The Right of Reply: A Policy Analysis

8/6/2019 The Right of Reply: A Policy Analysis

1/24

Right of Reply1

The Right of Reply: A Policy Analysis

Gerardo Mariano

Executive Summary

On July 29, 2008, the Philippine Senate unanimously approved SB 2150

providing for a Right of Reply and providing penalties for violations thereof. Pending in

the House of Representatives is a counterpart bill (HB 1001, filed July 7, 2007;

substituted by HB 3306, Aug. 1, 2007) sponsored by Rep. Monico Puentevella calling

for penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment and media shut-down.

The Philippine Press Institute, a national organization of news publishers,

opposes the idea of a mandatory, automatic, court-enforceable Right of Reply, on the

ground that it violates editorial independence and consequently the Constitutionally-

protected freedom of the press. Instead the PPI backs an ethical Voluntary Right of

Reply which it claims some of its members have already been observing. This analysis

provides a justification for the PPIs legal and operational objections to a mandatory

Right of Reply, and present the obstacles that could hinder an effective implementation

of a Voluntary Right of Reply.

Policy Problem: The subjects of news stories who find the coverage unfavorable

may want to invoke their right to reply. Some dissatisfaction has arisen when news

executives fail to meet this right satisfactorily. There have been informal attempts to

link libel suits with unrealized right of reply claims. In 2004, Roberto Romulo filed a

P100-million defamation suit against the Philippine Star's Max Soliven and Babe

Romualdez after what Romulo described were several unsuccessful attempts to air his

side in that newspaper. Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Rep. Puentevella seek to correct

this condition by throwing the power of the state behind right of reply claims.

The alternative policy is self-regulation through a Voluntary Right of Reply,

which the PPI claims is the mandate of the Philippine Press Council, an ethics body it

first founded before martial law and resurrected in the 1990s. The PPI empowered the

Council to deliberate on right of reply claims, hand down decisions, and to recommend

sanctions on members who do not comply with such decisions. Enforcement rests with

the PPI executive board. A policy analysis becomes imperative because there is yet no

evidence that the alternative policy has been widely adopted at the newsroom level,
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/70916334!.pdfhttp://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/hist_show.php?save=1&journal=1&switch=0&bill_no=HB01001http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/hist_show.php?save=1&journal=1&switch=0&bill_no=HB01001http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/hist_show.php?save=1&journal=1&switch=0&bill_no=HB03306http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/hist_show.php?save=1&journal=1&switch=0&bill_no=HB03306http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/hist_show.php?save=1&journal=1&switch=0&bill_no=HB01001http://www.congress.gov.ph/bis/hist_show.php?save=1&journal=1&switch=0&bill_no=HB03306http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/70916334!.pdf


2/24

Right of Reply2

especially by the provincial newspapers, and that the alternative mechanism has proved

to be effective in addressing the original dissatisfaction cited by the sponsors of the

right of reply legislation.

Introduction and Statement of Policy Problem

Dunn (1994) defines a policy problem as unrealized values, needs or

opportunities which, however identified, may be attained through public action (p. 68,

85, 138); a system of external conditions that produce dissatisfaction among different

segments of the community (p. 141).

According to Guess and Farnham (2000), a policy problem

is an event that produces dissatisfaction beyond one or two individuals. Peopleare upset. A single complaint about the slow response by police or fire services

does not amount to a policy problem though, collectively, more complaintswould be symptomatic of a policy problem. (p. 27)

The Constitution protects the freedom of the press. The exercise of this freedom

entails publishing reports that are, may, or tend to be perceived as critical of certain

individuals. Such publications may produce dissatisfaction among news subjects.

Aggrieved parties may seek legal remedy through the courts for libel (defined as a

public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or

any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,

discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one

who is dead. [Art. 353, Revised Penal Code]).

Yet, libel litigation was and is a major inconvenience for a newspaper, at least in

terms of financial and man-hour resources. On the other hand, most libel cases filed

against the press are dismissed at various levels of the process. While no formal

statistics exist, one can arrive at that conclusion in the paucity of reports of reporters,

columnists, editors or publishers serving prison terms. The penalty for criminal libel is

prision correccionalin its minimum and medium periods [i.e. from six months and one

day to three years] and a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to

civil action (Art. 355, RPC). Libel is often difficult to prove because the law requires the

element of malice. Failure to do so results in acquittal. There are those cases that never

reach trial because they expire at the preliminary investigation. In either case, a

dismissal or acquittal frees the journalist-respondent of criminal liability. But the


3/24

Right of Reply3

complainant may still be nursing a valid and legitimate grievance because he had been

put in what he perceived as a bad public light in the first place. But because of the failure

to prove malice or for a host of other technical reasons loses the case. The

dissatisfaction remains.

