|
TO TELL OR NOT TO TELL
Speech delivered by Hon. Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. on November 8, 2001 at the Rotary Club of Manila Distinguished guests, fellow Rotarians, Friends, my countrymen: Thank you for this opportunity to come home and share my thoughts with you this afternoon. At the beginning let me make very clear that I believe fully in the freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Perhaps, we can do without the other freedoms. But to remain faithful to democracy, we cannot extinguish freedom of speech and the responsibility of the press of the media to record faithfully, objectively and accurately the messages, all the inquiries and statements delivered in the exercise of free speech. I must emphasize my use of the word "Responsibility" and not right. I believe more than a right guaranteed by democracy, the Press has the duty to ask, challenge, to criticize and to offer solutions. The Press is also duty-bound to regulate herself by disseminating only the truth and by observing the rules of decency at all times. Or the Press would not be responsible. While we in public life, more particularly have the duty not only to discharge the fundamental responsibilities of mere stewards of power vested in us by people. We also have the duty to comfort ourselves as we write, speak and act, according to God-decreed standards of behavior and to the values all civilized and decent and upright men and women hold inviolable. The history of the subject of our discussion may in the past half-century be traced to October 5, 1946 with the enactment of Republic Act No. 53. An Act to exempt the publisher, editor, or reporter of any publication from revealing the source of published news or information obtained in confidence, unless the Court or a Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the Interest of the State. IN RE: ANGEL J. PARAZO, the Court adjudged the newsman Parazo in contempt of court for refusing to divulge the source of his story regarding the leakage of questions in some subjects in the 1948 Bar Examination. It was contended by Parazo that under Republic Act No. 53, he could only be compelled to reveal the source of his information when the revelation is demanded by the interest of the State. Parazo argued that "Interest of the State" meant "Security of the State". The Court rejected Parazo's argument as it held that the two (2) terms are not synonymous, the first being broader that the second. Evidently, this ruling did not sit well with Congress. Hence, on June 15, 1956, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 1477 which amended Republic Act No. 53 by changing the Phrase "Interest of the State" to "Security of State". With this amendment, a stricter requirement by which disclosure of the source of information was introduced. Taken in this context, can Congress compel a reporter/writer to disclose his/her source? Affirmatively, subject to a qualification. Generally, a publisher, editor or reporter cannot be compelled to disclose his/her source. However, just like any rule, this is subject to one notable exception, i.e. when the revelation is demanded by the security of the State. Obviously, only the Court or Committee of the House of Representatives conducting the investigation may competently determine if the revelation is for the security of the State. And contempt powers are available during the conduct of legislative inquiries. The Landmark case of ARNAULT VS. NAZARENO (87 Phil 29) gives us the definitive discussion on the above-mentioned power of Congress. On February 27, 1950, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 8, creating a special committee to investigate acquisition by the Philippine Government of Buenavista and Tambobong Estates wherein the National Government lost two million pesos (Php 2, 000, 000). The committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the expense of the Government. Mr. Jean Arnault, a witness who delivered a portion of the purchase price to a representative, refused at the same time invoking his right to self-incrimination. Thereafter, the Senate adopted a resolution committing Arnault to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until he shall reveal the name of the representative to who he gave the money. The Supreme Court sustained to punish Arnault for contumacy. Just recently, we witnessed a similar exercise by the Senate of its contempt powers when the Senate Committee on Peace and Order ordered the detention of Mr. "Ador" Manaway for the latter's refusal/failure to produce evidence linking Senator Loren Legarda-Leviste to the alleged purchase of 1,000 units of smuggled cellular phones. Immediately, Mr. Manaway was placed under the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. An argument may be raised that the cases aforementioned did not involve reporters/writers, which gives rise to the question as to whether parties under the protection of RA 1477 can likewise be subject to the contempt power of Congress. Positively so, except that in the case of reporters, writers, editors, and the like, Congress must determine that such disclosure is necessary for the security of the State. If the Supreme Court sustained the exercise of contempt powers by the Senate in the Arnault Case, with more reason should the same exercise be sustained in the event the House of Representatives decides to conduct an investigation to protect its name and integrity. I emphasize the House and not the individual members whose actuations in question may not be compatible with the Security of the State. The Supreme Court in RE: EMIL P. JURADO (243 SCRA 299) made a clarification on the seeming strict requirement of RA 1477, thus: "Surely