CMFR statement on SB380 (“Magna Carta for Journalists”): WELL-INTENTIONED, BUT…

The “Magna Carta for Journalists” (Senate Bill No. 380) Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada has re-filed before the 16th Congress (he earlier filed it before the 14th Congress) declares it State policy for journalists to have “security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage.”

It lists as its objectives that of ensuring “comprehensive benefits packaged at par with the current benefits enjoyed by those in the labor force,” motivating journalists to “perform their duties as truthful and responsible informers of the people,” and creating “an atmosphere conducive to…productive and fruitful journalism work.”

Only in passing does the bill mention salaries and wages in its section 6, where it merely states that the determination of salary scales should consider wages and incomes in other occupations requiring the same qualifications and skills, the cost of living, and something it vaguely describes as “the imperatives of economic and social development.”

The on the ground reality for journalists is that there are wide disparities in wages and benefits, depending upon such variables as whether the journalist is employed by a foreign wire service, is based in Manila or the communities, reports for a tabloid or broadsheet, works behind the scenes in television or appears on camera, and even which among the Manila broadsheets he or she works for. The need of the hour is to standardize wages in terms of equal pay for equal work, and to assure job security. The terms the Estrada bill identifies in deciding wages is to reiterate what already supposedly determine wages for everyone and not only journalists.

A magna carta is a document guaranteeing the rights and privileges of a sector or group. But Estrada’s bill contains neither. Instead what it has is a provision for the creation of a Philippine Council of Journalists (PCJ) which would accredit journalists and conduct seminars.

Only those who pass a Professional Journalists Examination conducted by the PCJ will be accredited. These journalists would be issued an Accreditation Identification Card which they will be required to wear when on the beat or on special assignments. They will be entitled to benefits in addition to those provided them by their employers, which benefits will be accorded them by law and the PCJ.

Non-accredited journalists—those who either did not take the examination or who failed it—will not be issued the card, but will enjoy those privileges their employers have endowed them with. Those journalists who have been in practice for at least ten years will be exempt from the examination but will nevertheless be interviewed by PCJ before they are accredited.

While Estrada’s “Magna Carta” singles out journalists as a special sector or group worthy of such a charter, it is not actually about rights and privileges, but about limitations. It also endows the PCJ with the power to decide the level of skills and knowledge journalists should have in order to practice. The possibility is that the implementing rules and regulations that would follow the bill once it becomes law would transform the PCJ into a government agency, since it would not make sense for such a Council to be without any means to compel compliance. That would be an unacceptable risk to press freedom, as well as unconstitutional.

But what’s even more fundamental is whether there is any necessity to single out journalists for special treatment—or, what’s likely to happen in this case—for special restrictions.

The bill mandates the promulgation of a Code of Ethics, despite the Philippine Journalists’ Code of Ethics’ already decades-long existence. In addition, the bill mandates sanctions such as suspension or withdrawal of accreditation, and suspension of (unnamed) benefits and privileges. Ergo, the bill is also about sanctions rather than about rights and privileges.

The bill does have a section on the security and safety of journalists. But, among other mandates, merely requires the immediate investigation of instances of violence and threats against journalists. It is a practice the police say is already in place. But it does not address the reason why journalists are threatened, harassed and even killed: State failure to prosecute the killers of journalists and the masterminds behind the killings, as well as State inability to stop threats and harassments against journalists, which among others includes the fact that libel, a criminal offense in the Revised Penal Code, is among the many provisions of that Code untouched by a House bill that seeks to revise it.

Despite the bill’s good intentions, these gaps make the bill irrelevant to the problems that confront journalists, and are even likely to make the already problematic practice of journalism even more difficult and hazardous.