"It is but proper and fitting that this Court commend the unfaltering and very able assistance rendered to the accused, seen from the excellent presentation made of his case, particularly by his defense counsel, Atty. Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr., of Davao City, who unstintedly and magnanimously contributed his legal talents and efforts in the hope that justice may ultimately prevail." X X X
Supreme Court Decision in 'People of the Philippines - versus- Lucio Lumayok' G.R. No. L-54016
Pending before the House of Congress are bills that pose serious threat to the Bill of Rights. The bills would lead to the enactment of a law that would infringe the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press protected the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Section 4, Article III.
The senate version, Senate Bill No. 2150 authored by former human rights lawyer, now Senator of the Philippines, Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. together with NPC Senator Francisco Escudero and Lakas Senator Ramon Revilla, Jr. provides that:
“all persons who are accused directly or indirectly of any crime or offense, or are criticized by innuendo, suggestion or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life shall have the right to reply to the charges published in newspapers and other publications as well as over radio, television, website or through any electrical device.”
The House version HB 3306, authored by NPC Rep. Monico Puentevella, calls for a maximum fine of up to P200,000 and imprisonment for not more than 30 days and the closure or suspension of the franchise of the publication or broadcast media outlet or station for 30 days for the fifth and succeeding offense.
The “Right of Reply” statute would stifle the need for a vigorous and uninhibited press. It would wipe out the “breathing space” to the freedom of speech and press which is essential to their fruitful exercise.
The pending bills do not differentiate compensation for injury to the reputation of private individuals from the injury to the reputation of public figures and those who hold governmental office.
The first remedy of any victim of defamation is self-help – using available opportunities to contradict the lie or correct the error and thereby to minimize its adverse impact on reputation.
Public officials and public figures usually enjoy significantly greater access to the channels of effective communication and hence have a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements than private individuals normally enjoy.
An individual who decides to seek governmental office must accept certain necessary consequences of that involvement in public affairs. He runs the risk of closer public scrutiny than might otherwise be the case. Those classed as public figures stand in a similar position.
The communications media are entitled to act on the assumption that public officials and public figures have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehoods concerning them.
The proposed legislation would compel editors or publishers to publish that which “reason” tells them should not be published. Faces with penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably within the reach of the right of access statute, editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy and that, under the operation of the proposed statute, political and electoral coverage would be blunted or reduced.
A Government enforced right of access would inescapably dampen the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.
A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size of the paper, and content, and treatment of public issues and public officials – whether fair or unfair – constitutes the exercise of editorial control and judgment.