|
THE
proposed bill decriminalizing libel may have one proviso
that caps the amount of fine on the accused who may be
found guilty, a stipulation that Senate Minority Leader
Aquilino Pimentel Jr. fully supports, saying, “We cannot
tolerate a situation where an unreasonably excessive
fine is slapped on the guilty parties because of too
much discretion given to the judge in determining the
amount of the fine.”
In his
statement, Pimentel confirmed such a cap is now being
discussed in the Senate, and pointed out the
Constitution prohibits excessive fines for violations of
law or offenses punishable by law.
Pimentel
added that what has given impetus to the approval of the
bill is the directive early this year of Chief Justice
Reynato Puno to courts all over the country to refrain
from meting out prison terms to journalists convicted in
libel cases.
He noted
that, in many instances, the amount of fine—running up
to a million pesos or more—that is slapped by the judge
is beyond the financial capacity of journalists.
“It is
imperative on the part of Congress to modify the
antiquated libel law and make it attuned to the relevant
jurisprudence that was spurred by the guidelines laid
down by the Chief Justice to the judiciary,” he said.
Pimentel
was disheartened by the attitude of some in the media,
however, because a proposed bill on the right to reply,
which is a companion measure to the decriminalization of
libel, is being criticized by certain media sectors due
to fear that it may curtail their prerogative to decide
on what items to print or broadcast.
While
the Journalists’ Code of Ethics requires newsmen to get
the side of all parties involved in their reports,
Pimentel said there are irresponsible members of the
Fourth Estate that violate this fundamental rule with
impunity.
He cited
repeated instances where persons maligned by the news
stories or commentaries were unable to get their side
printed or aired, despite appeals for fair play and
objectivity, because the journalists and owners of
newspapers or broadcast stations are simply too biased
or are pursuing a hidden agenda.
“I would
like to underscore the fact that the bill on the right
of reply seeks to expand the freedom of the press, the
freedom of expression to include anyone, not only the
members of the media. The members of the media have that
freedom but so do the members of the public at large.”
Pimentel
took exception to a remark by a leader of the National
Union of Journalists of the Philippines that the right
of reply is an “unnecessary and stupid” piece of
legislation.
“I guess
the record of killings of journalists in this country is
enough to refute the assessment that this is a stupid
bill. Because one of the reasons why journalists are
killed is because they would criticize but the right to
reply is not given immediate and adequate course in the
presentation of reports,” he said in response to the
remark.
“And,
therefore, if that person is being attacked in the
media, for example, that person has a right to reply. I
don’t see anything wrong with that. Of course, when you
go to actual application, you are attacked in an
editorial consisting of several paragraphs. You have the
right to respond to that editorial to the extent
necessary to answer scurrilous charges that are leveled
against you. But it will not necessarily be over the
space requirement of the newspaper. I think that should
be covered adequately in the bill.”
Pimentel
said the bill has a sunset clause which provides that
the right of reply will cease to be effective after five
years. It imposes fines, but not jail sentences, on
violators. |
