Media organizations decry ‘right of reply’ rule

Press freedom advocates and media organizations are asking  the Philippine Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to reconsider a resolution it issued last January 16 in connection with the upcoming May elections which contain provisions impinging on press freedom and freedom of expression.

The Commission resolution is requiring news organizations to get Commission approval before inviting political candidates to guest in broadcast programs, and to grant candidates the “right to reply” or face legal sanction. On 13 May 2013, the country will hold national elections for seats in the senate and local elections for various positions in local government. In anticipation of the May elections, Resolution No. 9615 amends the implementing rules and regulations of the 2001 Fair Elections Act.

Under the new rules, “To determine whether the appearance or guesting in a program is bona fide, the broadcast stations or entities must show that:  (1) prior approval of the Commission was secured; and (2) candidates and parties were afforded equal opportunities to promote their candidacy.”

Section 14 of the resolution also gives candidates  the right to submit claims for a ‘right to reply’ to the COMELEC, which the commission would then endorse to the media organizations involved, which  are  expected to, “within 24 hours, submit a report to the COMELEC … on the action it has taken to address the claim.”

The Kapisanan ng Mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (Association of Broadcasters of the Philippines) or KBP filed a motion for reconsideration at the COMELEC last 23 January 2013. The broadcasters’ association contends that the above provisions are unconstitutional because they violate freedom of expression.

“This requirement for prior approval … has a chilling effect and clearly constitutes prior restraint/censorship on the exercise of press freedom,” read the copy of the KBP motion sent to CMFR.

COMELEC chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr., in an interview with GMA News, said that “(Our consensus is that) prior consent should not be interpreted as an express consent coming from the Commission. It is (just) prior notice … that they’re going to interview all of (these candidates).”

But KBP in its motion maintained that “the lesser requirement (“notice” instead of “prior approval”) … is still a mandatory requirement, non-compliance with which subjects media outlets to criminal and other sanctions.”

The association also stated in its motion that it has “always taken the position … that the provision on the Right to Reply is unconstitutional as it impinges on the editorial prerogative of the media.”

CMFR trustee Luis Teodoro told Yahoo! News Philippines that the COMELEC ‘right to reply’ provision is unnecessary since “media organizations almost always provide time and space for the views and replies of politicians in reaction to their rivals’ claims.”

“The COMELEC resolution also tends to validate legislators’ claims that the right of reply is needed,” Teodoro warned.

Addressing the issue, Brillantes tweeted that the Commission is empowered by the Philippine Constitution to require the media to provide politicians the ‘right to reply.’

On 28 January 2013, Brillantes tweeted that “(The commission) will be hearing the letters of reconsideration of GMA7 and the KBP this coming January 31, 2013.”

GMA Network Inc. (GMA 7), a major broadcasting company outside of the KBP, also submitted a separate motion for reconsideration at the COMELEC questioning the resolutions provisions on the candidates’ broadcast airtime limits. (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/345699/tv-network-files-motion-for-reconsideration-on-comelecs-airtime-rule)

Brillantes added that he invited “all interested parties/groups, candidates and media entities to attend.”