There is one notable exception: Daily Tribune publisher Ninez Cacho-Olivares,

whom the Makati regional trial court found guilty in June 2007. She was sentenced to a

maximum prison term of two years and 40 days, and ordered to pay the complainant

more than P5 million in damages. The judge denied her motion for reconsideration and

it was reported that she would appeal (CMFR, 2009). She will remain free unless there

is a final conviction.

[Davao-based radio announcer Alexander Adonis did serve time for two libel

cases, beginning in 2006. But in a combination parole-apology, he was released on Dec.

24, 2008.]

Despite Olivares case, there is no record of a Filipino journalist serving a prison

term for libel.

Every time a libel case against the press is dismissed or ends in acquittal, there is

a win-loss situation and the loser experiences a mental equivalent of a Paretoinefficiency. But even if a complainant wins in court, a great amount of time may have

passed since the publication of the perceived offending article, not to mention the costs

of litigation.

Rothenberg (1941) and Donnelly (1947) wrote on right of reply laws in several

European jurisdictions. Donnelly proposed statutes combining the right of reply and

retraction as an affirmative and substantial contribution to the cause of freedom of the

press and the protection of the individual's interest of his reputation (p. 900).Many press councils around the world recognize the right of reply, usually

backed by law and court-enforceable. In envisioning the Philippine Press Council, Gil

(1991) had the right of reply foremost in mind, when he wrote the trustees of the

Philippine Press Institute:

The implicit premise underlying the press council idea is that complainants are

mainly interested in getting the newspaper to correct its errors (apologize,retract, explain, or at least, print the complainant's side) as quickly as possible

rather than go through the length and expensive process of litigation.


4/24

Right of Reply4

Surely, Gil did not welcome the idea of a compulsory right of reply, a notion still

opposed by the PPI.

In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled against a Florida election law

compelling the press to publish a reply as unconstitutional because it intruded into the

function of editors (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo , 1974). According to the

decision:

The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to

limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issuesand public officials whether fair or unfair constitute the exercise of editorial

control and judgment.

A concurring opinion added that:

prior compulsion by government in matters going to the very nerve center of anewspaper the decision as to what copy will or will not be included in any given

edition collides with the First Amendment. Woven into the fabric of the FirstAmendment is the unexceptionable, but nonetheless timeless, sentiment that

liberty of the press is in peril as soon as the government tries to compel what isto go into a newspaper.

In policy terms, a compulsory right of reply will not result in a Pareto balance

because of the press-freedom issue.

The most viable solution should consider the concerns of both the press and the

news subjects, carefully balancing, as Donnelly mentioned earlier, press freedom and

the protection of the individual's interest of his reputation.

Since the PPI does recognize the right of reply, a Pareto situation is possible

if there is no state or government intervention in the form of legislation,

directive, executive order or any expression of state policy in handling right ofreply cases, and

if the right of reply mechanism is credible to the stakeholders outside of media

There are indications that the Right of Reply bill will not be enacted in the 14th

Congress. First, there has been increasing opposition to it in the media. Several

columnists, even those writing for non-PPI newspapers, have written against it and, if it

is passed, vowed to challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court ( Cacho-

Olivares, 2009; Cebu Citizens Press Council, 2009; De la Cruz, 2009;De Quiros, 2009;

Feria, 2009; Faraon, 2009;Inquirer, 2009; Lazaro, 2009;Teodoro, 2009;The Freeman,

