-P300,000, perhaps a range more realistic (to the journalist paying) can be adopted.

[4] Limiting liability for libel to news reporter, opinion maker, or author of the alleged libel. Editor, publisher, news director, or station manager shall be liable only if he reviewed the alleged offensive material before printing or airing.

All too often, a person in the paper or broadcast station is dragged to a libel case in which he cannot be found guilty under the law. Libel requires malice, which in turn requires at least knowledge of the “offensive” material.

[5] Limiting venue, in case of community journalists, to the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the respondent holds office or conducts business

Existing law is used to harass community journalists. A public official who resides in Cebu but holds office in Manila can file his complaint in Manila. A private person who worked in Cebu and the alleged libel is about his work in Cebu can file his complaint in Parañaque where he resides.

Community journalists are oppressed not just by the hassle of answering the complaint but paying for its much higher cost when the venue is far from the place of work or business. Community journalists can be found guilty by default, for not having resources to answer complaints far from the newspaper’s or broadcast station’s home.

[6] Cutting prescriptive period of libel from one year to six months from publication

The Cebu press appreciates the cut-off time. A person aggrieved by an “offensive” material doesn’t even have to wait for a month to decide whether to sue. Still, the Cebu press is comfortable with the six-month period.

BELIEVING that a free press protects press freedom and all other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including the democratic way of life itself;

CONVINCED that the core of press freedom is the right of journalists to choose what to publish and what not to publish, restrained only by laws against libel, obscenity, sedition, and violations of national security, and industry rules and standards;

RE-AFFIRMING well-established principles against prior restraint which protects journalists against intrusion into the choice of newspaper or broadcast content;

EMPHASIZING the fact that (a) journalists already practice the right to reply as part of individual and corporate standards and the news outlets’ accountability to their public and audience and (b) what journalists oppose is legislating and criminalizing the right to reply;

POINTING OUT that whatever lapses of journalists under the right to reply are being corrected by the press’ own mechanisms, such as in-house codes of standards and ethics and citizens-press organizations, such as the Cebu Citizens-Press Council whose code of procedure specifically mentions the right to reply as ground for a complaint or grievance with the council;

ALARMED by the threat of compulsory access to media proposed in bills pending before the Senate and the House of Representatives,

NOW THEREFORE, the Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC),
composed of media and non-media members, in its last quarterly meeting for the year 2007 at the MBF Cebu Press Center, hereby:

Expresses its vigorous opposition to pending proposals to legislate and criminalize the right to reply, as they infringe on press freedom and are unnecessary, impractical, and open to abuse;

Adopts the position paper prepared by newspaper and broadcast editors and lawyer-members of Cebu Media Legal Aid (Cemla), who discussed the issue last Dec. 5, 2007 at Cebu City Marriott Hotel, and formally makes it a part of this resolution; and

Encourages concerned civic and church groups and the academe to join the outcry of journalists against compulsory access to media under pain of fine and imprisonment.

APPROVED this 14th day of December, 2007 at the MBF Cebu Press Center in Sudlon, Lahug, Cebu City.

From the lawyers’ viewpoint

RIGHT TO REPLY CANNOT BE LEGISLATED, much more criminalized, because it will be unconstitutional:

[1] Press freedom. Sec. 4, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines provides: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom
of speech, of expression, and of the press.”

[2] Prior restraint. Legislated right to reply operates as a command in
the same sense as a statute or regulation forbidding the newspaper
to publish specified matter. It is prior restraint. If media cannot be
told what not to publish, it cannot be told what to publish.

Legislated right to reply collides with the freedom of speech,
expression, and press clause of the Philippine Constitution.

[3] Settled principle. U.S. jurisprudence, which settles constitutional
and legal issues over precepts similar to those in the Philippines,
says “it is a matter of constitutional law there is no right to reply on
the part of the person who claims to have been wronged or libeled…
Indeed, there is no right of access to privately owned media.”

[4] Intrusion into “nerve center.” Legislated right to reply is an
intrusion into the function of editors. A newspaper is “more than a
passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising.”

“Prior compulsion by government on matters going to the very nerve
center of a newspaper as to what copy will or will not be included in
any given edition collides with the First Amendment” (the equivalent
of the Philippine Constitution provision on freedom of speech,
expression, and the press).

LEGISLATED RIGHT TO REPLY WILL ALSO VIOLATE international standards on civil and political rights:

Civil, political rights. Article 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which the Philippines became
a signatory on Dec. 16, 1966, provides that “…Everyone shall have
the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print…”

(Source of legal arguments: Accra Law Office)

From the editors’ viewpoint

JOURNALISTS RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO REPLY and, as a precept of good journalism, practice it. What journalists oppose is compulsion, which is unnecessary, impractical, and open to abuse.

[1] Unnecessary. Most news organizations, print or broadcast, have
adopted the right to reply as part of their standards and ethics.

The few news outlets that deny the right to reply do so at the risk of
losing credibility and public trust, which is essential to the craft and
the industry.

The increasing number of news outlets, in various platforms, and the
healthy competition among them negate any denial of the right to
reply.

Existing laws on libel, contempt, pornography, sedition, sub-judice,
and the like are more than enough to deter irresponsibility or
licentiousness by media.

Proponents of compulsory access to media must know that existing
laws and regulations affecting media are more than adequate
reminders of media responsibility.

[2] Impractical. Compulsory access won’t work. A news story’s value
changes daily, for newspapers, hourly or even less, for broadcast.
Thus, evaluation, dictated by such legislated requirements as same
time, space, prominence, or length will wreak havoc on editors’
functions.

