Analysis : Philippine press under fire

Aug 04, 2004
By Amando Doronila
Philippine Daily Inquirer

THE P50-MILLION criminal libel case lodged by former Foreign Secretary Roberto R. Romulo against the Philippine Star, its publisher and columnist Maximo Soliven and its editors has put the entire Philippine press on the spot.

Romulo's case is not a run-of-the mill complaint against abuse of press freedom. In the dock is not just the Star, but the Philippine press' mechanisms to protect the public from its abuses. The complaint raises issues over the capacity of these mechanisms--the Philippine Press Institute, the Philippine Press Council--(1) to discipline members who have been denounced in the council for mounting allegedly scurrilous attacks on individuals; and (2) to give the targets of attacks the right to reply. The issue of fairness, a fundamental principle in press freedom, is at stake.

It is not the criminal aspects of the libel case that make it a landmark action. Romulo's action puts to the test the notion that the press, through its self-regularity bodies, is an institutional fraternity that is no better than Congress, the military and the police, incapable of making its members toe the line or conform with its own rules.

Although Soliven, a friend whom I respect, is the principal focus of the complaint, he is only one aspect of the larger picture in this case. The case is bigger than Soliven in that it raises a raft of issues with implications for press freedom and responsibility.

Romulo took the case to court, as a last resort, after the Press Council failed to take jurisdiction of his complaint and after the Star editors had denied him reasonable space to reply. In other words, Romulo followed the press' own due process and took it on its word "to guarantee every news subject's right to reply."

The Press Council is the body in the Philippine Press Institute, the organization of major newspaper publishers, which hears complaints concerning denial of the right to reply and decides whether the complaints have merit.

The council is composed of senior editors, and three non-press citizens (a former justice, an academic and a civic leader). It decides by consensus. It has no disciplinary power. It can't sack offending journalists. Its hearings are confidential--no linen is washed before the public. The worst sanction it can impose is to require publication in the papers of its findings.

Besides, Soliven has not been accused of venalities.

For the purpose of highlighting the issues raised by the complaint, it is not necessary for me to go into the details. These details are better left to be examined by the criminal court, or by the Press Council if it decides to take jurisdiction.

In his letter dated July 9 to the Council, Romulo said Soliven had been waging a "campaign of vilification" against him for more than 13 months. Within that span of time, a total of 32 "defamatory and negative" articles were published in the Star.

If Romulo's count is correct, then the sustained barrage would have few parallels in Philippine journalism in intensity (at the rate of more than two attacks a month). The motivation for the intensity of the attacks is better left to the court and the Council to determine, but an indication of the ferocity is found in the barrage of name-calling, labeling Romulo a "schemer," "agent of Jewish lobby," "opportunist," "racketeer," "dipsomaniac," "arrogant showoff," "pompous," "Brutus."'

This verbal assault prompted the Makati Business Club to write Isaac Belmonte, editor of the Star, calling attention to the denial by the paper of the right to reply of the target of its attacks. The MBC raised two important questions that should pertain not only to the Star but other papers as well. These questions were:

"Are your columnists totally free to accuse anyone of anything without requiring them to substantiate their allegations?

"Is the right of reply of all citizens accused in your newspaper recognized and practiced as a matter of policy?"

These questions have application on other papers as well. They raise important issues. They challenge the widely held belief among newspaper columnists that because they are writing opinion, this is fair journalism, and they are not required to back their opinion with facts.

This point of view is held by opinion writers who don't have extensive background as reporters.

Romulo told the Press Council that the Star did not publish his letters to the editor, except for a short excerpt of a letter and declined his request to buy advertising space to publish his reply in full.

Not only the Star is on the spot. Equally under fire is the Press Council, for not taking cognizance of the case that would have started the process of inquiry during which, under the Council's rules, the Star could be asked to reply to Romulo's complaint. Romulo put the Council on the spot when he asked: "What recourse [does] a citizen like myself [have] when a journalist and an entire media organization decide to make cannon fodder of his reputation and good name, not just once but seemingly as a matter of policy? I want to find out whether, besides the court system, there is in our press community a corner or sanctuary to which one can repair for vindication."

Most newspapers didn't want to touch the story. Some believe it is unethical to make judgments on practices of other papers. But publishing the complaint and discussing the issues it raises are not being judgmental or being holier-than-thou. These are issues involving the public's right to know what's happening inside the press.