Expanded Sotto Law: Limited protection nonetheless

IN 1946, lawmakers passed the Sotto Law or Republic Act (RA) 53 to protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources. This was the Philippines’ Shield Law, a protection of the practice, providing confidentiality to sources as necessary.

Seven decades ago, when print was the dominant medium for news, radio picked news from newspapers. This was long before television was introduced in the country.  It has taken this long for the law to catch up with advances in media technology with the inclusion of broadcast and online journalists in the recently-signed RA 11458.

As in the original law, however, journalists can still be compelled by the courts or by Congress to reveal their sources if their reports are seen to have a bearing on the “security of the State.”

The reports on RA 11458 recalled the history of the Sotto law, with some noting the first amendment on it in 1956 which introduced the “security of the State” as an exception to confidentiality. No article referred to the current context arising from the penchant of military and other law enforcement agencies to “red-tag” journalists. Those who report on the insurgency are quickly included in their lists as communists or communist-sympathizers. This year alone, CMFR has recorded nine such cases.

The coverage of the New People’s Army (NPA) and other related issues may involve interviewing members of organizations that the government claims are “fronts” of rebel groups. The “security of the State” can be a blanket cover to compel journalists to reveal sources as well as to brand them with a label that for many leads to harassment, even violence.

Without this context, the news accounts highlighted only the beneficial inclusion of journalists who had not been previously covered by the Sotto Law. The missing context reflects the tendency of media to avoid reporting negative issues that puts the administration in a bad light.

This recalls the cheering reports that welcomed Duterte’s executive order on freedom of information which missed pointing out the numerous limitations that reduced the EO to a cosmetic policy. (See “The Executive Order on FOI: A Freedom of Exceptions?”)

Journalists should still be wary of how the expanded Sotto Law is used by the government.