Should the Freedom of the Press be Restricted

Term Paper in Comm. 100

Submitted by: De Guzman, Leonora Patricia L. Section: WYZ (Wed. 4:00-7;00 pm) Date Submitted: October 10, 2011 (Monday) Time: _________________ Submitted to: Dr. Reynaldo Guioguio

ARGUMENT: Freedom of the Press should be restricted. Freedom of the Press is a citizenship right recognized under Civil Rights and is protected by no less than the Constitution from government intervention, which states that no law may be passed that would abridge the freedom of expression.1 Citizenship Rights pertain to the civil, political and social rights established under the impetus of the economic development in advanced industrial societies and the extent to which they are made available to ALL MEMBERS of such societies (King, 1987:3). In other words, the Freedom of the Press is not the right of mass media alone but a right of all citizens in accordance to the Philippine Declaration for Press Freedom of 1987 which states that it is the right of the people to inform and be informed, the peoples right to unhampered reportage and to access to channels of information and opinion.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers. (Article XIX, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Being entitled with rights, such as the Freedom of the Press, is an individuals recognition as a citizen of a country for Citizenship entails rights, duties and responsibilities (or obligations) and a balance among those three should be observed. However, the current understanding of citizenship in the country (Philippines) has become so problematic that RIGHTS are given greater emphasis than having it balanced with duties and responsibilities. Citizenship = right to have rightsthis has been the thinking of the people which leads to the individualistic or egocentric mindset of rights where duties and responsibilities become minimal. This thinking is problematic such that people grow very self-interested unmindful of the rights of the other people they live within the society. Remember that each citizen is protected by human rights which restrict other individuals to abuse or inflict pain on him in various aspects (physically or emotionally). As the famous philanthropist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. would say that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty2 and so as every freedom comes with consequences which should responsibly be accepted by the individual who enjoys the

Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Study in Contradictions (Quezon City: Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, 2004.), 7. 2 Quotations About Responsibility (October 9, 2011), <http://www.quotegarden.com/responsibility.html>

freedom to choose the act he is about to take. The Freedom of the Press should be restricted as citizenship entails a balance of rights, duties and responsibilities (or obligations).
Freedom is spontaneously experienced when one enjoys the option to choose from among alternative courses of action one alternative course to the exclusion of other courses without any perceived internal or external compulsion. Here, the person experiences his own capacity to choose and comes to know the mechanics of choosing; in other words, one experiences the bare act of choosing. Choosing may involve trivial decisions like selecting ones apparel or eventful decisions like committing to a lifetime partner. The exercise of freedom, precisely because it is free, renders the deciding person responsible for the consequences of his decision. Thus, inherent in the act of choice is the acceptance of the consequences of that choiceresponsibility. Freedom and responsibility then are 3 correlative terms. (Garcia, Jr., 1989)

People, most particularly, the press people should know the limitations and the responsibilities that come with the freedom that is granted to them. Given that the Broadcast Journalism industry is expected to be an industry of truth, it is at the same time a business and some news items are made sensationalized to feed the craving and satisfaction of the commodified people4 which lessens the objectivity that is expected from them. An example of this is the gatekeeping theory where the news contents are filtered from the very beginning of news gathering and research. There is no such thing as absolute press freedom in the same way that there is no absolute impartiality in a journalists report. As Marvin Kalb and Ted Koppel once warned, as soon as a society moves too far in the direction of absolute freedom, it invites repression. There has to be a limit; and if the press refuses to govern itself, then sooner or later, someone else will do it for them (Cabaero, 1989:24)5. There are restrictive laws that limit this Freedom of the Press to keep it a right that will preserve and uphold the dignity, safety, security and integrity of the people and the state (or nation). First and foremost, there is a law on Libel which is purposed to protect the dignity of an individual, to preserve his name, reputation and honor.6 According to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
Jesus B. Garcia, Jr., Press Freedom and Responsibility in the Philippine Context (Seminar on Press Freedom and Responsibility, Cebu Plaza Hotel, 29 January 1989). 4 people seen as commodities to whom media can earn money through sensationalized news items, entertainment, advertisements, etc. 5 Nini Cabaero, Press Freedom: A Speech, Press Freedom, Responsibility and the Libel Law (Philippine Press Institute, 1989):24-25. 6 Resurrecion S. Salvilla, et al., Libel, Press Freedom and the Risk of Libel (Manila : Philippine Press Institute with support from UNESCO, c1991.):27.
3

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. Thus, calling someone a criminal such as a thief, a murderer, an adulterer, and the like is an imputation of crime; ridiculing someone as a blind, a lame, a stammerer, or a drunkard is an act of imputing a vice or a defect; and calling someone a bastard, a leper, an aswang, a gangster or a pig is imputing a degrading condition or status in life against the involved individual or individuals.7
The enjoyment of a private reputation is as much a constitutional right as the possession of life, liberty or property. It is one of those rights necessary to human society that underlie the whole scheme of civilization. The law recognizes the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who attacks it, by slanderous words or libelous publication, the liability to make full compensation for the damage done. (Coronel, 1989)8

The Obscenity Laws are purposed to protect the morals of the public and moral implies conformity with the generally accepted standard of goodness or rightness in conduct and character. (US vs. Kottinger, 45 Phil., 357).9 Individuals or journalists in particular, may violate the law if: (1) they publicly expound or proclaim doctrines contrary to public morals (Article 201, par. 1, Revised Penal Code). (2) They are authors of obscene literature published with their knowledge and the editors publishing the same. (Article 201, par. 2, ibid). An example of this is the public distribution of brochures and other materials that promotes and elaborates the subject of pornography where men and women are seen engaging in different sexual activities.
Obscene means something offensive to charity, decency or delicacy. A matter is obscene if it has the tendency to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influence. Or it shocks the ordinary and common sense of man of such an indecency which is an act against good behaviour and just delicacy. (US vs. Kottinger, supra).10

