N.B. – This is my short paper presented at a forum titled “In Session: Legislations in the 14th Congress” on December 3, 2007 at the conference room of Balay Kalinaw, University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman. The Third World Studies Center (TWSC) organized the forum, the third and last installment of a three-part Policy Dialogue Series 2007: The Academe Meets the New Legislature.

My short presentation is just an update of a position paper I submitted to the Office of Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. early this year regarding his proposal to amend Sec. 1 of Republic Act No. 53, also known as the Shield Law.

As the invitation of the Third World Studies Center (TWSC) came a little late, I did not have time to visit the bills and index divisions of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. To prepare for this presentation, I only made a quick perusal of the website of the Philippine Senate a few hours before this forum. I apologize in advance if I do not have information on related bills at the House of Representatives, particularly the one filed by Rep. Raul del Mar.

I also tried looking for bills or resolutions that have been filed by senators regarding the proposal to repeal RA 53. As of this writing, I have not found any. Apparently, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile only made a pronouncement in early October 2007 that he is in favor of repealing or amending RA 53. This was in reaction to a reporter’s refusal to reveal the sources of her information in a story she wrote regarding a close-door session of the Senate in its investigation of the ZTE contract.

COMMENTS ON SUBSTANCE

Based on my limited research, I found out that Senate Bill No. (SBN) 2477 which was filed during the 13th Congress – the bill that I commented on early this year – has been re-filed without any changes by Sen. Revilla last June 30 as SBN 165.

Aside from this bill, Senators Mar Roxas, Jinggoy Estrada, and – perhaps the soon-to-expelled – Antonio Trillanes IV, also filed three other bills which are essentially the same as the one filed by Revilla. The only notable exception is that Senator Estrada’s bill only covers print and broadcast journalists and excludes online journalists.

[TABLE=8]

In any case, the four pending Senate bills which seek to amend Sec. 1 of Republic Act No. 53 (Shield Law) are beneficial to broadcast and online journalists since they will now be protected from unduly revealing the sources of information they used in their reports.

RA No. 53, as amended by RA No. 1477, states that “the publisher, editor, columnist, or duly accredited reporter of a newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any information or news report appearing in said publication.” The only exception is when “the court or a House or Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.” Clearly, only print journalists are protected from revealing their sources of information.

When RA No. 53 was amended in 1956, then Sen. Vicente Sotto saw the need to change the phrase “interest of the State” to “security of the State” so that certain interest groups could be prevented from using nebulous phrases like “interest of the State” to compel journalists to reveal their sources. At that time, journalism was still assumed to be mainly for the print medium given that radio and television journalism were still starting in the Philippines. The Internet, on the other hand, obviously remained a pipe dream then.

At present, journalism has taken on a multi-media character to include not just print but also radio, television and online. It therefore makes sense to amend old laws that still make journalism synonymous with print in order to adjust to the changing times, particularly developments in information and communication technology that affect the practice of the journalism profession.

The teaching of journalism is currently geared towards producing graduates who can straddle different forms of mass media. As such, laws on mass media like RA No. 53 should therefore consider such multi-media orientation so that journalists can be better protected, and press freedom better promoted and upheld.

Sen. Revilla and the three other senators should therefore be commended for their efforts to amend RA No. 53 to expand the protection from unduly revealing sources of information to those in broadcast and new media. Other members of the Senate should show their unwavering support for press freedom and the rights and welfare of journalists by voting in favor of the proposal to amend RA No. 53.

COMMENTS ON FORM

However, the proposed amendment to Sec. 1 of RA No. 53 (as amended by RA No. 1477) can still be further improved by simplifying the sentence construction. For purposes of discussion, allow me to cite the provision in SBN 165.

From: (based on SBN 165)

Section 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, a duly accredited journalist of any print, broadcast, Internet, or wire service organization, including the publisher, station owner and/or manager, bureau chief, editor, news editor, writer or reporter, correspondent, opinion columnist or commentator, cartoonist, photographer, or other practitioner involved in the writing, editing, commenting of the news for mass circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news item, news report or information appearing or being reported or dissiminated (sic) in said media, which was related in confidence to such journalist or practitioner unless the court or the House of Representatives or the Senate or any of its committees finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the state.

To:

Section 1. Without prejudice to liability under civil and criminal laws, a journalist employed by any print, broadcast or new media organization – including but not limited to the publisher, station owner and/or manager, editor, reporter, correspondent, columnist, cartoonist, photographer, art director, layout artist, webmaster and other practitioners involved in the writing, editing, design and layout of news – cannot be compelled to reveal the source of information used in his or her reports disseminated through the said media which was related in confidence to such journalist unless the court or the House of Representatives or the Senate or any of its committees finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.

Reasons for the proposed changes:

1. The phrase “duly accredited” is too broad and could be interpreted as licensing of journalists, a measure that is inimical to press freedom.
2. A wire service organization does not need to be a separate category since it can fall under print, broadcast or new media, depending on the organization. Reuters, for example, straddles print, broadcast and online journalism.
3. While there is no need to make exhaustive the examples of journalists, there is still a need to include those involved in the design and layout of print and online publications. The phrase “included but not limited to” can provide more flexibility in defining the various roles that a journalist plays in a media organization.