By Fel V. Maragay

The principal author of the right-to-reply bill is back-pedaling on his unpopular proposal in an apparent bid to persuade media practitioners to drop their opposition to it.

Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. proposed yesterday that any person would forfeit his right to sue journalists over a defamatory news article or commentary if he/she has availed of, and accorded, the right-to-reply by the newspaper or broadcast networks concerned.

Pimentel also promised to press for the approval of the bill to decriminalize libel, of which he is also main author.

?The forfeiture of a person?s right to sue for libel upon the availment of his right of reply would be inserted in the bill as one of the amendments to be considered by the bicameral conference committee once it tackles the measure,? he said.

Admitting that the bill, which was approved by the Senate in July 2008, suffers from certain flaws, Pimentel agreed to water down a provision requiring the print and broadcast media to carry the reply of an aggrieved party on the same newspaper space or radio/television program.

Instead, he said the newspapers and broadcast stations will be given flexibility in deciding how to handle the reply. He said if the offensive article consists of l0 paragraphs, the response of the complainant may be in a shorter form as long as its substance is there.

Pimentel said he was heartened by the statement of Speaker Prospero Nograles that the House of Representatives is not backtracking from its plan to pass the bill.

Nograles said an informal survey conducted by his office showed that majority of the House members favors the enactment of a right of reply legislation.

But at a forum in Quezon City, several congressmen expressed their plan to withdraw support of the right-to-reply bill.

Rep. Bienvenido Abante and several members of his committee on public information said they did not find any need for the bill.

Abante expressed serious reservations over the bill and said his dilemma is how to sponsor the proposal for plenary debate.

A companion measure seeking to decriminalize libel took the backseat as the lawmakers tried to thresh out the issues surrounding the right-to-reply bill.

According to Pimentel, the approval of the RORB is already in sight, but the same could not be said of the bill decriminalizing libel.

?Knowing how the two chambers of Congress work, it would take more time to approve the bill decriminalizing libel than to pass the right of reply bill,? he said.

The House approved the bill decriminalizing libel early this week. But at the Senate, it has not even been discussed yet in plenary session.

If libel is no longer treated as a criminal offense, this means that the erring journalist would be spared of jail term. But the court may impose a fine on him.

Pimentel stressed that decriminalizing libel does not mean that the persons libeled would no longer have any remedy in law.

?They would still have an avenue in law to vindicate their good name or reputation that might have been besmirched. And that is to file civil action for damages against the defamer.? With Christine Herrera