Passed more than 70 years ago, Republic Act No. 53 protected journalists from being forced to name confidential news sources.
Also known as the Sotto law in honor of its author, Sen. Vicente Sotto, the immunity from naming informants, however, covered only print journalists.
“The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the state,” read Section 1 of the law that was enacted in October 1946.
Two years later, the definition of the phrase “the interest of the state” was put to test when newspaper reporter Angel Parazo wrote a news story on the alleged leakage in some subjects in the bar examinations that year.
The reporter argued that “interest of the state” used in the law should be read to mean security of the state or public safety.
But in a ruling in December 1948, the Supreme Court, maintaining that the integrity of the examinations qualified as “interest of the state,” ordered Parazo to disclose the source or sources of his information for the news item.
He refused, and was jailed for 30 days for contempt.
In June 1956, RA 1477 was passed amending Section 1 of the law. The controversial phrase “interest of the state” was changed to “security of the state.” The phrase “without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws” was also added to the beginning of the section. —Inquirer Research
Sources: Inquirer Archives, chanrobles.com