One universally recognized restriction on the freedom of speech and of the press is the inherent power of the court and the legislature to punish for contempt.11 Contempt of court is any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity. (Ex parte Holbrook, 135 Me. 276, 177 A 418, 420). On the other hand, Legislative contempt is covered by Article 150 of

Resurrecion S. Salvilla, et al., op. cit., 27-28. Atonio P. Coronel, Libel and Security Laws (Newspaper Management Workshop, DAP, Tagaytay City, 23-25 August 1989). 9 Ibid, Obscenity Laws, 59. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid, 62.
8

the Revised Penal Code which penalizes any person who, having been summoned by the National Assembly (now Congress) or Constitutional Convention, refuses without any legal excuse to obey such summons or being present before such assembly, commission or convention, refuses to be sworn to or answer any legal inquiry or to produce documents or records in his possession.12 According to the Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, the most common violation of journalists with respect to national security is the inciting to sedition. This crime can be done even without the direct participation of the individual or individuals in making it happen. Here are the three ways by which it can be committed: (1) Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of writing (news, editorial, column) or drawing (cartoons); (2) Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb public peace; and (3) writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous libel against the government or any of the duly constituted authorities which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his duties, which tend to investigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellion or which tend to stir up the people against lawful authorities or to disturb peace of the community, the safety and order of the government.13 The Anti-Sedition Law that was stated above can be connected to the Anti-Terrorism Bills that were submitted to the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives in 2002. Among these were SB 2263 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002; SB 1980 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002; and SB 1458 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 which, according to Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and other organizations, define terrorism in a broad and often vague manner. As a consequence, the bills are vulnerable to abuse and there is, in particular, a danger that the law will be used to stifle criticism coming from unpopular or troublesome political groups. The organizations called on the Congress to review these bills very carefully in order to ensure that any anti-terrorism act that is adopted is in accordance with international and constitutional standards of respect for freedom of expression.14 Laws are made to protect the people under the social contract where they belonga citizen to his state.

Ibid, 71. Resurrecion S. Salvilla, et al., op. cit., 48-50. 14 Attacks and Threats, Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Study in Contradictions (Quezon City: Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, 2004.), 46.
13

12

Unlimited press freedom cannot, on the other hand, prevailat least not for longwithout it being balanced by responsibility on the part of journalists and publishers in regard to press ethics. In a democratic community, the people will not in the long run accept press freedom that is used without responsibility. A press that does not behave with responsibility does not deserve its freedom.15

Being a responsible press does not mean that the truth is narrowed to avoid the possible violations that it might commit. A responsible press should research on the news the he is about to release and must be able to gather evidences that will edify the news content for its credibility. Respect for privacy should be observed and for this to happen, the journalist should be geared with the proper knowledge of the code of ethics and of the laws that govern the free press. 100% objectivity is not possible but a difference can be done if the newsmen will be able to expose all sides that are involved in a particular issue while of course observing the obedience with the law. Mass Media is one of the institutions that shape the society with the ideologies that they show and influence the lives of people in some way. The press indeed serves as the watchdog of the state, therefore there is a public accountability that the media should take good care of and should serve.
Our individual rights are only meaningful when they are supported by a sense of obligation amongst others both to recognize our rights and to help us build and sustain the social institutions that make rights possible (Faulks2000:164).

The right of the people to inform and be informed This has always been contained in the Philippine Declaration of Press Freedom. Given that the Freedom of the Press is not merely a right of the press people, it is therefore the accountability of the newsmen to give people information that are well-researched and are enriching to the publics knowledge of the current situation of their societyit is the right of the people to be informed correctly.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966), as well as the Constitution of the Philippines (1987), guarantee to every citizen the right to be informed accurately and adequately about all matters of public consequence and the right to freedom of speech, of expression and of the press. These rights should be enjoyed by all citizens, regardless of social standing, gender, ethnic stock, religious and philosophical beliefs, culture, political affiliation and geographical location within the Philippine archipelago, and inequities on this should be opposed, diminished and eliminated. These rights of individual citizens should be enjoyed collectively 16 by the citizenry, they being the sovereign body politic. (Reyes, 1992:16)

Thorsen Cars, Introductory Remarks (Dialogue on Press Freedom and Responsibility, Casa Muralla, Intramuros, 18 January 1989). 16 Ed Aurelio C. Reyes, Principles and Premises, Press Freedom: The People s Right: Assertion and Repression in the Philippines (Manila: Philippine Movement for Press Freedom, c 1992), 16.

15

References:
Books: Dennis, Everette E. and John C. Merill. Media Debates: Great Issues for the Digital Age. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, c2006. Faulks, Keith. Citizenship. London: Routledge, 2000. King, Desmond S. The New Right: Politics, Markets and Citizenship. Basingstoke, Hants, Eng.: Macmillan Education, 1987. Press Freedom in the Philippines: A Study in Contradictions. Quezon City: Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, 2004. Press Freedom, Responsibility and the Libel Law. Manila: Philippine Press Institute, 1989. Reyes, Ed Aurelio C. Press Freedom: The People s Right: Assertion and Repression in the Philippines. Manila: Philippine Movement for Press Freedom, 1992. Salvilla, Resurrecion S., et al. Press Freedom and the Risk of Libel. Manila: Philippine Press Institute with support from UNESCO, c1991.

Internet Source: Quotations About Responsibility. Retrieved: October 9, 2011. <http://www.quotegarden.com/responsibility.html>