By Christine F. Herrera

The House leadership has acknowledged the collective demand of the national media to scrap the right-to-reply bill during a dialog hosted by the lawmakers at Melo?s restaurant in Quezon City yesterday.

Speaker Prospero Nograles immediately put the blame on the Senate for pressuring the House into approving the bill.

?Since the Senate has given us the copy of the bill in July last year, the Senate leadership and some senators have been calling me to just concur in the Senate version of the bill. I am not the type to be pressured. It is a natural inter-chamber courtesy. This is the reason I decided to call for a dialog,? Nograles said.

But Nograles said the House would put the bill to a vote and let the plenary decide once and for all on the fate of the right-to-reply bill.

After the dialog, Manila Rep. Bienvenido Abante, chairman of the House committee on public information, said he had serious reservations about the bill.

?I am convinced that there is no need for this bill. I am also convinced that all sectors are protected by the Constitution like the freedom of the press for the press, freedom of expression for the public and private individuals and freedom of speech for everyone,? Abante said.

Palawan Rep. Abraham Mitra of the Nationalist People?s Coalition declared he would vote against the right-to-reply bill.

?In fact, half of the NPC members are not in favor of the bill. All 29 of us would be meeting to finally decide what our united position will be,? Mitra said.

After hearing all arguments, House Deputy Majority Leader Jesus Crispin Remulla said he would abstain from voting on the bill.

House Majority Leader Arthur Defensor said the leadership would incorporate all the issues raised by the journalists, some of whom wore black shirts printed with the slogans: ?No to the right-to-reply bill. Stop suppression.?

Neal Cruz, chairman of the Samahang Plaridel, and Vergel Santos of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, said they found it ironic that those who are pushing for the bill in the Senate were known to have championed civil liberties such as Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Senator Joker Arroyo during the dark years of martial law.

?There is nothing right about the right to reply. Last month, we marked the 23rd anniversary of the end of martial law, a milestone in our history that will be remembered for the rebirth of Philippine democracy and the revitalization of our people?s most basic rights, like the right to expression and the freedom of the press,? Cruz said.

?If not for a vigilant, outspoken Fourth Estate, many of the excesses of our public officials would go unnoticed, and we would all be worse off because of it,? Cruz said.

Senate Bill 2150 and House Bill 3306, its supporters argue, seek to level the playing field in journalism.

?They do not. What a right-to-reply bill does is allow individuals?particularly powerful officials often at the receiving ends of our stories?to encroach on the most basic precept of press freedom: that of allowing us to exercise editorial control and judgment over what is printed in our pages or broadcast in our airwaves,? Cruz said.