The Supreme Court en banc sanctioned retired Justice Ruben Reyes for leaking an unpromulgated decision upholding the lack of qualification of Negros Oriental Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong to run for office. The penalty, aside from deducting P500,000 from Reyes? P4.5 million retirement benefits, includes a ban from government positions, and even a possible disbarment.

I last saw Justice Reyes when he came to my house to thank me for attending his retirement ceremonies. He apologized for not mentioning my presence during his valedictory address. I asked him pointblank if indeed was responsible for the leak of his ponencia; at that time, he was already being blamed for it.

Reyes denied being the source of the leak, and vehemently. ?Emil, what was in it for me that I should leak it,? he said, adding in that ?we lawyers always ask what motive does one have to do something.?

Santa Banana, that?s the reason why I ask the Supreme Court en banc: What could have been in it for Justice Reyes? What could have been his motive for leaking the unpromulgated ponencia?

The Supreme Court is duty-bound to answer in fairness to Reyes, who served the judiciary for over 35 years.

***

There?s an almost universal cry in media?print and broadcast?against the right-to-reply bill which to all intents and purposes seems being railroaded by both chambers of Congress.

The measure would give people, private citizens and government officials alike, who are ?criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor of any lapse in behavior in private and public life the right to reply to charges or criticisms in newspapers, magazines, newsletters, radio, television and Web sites.?

On the surface, the bill appears innocuous and even desirable in the wake of media being flooded with so much criticism of public behavior, rightly or wrongly. Indeed, anybody has the right to reply to charges or criticisms under the Bill of Rights on freedom of expression. And admittedly, media at times abuse press freedom.

The core issue here is responsibility. As such, I join my colleague in media in expression not only my opposition, but utter disgust at the way Congress would legislate responsibility.

Much have already been said against the bill. I would only be repeating the chilling effect on media if this measure became law.

I say responsibility is the core of this issue since responsible media is duty-bound and mandated to recognize people?s right to reply. In fact, the Press Code of Ethics mandates us professional journalists to be balanced in reporting. Factual and truthful and fair with malice toward none.

And if journalists abuse their freedom, there are laws, like libel, and other means to enable people to defend themselves. That?s what Letters to the Editor are for.

What I am afraid of is that if carried to ridiculous heights, the bill would leave newspapers, radio and television nothing else to publish and broadcast but replies and answers to criticisms at the rate people in government make public office their goal for aggrandizement and power.

My gulay, can you imagine if, as the bill would want it, a banner story about an alleged scam perpetrate by public officials being also the banner story the next day, and since there?s also the right of the accuser at rebuttal, that also be a banner story the day after? This can go on and on. My gulay, my newspaper would have nothing else to publish, even if there are more important stories. The same would also be true for radio and television.

***

I repeat what has been said my colleagues in media that responsibility cannot be legislated. To do so would strike deep into the character and virtues of people. It is presumed that media is responsible, and if it becomes irresponsible and tramples on its press freedom right since every freedom has its bounds and limits, we have laws and courts to protect the rights of others.

Taking off from an editorial of a national newspaper, Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger of the US Supreme Court in its 1974 case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. vs Tornillo said that a statutory right of reply imposes the virtue of responsibility on media, saying that ?press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and lime many other virtues, it cannot be legislated. Thus, I?m surprised that many lawyers in both chambers of Congress are pushing for the bill. Don?t they get it? Legislators pushing it seem to assume that all media are irresponsible. How stupid can they be?

My gulay, as in the movie ?Spiderman,? with great powers comes great responsibility. To those in media who think that they are small gods abusing press freedom, they should consider their power and responsibility. But, Santa Banana, to legislate responsibility, like many other virtues, would reduce us to robots!

***

In the wake of the SGV imbroglio and with the possible violation of the Constitution and the Anti-Dummy Law when the simmering dispute between 14 against 84 other SGV partners, the latter opting to be ?integrated? by the worldwide American accountancy firm, Ernst & Young, there?s need for a regulatory body, like the Securities and Exchange Commission to step into the picture.

It seems, however, that the SEC is now doing a Pontius Pilate by passing on the responsibility to the Board of Accountancy under the provisions of Republic Act 9298, or the Philippine Accountancy Act of 2004. This much it would seem by the letter of the Office of the SEC General Accountancy sent to me after I wrote about the SGV imbroglio.

According to the SEC, the Board of Accountancy not only should supervise the registration, licensure and practice of the accountancy, but investigate violations of RA 9298 and the rules and regulations of the law. Thus, according to SEC, the practice of the accountancy profession is the primary responsibility of the BoA, not the SEC.

This may be so, but I still maintain that since there?s a probable violation of the Constitution with the integration of SGV by E&Y considering the fact that like the legal profession, CPAs or Certified Public Accountants are reserved only for Filipinos.

This is precisely the reason why Congress should get into the picture over the integration of SGV by an American firm, which in effect could make the remaining SGV partners ?dummies? in violation not only of the Constitution, but the Anti-Dummy law.

***

The SEC, in passing the responsibility of investigating the SGV imbroglio, said that the board had jurisdiction over any violation concerning the practice of any auditing firm or external auditor. It is understood, however, according to SEC, that in the event the board resolves to suspend or revoke the registration of any firm due to violation of law and the rules and regulations in the implementation of the law, the SEC?s accreditation of such firm shall likewise be suspended or revoked considering that the board registration is the primary requirement for maintaining the SEC accreditation.

This simply means that the board is still under the oversight function of the SEC. And if the BoA is not doing its job of investigating the SGV imbroglio, and to all appearances, the BoA is lukewarm in its function, then the SEC is mandated by law to do its job.

But, the problem like in the brouhaha over pre-need firms, is that the SEC has displayed utter and blatant negligence and incompetence.

The SEC, the BoA and even Congress cannot seem to fathom what?s at stake over the SGV imbroglio. Since over 600 of the 1,000 top Philippine corporations have SGV as their external auditor, to have SGV controlled by an American accountancy firm like E&Y puts Philippine business and even national interests at risk.

***

Oops, my mistake. In my hurry to beat the deadline of my column yesterday, I missed out on two names when I listed the dozen wannabes for the presidency, like Makati Mayor Jojo Binay and Senator Dick Gordon. Santa Banana, that would make 14 wannabees for the presidency, something unheard of in Philippine political history.

Lest I am misunderstood, at the end, there will only be about five or six of them standing. I won?t name them, though.

And that?s the problem. Since we are under a multi-party system, anybody who gets elected to the presidency will always be a minority president, who is always likely to be deposed by the majority.