By Christine F. Herrera

SENATOR Loren Legarda, a former broadcast journalist, yesterday added her voice to the chorus of opposition to the right-to-reply bill that the Senate had passed unanimously last year.

?I am withdrawing my support from the right-to-reply bill because I now realize that an untrammeled press is better than a press that is dictated by authority,? Legarda said in a statement.

Earlier, Senators Francis Escudero and Mar Roxas also backed away from the bill they had passed, saying they preferred journalists to exercise self-regulation.

Senator Alan Peter Cayetano said that while he believed in the intent of the bill, the prevailing political conditions did not favor its passage into law.

But Senator Aquilino Pimentel, the bill?s principal author, and his colleagues Juan Miguel Zubiri, Edgardo Angara, Joker Arroyo, Panfilo Lacson, Francis Pangilinan and Edgardo Angara said they would keep pushing for the passage of the right-to-reply bill.

The House of Representatives is poised to debate its version of the bill.

Adding her voice to the growing opposition to the bill, the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights yesterday assailed Congress for its ?undue intrusion into the right of media.?

Various news organizations including the Philippine Press Institute, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas, the National Press Club, and the Manila Overseas Press Club have denounced the bill, calling it ?an act of terrorism? against media.

In Malaca?ang, deputy presidential spokesman Anthony Golez said it was possible that the President would veto the bill if Congress approved it.

?If it curtails any press freedom, then it will never get the support of the Palace,? Golez said.

Legarda said she had long expressed her reservations over the bill, citing the constitutional mandate that ?no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press.?

?I interpret this to mean that any law dictating to the media what to write, what to publish, or what to broadcast is a violation of this provision which is a pillar of democratic freedom,? she said.

But the freedom of the press was not absolute because it is subject to the laws of libel and slander, she said.

Repating his support for the bill, Zubiri said he himself had been the subject of ?unfair and malicious? stories, but was often denied the opportunity to present his side.

He said even letters to the editor took months to see print.

Pangilinan proposed a dialog between senators and media groups to find a ?win-win solution.?

Pangilinan said that even if the right-to-reply bill had already been, the Senate could desist from discussing it in the bicameral conference committee pending the outcome of a dialog between the bill?s proponents and media groups.

Lacson said the bill should be flexible in terms of the amount of print space or airtime that media outfits were required to devote to people complaining of unfair stories or comments.

Angara said Congress should also pass the bill decriminalizing libel as a companion or complementary measure to the right-to- reply proposal.

In the House, the principal author of the bill has watered it down even before the committee report could be submitted to plenary debates.

Bacolod City Rep. Monico Puentevella said amendments to the bill had made the House version ?more lenient and responsive.?

These changes include the removal of a provision that would close down publications or networks for 30 days for successive violations of the right to reply.

Jail terms for journalists had also been removed, and the maximum fine reduced to P100,000 from P200,000, Puentevella said.

The House version also gives media outlets three days instead of just one day to publish replies.

House Speaker Prospero Nograles said a survey showed that an ?overwhelming majority? of the House supported the right-to-reply bill. With Fel V. Maragay, Roy Pelovello, Romie A. Evangelista