By Alan Davis
Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project

Is public criticism against the law? Not yet it isn’t, but soon will be when the so-called `Right of Reply Bill’ becomes law. Many people in the media are concerned with the prospects and implications of Senate Bill 2150 being passed as is very likely: For their part, the Bill’s originators and sponsors claim the media are overreacting. Readers can read the Bill here as it is posted on the Senate website and decide for themselves.

Yes it’s a very quick read: It is less than 350 words in length and only takes a minute or two to read: A flippant person might suggest it probably only took a moment longer to write.

Bizarrely, such criticism – flippant or not- will no longer be deemed to be `fair comment.’ Now such a dismissal can be penalized under the terms of the new Bill when it becomes law.

So too can such criticism contained in any email or text message – though how the right of reply will actually work in these cases is not clear.

But the main question is `why the need for such a law?’ Doesn’t the Philippines already have libel and slander laws?

If they are deemed ineffective they should be revised What should not happen is the introduction of a catch-all law that is so badly conceived and written that it can be used to target free expression.

Oops. Criticism again…

Traditionally, acts of parliament in democracies the world over are subject to a long drawn out process of scrutiny, debate and development to ensure the final result is appropriate, comprehensive and exact. Unfortunately 2150 is none of the above. The reason bills typically come out the way they do, is that many politicians the world over are former lawyers and are very careful and precise about each and every word.

This Bill by comparison is incredibly sloppy (oops) – and is open to all manner of interpretation. It is a license for chaos and bully pulpits. The reported suggestion made by somebody this week during a Manila roundtable that it is an `act of terrorism’ against the media is silly – yet it is true to say the Bill can very easily be manipulated to effectively silence dissent. Newspapers and radio stations, TV stations can effectively be gagged by gangs of wily politicians and businessmen who may seize on a Bill such as this to neutralize all criticism and legitimate debate.

Let us say a politician or several politicians are rightly and objectively criticized for a series of bad decisions, poor management, incompetence, or worse on the front page of a daily newspaper in the lead story. The following day, the lead story is a complex and lengthy rebuttal and platform for one of the people criticized. The next day, the lead story is written by another of the people criticized. The following day so on….and what happens if one of the politicians refers to a third person who is not happy with what has been written? He or she too then gets to use the front page.

Where will it stop?

And in the meantime, where will the news and all the readers and the advertisers go?

What will happen to the media? What will happen to the role of the media being monitors and guarantors of society? What will happen to those in the media who are trying to expose corruption and malfeasance?

What a nightmare. What a mess.

And if the media do not do as instructed by the Bill? They are repeatedly fined with the penalties rising each time.

The originators of the Bill say the media have nothing to be worried about.

Oh really?

Legislators are right to voice concern over the behavior of some radio commentators – so-called block timers – and libelous, inflammatory and malicious reporting. This should be addressed through the courts and perhaps too, the licensing system of radio stations. Station managers and owners need to be held liable and accountable for what they allow to be broadcast. Absolutely -with free expression comes media responsibility. Absolutely -the lawmakers are right on that.

But we should not forget that politicians do not help by renting air time and block-timers to dish the dirt on their opponents during election campaigns.

But this Bill is no way to go forward. It is not fit for purpose and has not place in a democracy. And right now and as many people are increasingly saying, the Philippines needs all the transparency and good investigative reporting it can get.

It would be interesting to know the views of the international community based in Manila on this Bill. Will it help or hinder development and governance?

Don’t shoot the messenger. Don’t blame the bringer of bad news. This adage is as old as language and literature itself -being first coined by the Greeks. Everybody knows it- save it seems the lawmakers.

Is this Bill really necessary to protect people – or does it just help to protect politician and the business community from unwanted inspection?

Former Palace Press Secretary Jesus Dureza who is reportedly a fan of the Bill has been quoted on record as admitting `Actually you don’t need a law for this.’

I don’t think any right-minded person who believes in good and transparent government and a free society could agree with him more.