2009;Yap Daza, 2009), and minimal support (Kapunan, 2009). In fact, one of the
http://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090302com2.htmlhttp://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090302com2.htmlhttp://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/ccpc-drafting-manual-on-media-safety/2009/03/31/http://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090301com5.htmlhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090302-191787/Right-to-replyhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090302-191787/Right-to-replyhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20081026-168467/Perils-of-legislating-right-of-replyhttp://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090301com6.htmlhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090226-191081/Chiz-Mar-wont-back-right-of-reply-billhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090226-191081/Chiz-Mar-wont-back-right-of-reply-billhttp://www.mb.com.ph/articles/204944/legal-analysis-the-right-reply-a-congressional-illusion-and-intrusionhttp://www.bworldonline.com/BW030609/content.php?id=144http://www.bworldonline.com/BW030609/content.php?id=144http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=500921&publicationSubCategoryId=107http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=500921&publicationSubCategoryId=107http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=500921&publicationSubCategoryId=107http://www.mb.com.ph/node/197176http://www.mb.com.ph/node/197176http://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090303com3.htmlhttp://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090302com2.htmlhttp://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090302com2.htmlhttp://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/ccpc-drafting-manual-on-media-safety/2009/03/31/http://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090301com5.htmlhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090302-191787/Right-to-replyhttp://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20081026-168467/Perils-of-legislating-right-of-replyhttp://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090301com6.htmlhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090226-191081/Chiz-Mar-wont-back-right-of-reply-billhttp://www.mb.com.ph/articles/204944/legal-analysis-the-right-reply-a-congressional-illusion-and-intrusionhttp://www.bworldonline.com/BW030609/content.php?id=144http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=500921&publicationSubCategoryId=107http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=500921&publicationSubCategoryId=107http://www.mb.com.ph/node/197176http://www.tribune.net.ph/commentary/20090303com3.html


5/24


6/24

Right of Reply6

whether the publication was accurate and made in good faith. The dissatisfaction grows

if the report turns out to be false or malicious.

The Subject has the option of writing the editor offering a reply, rebuttal,

correction, or simply a counter-version. The prompt and appropriate publication of the

reply may diminish the Subjects dissatisfaction. On the other hand, each day of delay, or

publishing the reply in a greatly diminished manner, may only aggravate the Subjects

dissatisfaction.

The dissatisfaction by aggravated if and when the Subject feels the reply will

never see print, or when it is, it is heavily edited or printed in an inappropriate section

of the publication.

The Subject has a legal remedy at his disposal in the form of a libel suit. Filing a

case entails a substantial cost in terms of legal fees and time. Further, a failure to show

probable cause may result in its dismissal or acquittal. Hence, the Subjects

dissatisfaction remains, or worsens. If the Subject has sufficient basis of a legal

technicality, he may appeal the case. Filing a legal appeal will involve more costs.

Libel suits are also costly for the Press. Appearing in court means time away

from their jobs. The cost goes up for the Press when the complainant opts to file thecase in the city of his residence and it is not the same as the city of publication. In case of

conviction, respondent risks temporary loss of liberty and an order to pay criminal and

civil damages. While criminal fines are minimal (at the most P6,000), civil damages can

run into the millions of pesos.

A legal battle may be compared with a military war in the sense that the costs

will be high. But people enter into it anyway if they think it is worth their reputation (in

the case of the complainant) or their liberty (in the case of the defendant). Costs areinevitable and often high, and victory is bittersweet.


7/24

Right of Reply7

Politicians, themselves often the subjects of news coverage, have sought to

correct this imbalance (usually favoring the Press) by proposing a statutory right of

reply, specifying penalties of fines and prison terms for the editor-in-chief, and media

shut-down for failure to publish the reply within 24 hours of its receipt. The Senate has

approved SB 2150, while House Bill 1001 is up for second reading.

If enacted, the right of reply law will tip the balance in favor of the Subject. It will

be the turn of the Press to feel the dissatisfaction that comes when their editorial

independence is compromised by a court order. They will be caught between

surrendering their editorial discretion, and facing criminal punishment.

They also have to consider another set of bills pending in both chambers of

Congress seeking to decriminalize libel. Decriminalizing libel will not only remove the

criminal penalties, it will also remove the one key element required as evidence toconvict a crime like libel: malice. As the absence of malice, or failure to prove it, is the

most common cause for dismissal or acquittal, doing away with that requirement will

pave the way for complainants to obtain convictions more easily.

Still, conditions appear to favor the Press. After all, they control access to the

traditional media of mass communication. The Public will be exposed to their views

before those of the politicians. Politicians know this and some have already withdrawn

their support for a statutory right of reply. With elections coming in less than half ayear, there is little time left in the currrent Congress within which to pass legislation,


8/24

Right of Reply8

unless the right of reply is certified as urgent. Nevertheless, the House has scheduled it

for second reading. Further, the Presidentherself has told the press that she might veto

it.

Even if time is not on their side, politicians in the next Congress can re-file the

bill and hope it passes. After all, they will be the primary beneficiaries of a mandatory

right of reply. That is one reason why the Senate approved it unanimously.

