AMONG the civil rights, freedom of expression should rank the highest. True, the sovereign people elect their leaders. This is the right of suffrage. But an election without the informed voters is a blind exercise of a right. It results to a non-exercise. It only functions to lend credence to an otherwise discredited government.
After democracy was restored in 1986, that is, after four presidents – Cory Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Erap Estrada, and now Gloria Arroyo – 96 journalists have been martyred by assassins’ bullets. Of the 96, 64 have been killed during the Arroyo administration. Two-thirds of those martyred since EDSA revolution died during the present government.
Killing is definitely the worst form of muzzling the press. Less brutal, but no less effective form of suppressing the press is the legal process. There is really nothing wrong with availing of the legal remedies to redress grievance from media attacks. That is the function of democracy.
But where the legal process is wielded by the powers that be, then you send the strong signal to the press. Chilling still is that along with the legal process you see dead bodies piling up. In this case, the demarcation line between the judicial and extra-judicial remedies to silence the press becomes a blur. You can always suspect that the two processes are used in tandem by the administration, each remedy re-enforcing the efficacy of the other.
No other presidential spouse has filed more libel cases than First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. There is really nothing with this. But the string of cases already filed show how onion-skinned the present occupants of the seat of powers are. That is why, for every unsolved killing of a journalist, you can wonder, “Is the administration condoning the killing?” Wistful thinking it seems but there might be a grain of truth. How can you explain that despite the assassinations linked to General Palparan, he is still a free man?
There is a worse and insidious form of muzzling the press than libel cases. Pending in both houses of congress is the right to reply bill or SB 2150.
Essentially, the bill mandates that the media outlet must give the person attacked a chance to print or broadcast his side on the issue in the same forum.
At first glance, this seems to be a novel idea. Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., who once sought refuge in the press when he was imprisoned during the martial law regime, is the principal author of the bill in the senate. How easily he could forget.
Perhaps, the good senator, despite his brilliance and expertise in constitutional law, missed more than what meets the eye.
The right of freedom of expression occupies a preferred position in the hierarchy of civil liberties. No law can be passed abridging this right. Nor the manner of exercising this right can be curtailed, prescribed, and limited.
The right to reply bill intrudes and prescribes the manner of exercising the right of expression and of the press. The moment a law is enacted directing the media to provide space or airtime for the person involved in a controversy, there is already a prescription on how the media should go about exercising the right.
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution states:” No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
Mandating the press to give space or airtime to the person involved in an issue may appear laudable and fair. Yet any way you look at it, this a form of abridging or curtailing press freedom. It is a way of telling the press what to broadcast and publish. This is infringement of the constitutional right.
Muzzling the press is suppressing the people from information for an enlightened exercise of their sovereign powers. Violating press freedom has no room in democracy.
