By Fel V. Maragay

SOME senators are moving to shelve the right-to-reply bill that the Senate passed unanimously after the measure drew a torrent of criticism from members of the press.

The bill, principally authored by Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., compels newspapers and broadcast networks to print or air the response of people who think they have been unfairly criticized or attacked.

The bill, unanimously approved by the Senate on third and final reading last year, is awaiting passage by the House of Representatives.

But Senator Francis Escudero, chairman of the committee on justice and human rights, said he was withdrawing his support of the bill.

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, newly designated chairman of the committee on public information and mass media, said that while he agreed with the intent of the proposal, he believed that political conditions maked it necessary to set it aside.

Escudero said he would vote against the right-to-reply bill when it goes to the bicameral conference committee.

?There is a classic balancing of interests issue in this case. I have decided to cross the line on the side of press freedom. I am convinced that the issue can be best addressed by self-regulation among media practitioners,? Escudero said.

Cayetano said that ?when the Executive is not in its best behavior and the administration is out to kill the opposition,? the bill would only weaken the press.

?There may be some abuses in the media. But I think these reforms can wait until we are in a more fair atmosphere rather than in an atmosphere where the administration uses everything to go after its critics,? he sad.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said the bill could no longer be recalled after the Senate had approved it, but it might still be modified in the bicameral conference committee to address the concerns of publishers and journalists.

Pimentel said media organizations had not come up with credible arguments to convince him to dump the bill, and that self-regulation did not work.

No press organization had jurisdiction over thousands of so-called independent media practitioners all over the country, he said.

?Who will assert the right of the people to reply to the brickbats thrown their way by irresponsible media practitioners who take liberties with the reputation of whoever happens to have incurred their ire? If they are not members of the KBP [Kapisanan ng mga Brodkasters sa Pilipinas] or PPI [Philippine Press Institute] who will do the policing of their ranks?? he said.

Senator Richard Gordon was adamant the bill was necessary to correct the abuses of irresponsible members of the media.

?There are journalists notorious for their attack-and-collect ways. It is only right that there should be a right-to-reply law,? he said.

Gordon said that from his own experience as a public servant, there were journalists who refused to publish or air the side of government officials and other people who had been unfairly criticized.

Pimentel disputed criticism that the bill would curtail or diminish freedom of the press and free expression.

?My friends in the media should not be offended by the right-to-reply bill. It is not a diminution of the freedom of the press or of expression. It is an expansion of that right so that it is not confined only to the members of the media but is broadened to include the public at large,? he said.

The National Press Club yesterday condemned Pimentel for allegedly betraying journalists.

In a statement, the press club said no journalists were consulted in the passage of the bill, even though it affected their livelihood.

?The fact that we were never invited to actively participate during the deliberations but were merely informed... surely leaves much to be desired,? the statement read.

The press club called Pimentel?s bill a ?direct attempt to curtail press freedom.?

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said Congress should be careful about passing laws that infringed on the freedom of expression and of the press.

He said the Palace would not interfere, but added: ?It will be well for our lawmakers to understand that that is the very essence of democracy and therefore there should be more discussions.?

Ermita said he believed the law was unnecessary but emphasized that this was his personal view.

?The most that I can do is to personally communicate this to my friends in Congress, especially the Speaker, and I think they would listen to me,? he added. With Roy Pelovello