The Press has one last ace if the right of reply is enacted. They can challenge its

constitutionality before the Supreme Court. They have jurisprudence, albeit American,

on their side. In Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the U.S. Supreme Court said that a statutory

right of reply was unconstitutional because prior compulsion violated editorial

independence, the heart and soul of press freedom. We can expect civil libertarians,

media organizations and civil society to support the Press if this constitutional struggle

were to take place. Considering the liberal and democratic disposition of our own

Supreme Court, the chances will be dim even for an enacted right of reply.

A victory against a statutory right of reply initiative may be good for the Press.

The Subject will still be holding the short end. The Subject is frequently a politician. But

ordinary folks may also be the subjects of news reporting. If they end up thinking thatthe Press, in blocking the publication of replies, has become arrogant and abusive, they

may ultimately support legislation in the future, and choose to waive prior compulsion

as a violation of press freedom.

The Press therefore has an ethical and moral obligation, to its subjects,

politicians and regular citizens alike, and to the larger society. A mandatory right of

reply will deny the public of the benefits of free expression that is important in a

democracy. They must impress upon everyone a genuine commitment to a voluntaryright of reply. And they will have to do it not simply to stop the legislative express.

Currently, the only media organization formally committed to a right of reply is

the Philippine Press Institute. It has a body, the Philippine Press Council, mandated

to honor a news subjects right of reply. A Subject who does not get satisfaction at the

newspaper level may elevate his case to the Press Council, which can compel the

respondent newspaper to print the reply, or face internal sanction. The PPI can account

for almost a hundred news publications nationwide, most of them weeklies.


9/24

Right of Reply9

Yet, the PPI does not represent Philippine media, not even the press. Some

prominent newspapers like the Manila Times and The Daily Tribune are not PPI

members. The Manila Bulletin belongs to another, if not rival, organization the PAPI

(Publishers Association of the Philippines, Inc.). Many radio and television stations have

banded into the KBP (Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas). Similarly, not all

broadcasters are KBP members; GMA quit the group in a dispute over advertising

ceilings. While KBP has condemned the bill, it has no right or reply mechanism similar

to the PPIs.

To achieve Pareto efficiency, the media as one big group (tough chance) or in

their usual fragmented way will have to set up a credible mechanism(s) that will

assure news subjects and consumers, politicians and plebeians alike, that their right of

reply will be honored, without the need for legislation that will jeopardize democracy.

Their job will include educating their editors about their responsibility to the right of

reply, and the public about their right of reply.

Stakeholder Analysis

The Key Players: The Press, the Subjects, Politicians.

On the forefront for the Press is the PPI. Yet all other media traditional and new

are equally capable of causing Subjects harm, whether they are performing their

legitimate public duty or are acting with malice. Eventually, PAPI and KBP will have to

be involved.

A good model that should be mentioned is the Cebu Citizens Press Council. Set up

by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Cebu press council is open not

only to newspapers, but also to local TV and radio outlets. More than the PPI presscouncil, Cebu was first to oppose the right of reply provision of the Fair Election Act,

serving notice to Cebu politicians that their right of reply was not automatic, but subject

to editorial discretion. Rep. Angara, author of a similar measure (HB 162),

acknowledged the Cebu councils statement, then withdrew his bill.

Politicians are grist for the media. It is understandable why they are behind the

right of reply legislation. The main personalities are Sen. Pimentel and Rep. Puentevella.

At the moment, the Senate is no longer a key player as it has already approved SB2150.It is up to the House to pass (or reject) HB1001. As the bill is in the committee level, the


10/24

Right of Reply10

members of the House Committee on Public Information are to be considered key

players. Chairman Abante has already backed off support for the bill, saying that as a

radio announcer himself, he was abiding by the KBP position.

In case the bill goes up for final reading, the rest of the House will matter.

Another critical politician to be considered is the President herself, as she holds veto

powers. Keep in mind that the President is herself subject to an adverse, critical and

even hostile press.

Subjects include non-politicians: the captains of business, showbiz personalities,

atheletes, and regular guys who once in a while figure in the news, many of whom dont

even know the have a right to reply.

Supporting Players. PR, civil society

A compulsory right of reply will make the job of publicity professionals easier.

Because the law will guarantee publication of their press releases, they need not work

on copy or other PR considerations they presently have to consider. It is not surprising

that in my presentations about the right of reply, the IABC Philippines (International

Association of Business Communicators), the PRSP (Public Relations Society of the

Philippines), and some government PIOs (public information officers) expressed

support for the bill. It will be the turn of the Press to do a PR job on the PR community.

