The right to reply is a basic rule that is perhaps as old as the journalism profession itself. Working newsmen worth their salt faithfully follow it if they want to stay credible—and saleable. But why is it that when Congress tries to legislate and institutionalize that right, members of the media community rise in unison to thwart such move?

They look upon the bill granting the right of reply, embodied in a long-pending bill, as something like a Damocles’ sword over their heads, a poisonous or treacherous tool of the state that threatens press freedom. They insist that the bill is absolutely unnecessary for the simple reason that newspapers and television networks are already practicing this rule.

They argue that the bill should be scrapped in favor of self-regulation. That means the mass media outfits and the industry-wide organizations like Philippine Press Institute and Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas can impose sanctions on journalists who refuse to present the side of aggrieved readers and listeners on reports and commentaries that are inaccurate, malicious and defamatory to them.

The bill, as already passed on third and final reading by the Senate, will require the publications or broadcast networks to print, air or telecast within 48 hours the response of the complaining parties preferably in the same newspaper space or radio-TV program where the offensive story appeared.

Those familiar with the media business know how valuable every column inch of newspaper space and every minute of airtime is, especially with the rising cost of operations. Just look at how much national dailies and TV-radio stations charge clients for every piece of advertisement. Imagine if a daily carries a story on a scandalous government contract implicating number of personalities and it is swamped by an avalanche of angry reactions from them. What worries newspaper publishers and editors most is their space may be limited to put all these explanations. Simply put, they feel that the right to reply rule will encroach on their editorial discretion or judgment in handling the controversial story.

Amid the torrent of objections from the media community, Senators Francis Escudero, Mar Roxas and Loren Legarda—all presidential aspirants— have decided to withdraw their support for the bill while Senator Alan Peter Cayetano said he was for suspending approval of the measure.

But Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. is not budging an inch from his proposal, unconvinced by the position of media practitioners that his proposal is wrong and unnecessary. He says that their resistance to the bill is based on the unfounded fear that it will curtail the freedom of the press and of expression and it will constitute prior censorship. On the contrary, he says, it seeks to expand the right of free press and free speech so that it is not confined only to the members of the mass media but is broadened as to include the public at large.

“We are not trying to tell the media what to say in the first place. But if you say something that is critical of a person, that person should have the right to rebut what you said,” Pimentel says. He says that responsible media practitioners have nothing to fear since the bill is targeting only the scoundrels in the industry who treat their journalistic right as a license to attack people, many of whom do it for monetary gains.

On the issue of self-regulation, he admits that the PPI and KBP can be effective in going after the malpractices of their members. But it is a fact, he says, that neither the PPI nor the KBP has jurisdiction over the thousands of so-called independent media practitioners all over the country. The radio commentators who buy airtime on a blocktime basis mostly do not belong to the KBP. Incidentally, most of the broadcast journalists who have been slain by hired gunmen are said to be blocktimers.

“I think it is fair that the rules would require the media practitioners to publish the statement of the person criticized as a way of the well-ordering of society. Otherwise, the effect of preventing, for example, the airing of the other side could lead to horrendous consequences some of which are already happening today when broadcast journalists and other practitioners of journalism are being exterminated in many places especially in the provinces,” the bill’s main author asserts.

To address the concerns of journalists, Negros Occidental Rep. Monico Puentebella, the sponsor of the House version of the bill, has agreed to amend the measure to make it less harsh for violators of the right to reply rule. Actually, what the Senate had approved was already a tame version of the bill. It no longer imposes a prison term on those who will not comply with the rule. Instead, it imposes a fine—a smaller amount for the first offense, and a bigger amount for the second and third offense. It also carries a sunset clause whereby the effectivity of the law expires “if it is shown that the mass media outlets are able to police their own ranks.”

A good number of Pimentel’s colleagues agree with him that they should not back down from the proposal. Senator Richard Gordon says without a mechanism like this, nothing can stop the unscrupulous media practitioners to go on with their abominable “collect and attack” tactic. He says the bill should be looked upon by the members of the Fourth Estate as an opportunity to rid their ranks of the bad eggs. Senator Gregorio Honasan says the bill is necessary to curb the tendency of irresponsible journalists to engage in “trial by publicity” that irreparably besmirches the reputation of innocent individuals. Senator Joker Arroyo describes the bill as “a very innovative, original and novel” legislation that “would enrich the concept of free press in the sense that it carries certain responsibilities while the public also have inherent rights that must be respected.”

With the barrage of attacks unleashed by the media community, it is doubtful whether the right to reply bill will hurdle the legislative bill. Strangely enough, even Malacañang looks with disfavor at the proposal, its spokesmen hinting of presidential veto of the measure even before seeing the final shape and contents of the bill.

Whether such legislation is needed or not can be seen during the coming campaign for the 2010 elections. Once again, the media will become the main battleground for rival candidates, especially those aspiring for the presidency and the Senate. Contenders will exhaust their resources to pounce on their adversaries and to seize the upper hand. Those who have the money to burn will have the edge in getting their views heard and even in discrediting their opponents through means fair or foul. But if they resort to dirty tricks or demolition job, how will their hapless rivals defend themselves and get back at their accusers? What if the journalists or media outlets concerned ignore their rebuttal? Maybe with a right-to-reply law in place, that dreadful situation will not happen.

f_maragay@yahoo.com