Legislators to revisit ‘right of reply’ bill
Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—The proliferation of lists of supposed players in the pork barrel scam controversy has resurrected the push for a right of reply law, with a lawmaker saying it would afford beleaguered members of the House of Representatives the chance to promptly respond to derogatory reports.
Deputy Speaker Giorgidi Aggabao noted that many of his colleagues were protesting their inclusion in the lists, including the files of whistle-blower Benhur Luy that made it appear they were involved in questionable transactions, and the fact not all of them had their response timely publicized.
“Because of what has happened, we should revisit the right of reply. Before, we never realized the significance of this. But what is happening now is public officials are flayed left and right,” Aggabao said in a press briefing.
He said the right of reply bill could be a stand-alone measure, instead of the matter being incorporated into the freedom of information (FOI) bill.
With same space, airtime
The right of reply bill would require media outfits to print or air the rebuttal of parties who feel maligned with the same space and airtime.
Media groups had protested similar measures in previous Congresses, contending that this would undermine their editorial independence, and saying that it would be better to leave it to the industry to regulate itself.
Aggabao noted the complaint of Batangas Rep. Nelson Collantes, who lamented in the same press briefing that his denial of involvement in pork barrel shenanigans, sought by an Inquirer reporter, did not make it to the newspaper.
Aggabao said this had been a common complaint. He himself has been included in Luy’s list. He has denied involvement in any transactions with Napoles since all his pork barrel funds went to his home province of Isabela and its municipalities.
According to him, recent events have made him reconsider his position on the right of reply measure, which he earlier opposed on the ground that it would infringe on the economic freedom of media outfits.
“The reality is we need it,” he said. “There has to be a mechanism to clear your name, although of course that’s not a guarantee you’d be able to totally clear your name with a right of reply, but at least there’s an institution.”
He also said it was very hard for officials named in derogatory reports to clear their names even if they could present proof that they were not involved in any wrongdoing.
How to unring bell?
“The bell has been rung, as they say. How do you unring a bell? You can’t undo the damage,” Aggabao said.
He added that lawmakers become sensitive when talking about these things because they also have to answer to their families.
Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat disagreed: “I’m not comfortable legislating editorial policy, which is how I view the right of reply in its current form.”
He said the best way for lawmakers to respond was to be transparent in their dealings.
“I think media really must be discerning in reporting about the scams these days. Reputations are destroyed by the stroke of the pen. We must apply all the basic tenets of responsible journalism such as accuracy, fair treatment, and objectivity in our reporting,” Baguilat said.
Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza said Congress should first pass the freedom of information bill before tackling a right of reply measure.
He said the FOI bill had been pending for a long time.
RELATED STORY
After printing of pork scam lists, lawmaker Aggabao sees need for right of reply