Other supporting players will include media watchdogs like the CMFR, which had

set up similar councils in Baguio, Dumaguete, Palawan although they are not as vocal

and active as the Cebu group; the National Union of Journalists, National Press Club and

the College Editors Guild of the Philippines. Beyond enlisting their support, they can

also be called upon in the promotion of media ethics, including the right of reply, among

their members.

Also to be considered are civil libertarians, and students and professors of

communication and media.

(Between 2004 and 2004, the PPI made the right of reply a standard part of all

its training programs. As press council chairman, I made right of reply presentations

before community journalists in Baguio, Subic, Tagaytay, Bacolod, Cebu, Davao, Cagayan

de Oro and General Santos. In these cities, we also spoke with masscomm students, in

addition to those in Manila, Cabanatuan and Dumaguete.)


11/24

Right of Reply11

Market failures

natural monopolies - As gatekeepers, the media have a hold on what information

(news or opinion) goes out. This creates an imbalance.

information asymmetry - The news-consuming public are not aware of their

right to reply, hence resort to litigation, or otherwise disaffection,

disengagement, cynicism with the media.

Other Rationales

human dignity: individual or institutional reputation as a factor

silent losers: those deprived of their right of reply

persistent losers: have an incentive to introduce new issues that offer an

opportunity to defeat the dominant conditions prevailing in the disequilibrium

Formulation of Policy Alternatives

The policy alternatives for a right of reply are statutory and voluntary. Statutory

is synonymous with automatic, compulsory, court-enforceable, legislated, mandatory

and required. The term refers to the measure already approved by the Senate and

pending in the House.

There are two varieties for a voluntary right of reply, defined by their nature and

membership. One is an industry body created by the media and whose members are

usually media professionals. The other is a citizen council, created by ordinary citizens

and whose membership is multisectoral. The Philippine Press Council created by the

Philippine Press Institute is an industry council, while the Cebu Citizens Press Council is

an example of the latter.

Worldwide, these are also the basic alternatives. The right of reply is a legal right

in authoritarian countries (Cambodia, Korea, El Salvador, Singapore, Uruguay), nascent

democracies (Georgia, Macedonia, Mexico, Indonesia), and even mature democracies

(Austria, Finland, France, Greece, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Italy, France).

Libertarian democracies like the United States have ruled a statutory right of

reply as unconstitutional. In 2005, Britain rejected a right of reply bill. There is no legal

right of reply in Australia and Canada. Except for the U.S., these countries have non-state

press councils that deal with the right of reply and other aspects of media/press ethics.


12/24

Right of Reply12

Sanctions are verbal. There is no official press council in the U.S., but some communities

have voluntary bodies (Minnesota, Hawaii, Washington). Elsewhere in America, the

right of reply is something dealt with directly and stops with editors and in some

cases the papers ombudsman or readers advocate.

Statutory Right of Reply. The bills mandating a right of reply are premised on a

concomittant responsibility that goes with the freedom of the press. Persons who are

maligned in the media have a right of reply. The media will be legally bound to publish,

by printing or broadcasting, the reply within 24 hours of its receipt, following the same-

page, same-size rule. Failure or refusal to do so will result in escalating penalties. The

bills differ in the penalties schedule, with the House version threatening more severe

sanctions, including prison terms and media shutdowns. The Senate-approved version

appears to have been watered down. Gone are the prison terms. It also specifies a

sunset provision in which the law expires after seven years.

Voluntary Right of Reply: PPI version. The PPI created the first press council in

1965, but according to old-timers it never really functioned because of internal

squabbles at first and later the declaration of martial law which shut down all private

media. After the EDSA Revolution of 1986, the PPI considered reviving the council, withthe right of reply on top of its agenda. They saw it as an ethical and inexpensive way of

settling complaints of people who thought they were unfairly treated by the press.

The first functioning body was set up in 1997 and composed of the senior editors

of the Manila-based daily broadsheets on the PPI board. These were BusinessWorld, the

Journal Group, Malaya, Manila Standard, Manila Times, Philippine Daily Inquirerand

Philippine Star. The Times went on leave since the Gokongweis sold the paper and has

not yet returned.In 2003 the council expanded its membership to include non-press members,

one representative each from academe, business, and the legal community. They were

invited by the editors. Originally they were Luis Teodoro of UP, Chito Salazar of Phinma,

and retired Appeals Judge Ramon Mabutas; Prof. Teodoro resigned soon after his

appointment and I was invited to fill the vacancy. Membership was further expanded to

include the regional (the three islands) members of the PPI board of trustees.

