Cebu Citizens Press Council

POSITION TAKEN DURING A MEETING OF LAWYERS (MEMBERS OF CEBU MEDIA LEGAL AID) AND NEWSPAPER AND BROADCAST EDITORS LAST DEC. 5, 2007 AT CEBU CITY MARRIOTT HOTEL

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.