The human thing

AMONG OTHER collateral consequences, the Corona impeachment trial has revived attempts, in the past usually from government agencies, to summon journalists who have been reporting on public events to testify in court or during congressional hearings on the assumption that they have undisclosed, secret information that could help trials and hearings along. It seems fairly obvious that they won’t merely be made to repeat information already in the articles they have written or the broadcasts they have aired.

This time it was the prosecution panel in the Corona impeachment trial that announced that it would  subpoena several journalists as witnesses on the seventh article of the  impeachment charges: (“Respondent betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order [TRO]) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court’s own TRO.”)

Maritess Vitug, Raissa Robles were among the journalists the panel said it would ask to testify on, among other questions, the close personal relationship between Corona and Gloria Arroyo. Vitug would have also been asked about her research on the judiciary. ABS-CBN News reporter Ina Reformina and another journalist were also named in prosecution panel press releases as possible witnesses for the prosecution.

Vitug wisely refused to testify, declaring in a letter to lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas, that “All my works are public and they speak for themselves. And, of course, you know that confidential sources are another matter.” (“‘Journalists are not the story’”, Jan. 27)

In her own letter to the prosecution panel, Robles said she had “no personal knowledge” of Article VII. (“My letter sent to the prosecution panel”, Jan. 28)

What is problematic about summoning journalists to testify, whether in court, congressional hearings or other venues and occasions in which journalists are likely to be compelled to reveal information other than what they have already made public in print, broadcast or online, is their being forced to violate confidentiality agreements once they’re under oath and tacitly threatened with sanctions including sanctions for contempt.

There are sound reasons for confidentiality agreements, which often take the form of not naming the journalist’s source or sources of information,  but can include an agreement to use information only for the journalists’ background knowledge, and/or to disclose only information approved by the source or sources.

Journalists who withhold the names of sources are protected by the Philippine “Shield Law” (RA 53 as amended by Republic Act 1477), which  declares that  “the publisher, editor, columnist 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 security of the State.”

Protection against being forced to reveal one’s sources is crucial to journalists and their sources, but the qualifying  phrase “unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State”  can be problematic, “security of the State” being an exception so broad it could be stretched to cover revealing information obtained in confidence  that, in this case, the Senate tribunal can interpret as relevant to the Corona impeachment trial.

Revealing information given in confidence can result in sources’ refusing henceforth  to be interviewed by the journalist concerned.  Some journalists think that this professional consequence–limitations on access to sources– is the basic reason for the Shield Law. But even more crucially can revealing information given in  confidence adversely affect the welfare and well-being of the source, to the extent of even endangering  his or her life.

Information held in confidence when revealed can  also lead to the informant’s identification (only he or she may have the information), resulting in the same risks to his or her life (or safety, employment, etc.) , thus violating one of the most basic ethical responsibilities of the journalist, that of not causing harm, as mandated by the principle of humaneness.

Not only the prosecution and defense panels in the Corona impeachment trial should tread carefully when it comes to compelling journalists to testify. The Courts as well as congressional committees should be as cautious, given the possible consequences on those sources journalists have agreed not to name in confidentiality agreements.  The more experienced journalists in the Philippines have wisely refused to be forced into situations in which they will have to choose between respecting those agreements or being held in contempt.  Honoring such agreements, because it often involves the safety and well-being of the journalists’ sources, is a professional imperative not only  because ethical standards demand it; it is also the human thing to do.