The right-of-reply process begins when a news subject writes a letter to theeditor. If the complainant feel s that he is not getting any satisfaction at that level, he has


13/24

Right of Reply13

the option of elevating his case to the council. The council will decide whether to uphold

the editor or compel him to print the reply. Failure or refusal to comply with the

decision will result in the publication of the reply in all the newspapers represented in

the council, as well as sanctions from the PPI board itself. The sanctions include

admonition, suspension and expulsion from the institute.

The PPI council excludes the participation of lawyers during the process. It also

requires complainants to execute a waiver barring them from going to court while the

case is pending, or to use the council decision as a basis for a legal case.

With regard to time, the council observes a prescription period of four months, a

30-day deliberation period, and a 15-day compliance period. Complainants have four

months from the date of the original publication within which to deliver a reply. Beyond

that, the PPI will no longer bind the newspaper to print a reply.

The council may dismiss a complaint if it is established that [a] the case has

prescribed, [b] the reply had actually been printed, [c] a related case has been filed in

court, [d] the reply does not address the original publication.

If it upholds the complainant, the respondent newspaper is ordered to print the

reply within 15 days. If the respondent refuses to do so, it has to explain its decision inwriting to the council. Otherwise, the council will circulate its decision among the PPI

members, who may choose to print the reply and the decision in their respective papers.

On top of that, the PPI may impose additional sanctions of censure, suspension, or

expulsion.

The council handles very few complaints, an average of one or two a year. It

could mean that the editors satisfy claims at the desk and so they never get to the

council. It could also mean that the public do not know about the mechanism, or do nottrust the council and would rather go to court.

Sec. Romulos complaint against Max Soliven was disastrous for the councils

reputation and credibility. Romulo had been contemplating on suing Soliven and

another columnist, claiming they had he had been villified him in print over a 13-month

period. The former council chairman, then news editor atBusinessWorld, advised

Romulo to try the council first. Before the council could arrive at a decision, Romulo

filed his case in court anyway. The case subjected the council to charges of being an old-boys club, making its credibility suspect (Doronila, 2004).


14/24

Right of Reply14

But we did have modest accomplishments. One Visayan mayor complained about

the bad press he was getting from a local paper. He had lost his faith in the media, he

said. We asked the editor of that paper for an explanation. We got one within a week.

The mayor said he was happy with the result, which restored his faith in the press.

Other cases we dismissed because we found that the papers had already printed

their reply. In one instance, the respondent paper was not a PPI member.

Voluntary Right of Reply: Citizens Press Council. In 2002, the Center for Media

Freedom and Responsibility set up three pilot citizens press councils in Baguio, Cebu

and Palawan. In 2006, the Dumaguete council followed suit (CMFR, 2006). The Central

Luzon press council came in 2008 (Sun.Star, 2008). Journalists in Pampanga are

thinking of setting up another in that province (Aguilar, 2009).

For purposes of this analysis, I will refer to the Cebu council, the most active and

organized of the CMFR councils. It has also served as a model for the Central Luzon

council.

It is composed of seven media members, two semi-media (mass communication

professors) and six public members (CCPC, 2009) who are chosen by the media

members. The complaints process involves a secretariat, the executive director,screening panel and review board. The review board decides on the complaint. Details

are spelled out in their Web site.

Lawyers are excluded from the process. There are no hearings, but the council

may mediate. Upon reaching a decision, the review board informs the en banc council

which in turn informs the respondent publication. If the decision upholds the

complainant, the publication has 24 hours to print the reply. Otherwise, the decision

will be circulated among the members.

Criteria for evaluating the policy options

The criteria are efficiency, effectiveness, political acceptability, fairness, and

constitutionality.

Efficiency

Resolution time. Because the proposed law says a reply must be published within

24 hours, it would appear that a statutory arrangement could give a complainant the

satisfaction sought in the shortest possible time. But that is assuming media would


15/24

Right of Reply15

comply. If the complainant resorts to the courts, the ideal limit for a speedy trial is 30

working days. In reality, however, all sorts of imagineable delays could take place.

The PPI model provides for various temporal limits: prescription, duration of

deliberation, and compliance period. The whole press council process can run from a

minimum of one week from the time a complaint to 45 days. The Cebu model does not

provide for time limits other than a 24-hour compliance period.

Measures: slow (> one month) = 2.5; moderate (one week to a month) = 5; fast (

The Right of Reply: A Policy Analysis

Documents

Transcript of The Right of Reply: A Policy Analysis