Demands for the right to reply, under pain of punishment by
detention or damages, can crowd out news, information, or comment
that editors think are more useful to their audience. It will thus
substitute the judgment of editors with the judgment of legislators.
And how will conflict between editors and right-to-reply litigants
be settled by judges untrained in journalism?

[3] Open to abuse. Legislated right to reply, under constant threat of
imprisonment, can be used as additional form of harassment against
journalists by dragging them to expensive and time-consuming
lawsuits.

Claims for the right can be feigned, as many grievances over alleged
libel are faked. What will happen if several persons claim the right to
reply at the same time? Aside from additional congestion in our
courts, media will be clogged with right-to-reply content.

[1] It opened the MBF Cebu Press Center in Lahug, Cebu City as a receiving
center for complaints addressed to the CCPC.

[2] It obtained a legal personality and launched a website.

[3] As part of its work to help media practitioners improve their craft:

• It drew up standards for media coverage to protect the human rights of suspects and detainees.
• It drew up standards for the coverage of religion and religious officials.
• It also held a dialogue to enable the media and the Church to better understand each other’s structure and processes. The culmination of this effort was the production of a documentary on the coverage of priests.
• It crafted a resolution reminding the press to abide by the standards of law and practice on the coverage of women and children.
• It also conceptualized an academe-led effort to analyze media’s coverage of the May 2007 elections, with the view to improving coverage of future elections.

[4] To address threats to press freedom

• The CCPC weighed in on pending legislation, expressing support for (a) the bill to give journalists of broadcast stations, wire agencies and the Internet the right not to divulge their news sources (House Bill 4835), and (b) the bill to limit the venue of libel against community journalists to the principal office of business of the publication or station (House Bill 77).

[5] During significant events, it made its voice heard:

• For the 12th Asean Summit, it made an appeal for both media and government to show a greater sense of responsibility.
• For the May 2007 elections, it made a resolution calling on all stakeholders to allow the press to perform its watchdog function.

A Dec. 6 press release of Malacañang, apparently picked up from the government-run Philippines News Agency (PNA), did not present the true context of the resolution approved by the Cebu Citizens-Press Council last Dec. 5.

One, the press release omitted a vital part of the resolution that qualifies the appeal. The following proviso in the resolution was deleted from the p.r.:

“Without restricting individual journalists’ freedom of the press and news organizations’ editorial prerogative, or infringing on public officials’ right to reply and correct any misinformation.”

That provision was precisely included to avert any misunderstanding that it is a gag or a restriction on anyone.

Two, the Malacañang press release added the phrase “so that their actions could not fuel negative reporting by the media.” That is nowhere found in the resolution.

Background of resolution

The resolution was raised at the CCPC amid the running feud between the governor’s office and an ABS-CBN radio commentator, which already departed from substantive issues and descended into name-calling. Capitol hung streamers at the CICC (the convention center) and ran a paid ad in one newspaper castigating the broadcaster while the commentator spent his time hitting back. In Cebu, that got into many concerned citizens’ nerves.

CCPC is composed of seven media members (five from print, two from KBP), two from the academe, and six from the public.

It was the non-media and academe sector that expressed most interest in the CCPC resolution. As to the media sector, the only reservation was from one member who feared suspicion of journalists being gagged. Thus, the stress on that provision which the Malacañang press release omitted.

The resolution was passed on mass motion, indicating unanimity..

CCPC’s reason for being: complaints–and issues

Perhaps unlike other press councils, CCPC’s reason for being is not just complaints but issues. It speaks out on issues and adopts standards for journalists.

There have been only four complaints from the public so far and these have not even reached the review level since the papers concerned acted on them.

On standards, it has adopted two, both on sensitive areas in local news coverage:

• Identifying and handling suspects of crimes, by media and by the police;
• Naming or identifying priests and other religious officials.

These standards, by the way, were adopted after consultations and the journalists and the officials or news sources involved.

On issues, CCPC authored and lobbied for the passage of a bill changing the venue of libel (often used to harass community journalists by complainants who file their cases far away from their place of operations) and a bill seeking to include broadcast journalists within the protection of the Sotto Law.

The second and most recent issue was the media-government quarrel over side issues of the Asean summit.

Does CCPC tell journalists what to do?

First, be it on standards of journalism or on public issues involving journalists, the CCPC never orders anyone; it asks, appeals, or encourages. It only has persuasive authority, nothing more.

Second, media is amply represented in CCPC; the five print media members are top editors of the five daily newspapers in Cebu; the two broadcasters are the top leaders of the KBP. When CCPC asks, appeals to, or encourages media, it is also media asking, appealing, or encouraging itself. How can CCPC be telling media what to do on something media itself agrees with and consents to?

That Asean summit resolution was passed on mass motion, with no dissent from any media member. The CCPC resolution was in part media telling media what it can do.

Media can’t isolate itself from public concerns

When we re-tooled the CCPC, we had in mind a media sector not wrapped up in its own concerns, its freedom and accountability. Media in CCPC must also consider what the public sector in CCPC thinks.

The public sector in CCPC worried about the personal quarrels over petty issues in the Asean summit, caused by both sides. What could CCPC do about it? The media members were asked.

The appeal resolution was the result, which the CCPC members believe didn’t tamper with or intrude into the best practices of individual journalists and news organizations.

What we’re doing in Cebu works. Other than that, we’re not much concerned about anyone else saying it doesn’t.

PACHICO A. SEARES
Acting Executive Director
Cebu Citizens-Press Council