it cannot be postulated that the law protects a journalist who deliberately prints lies or distorts the truth; or that a newsman may escape liability who publishes derogatory or defamatory allegations against a person or entity, but recognizes no obligation bona fide to establish beforehand the factual basis of such imputations and refuses to submit proof thereof when challenged to do so. It outrages the notions of fair play and due process, and reduces to uselessness all the injunctions of the Journalists' Code of Ethics to allow a newsman, with all the potential of his profession to influence popular belief and shape public opinion, to make shameful and offensive charges destructive of personal or institutional honor and repute, and when called upon to justify the same, cavalierly beg off by claiming that to do so would compromise his sources and demanding acceptance of his word for the reliability of those sources." The Supreme Court further adds: "it is argued that compelling a journalist to substantiate the news report or information confidentially revealed to him would necessarily negate or dilute his right to refuse disclosure of its source. The argument will not stand scrutiny. A journalist's "source" either exists or is fictitious. If the latter, plainly, the journalist is entitled no protection or immunity whatsoever. He or she must receive, must be meted proper legal sanction for reckless act. If the "source" actually exists, the information furnished is either capable of independent substantiation, or it is not. If the first, the journalist's duty is clear: ascertain, if not obtain, the evidence by which the information may be verified before publishing the same; and if thereafter called to account therefore, present such evidence and in the process afford the party adversely affected thereby opportunity to dispute the information or show it to be false. It is worth stressing that false reports about a public official or other person are not shielded from sanction by the cardinal right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution. Even the most liberal view of free speech has never countenanced the publication of falsehoods, specially the persistent and unmitigated dissemination of patent lies". You may well ask now: What indeed is meant by security of state? Who ought to define it? The term "Security of State" has never been defined with precision. Generally, security would mean freedom from danger. Following this definition, "Security of the State" means freedom of a State from any form of danger. And "danger" includes political, economic, and social threats. Simply put, anything that might pose a threat to the State would come under the coverage of such term. But who determines when a revelation is demanded by the Security of the State? Section 1 of the RA 1477 provides us the answer, "unless the court or a House or Committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the Security of the State". This rule isd conjunction with the inherent independence of Congress as one the fundamental branches of Government affirms the long recognized view that Congress enjoys supremacy within the confines of its hall. Recently, my person was maligned when a so-called journalist by the name of Tita Valderama of the tabloid People's Journal alluded to me as a member of an alleged "Gang of five". A pejorative term because of its obvious allusion to the clique headed by the highly discredited widow of Mao Tse-Tung, the gang members allegedly received P2 million each from two companies: Smart Communications and Globe Telecom. I triggered the inquiry into the PLDT's role in attempting to obtain control of GMA 7 thru its satellite Mediaquest. As you all know, PLDT us a satellite of the Indonesian Crony of the Deposed Suharto, the Salim Group. I initiated the inquiry because if PLDT succeeds, the constitutional prohibition against management and ownership by a foreigner of media would have been violated. Section 11, Article 16 of the Constitution clearly mandates: "The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens." Better to prevent it that try to correct the anomaly later, I filed HR No. 85 to inquire in aid of legislation the purchase by PLDT of GMA 7. The prohibition on foreign ownership of media exists to protect the Security of the State, even the interest of the nation against the intrusion of alien values vs. Filipino values. In the case of Smart and Globe, a was concerned that the two leading cellphone entities reneged on a commitment which enticed millions of consumers. I want consumer welfare protected at all times. At the least, I acted to protect the interest of the consumer. When one is told that the Philippines is the world's texting capital, am I not in fact defending the interest of the nation? But I was denied my right to confront my accusers and demand that the journalist involved reveal her source of information. The Speaker ordered that the inquiry be aborted. An abominable whitewash which prompted "Today" columnist Raul L. Contreras to write and I quote: "It sickens me that the solution of the Speaker was a whitewash in the guise of buckling down to work... this ratty decision in fact damaged the entire House and consigned it to more of our contempt and our incredulity..." If I became involved in controversy in my desire to protect the security of the state and the nation's interest, certainly I ought to be in the right if I compel the corrupt members of media to disclose their sources of polluted, false and malicious hogwash and fabrications. My recent sad and painful experience has given me a deeper understanding and appreciation of the meaning of honor. As an old Chinese saying goes, "When a tiger dies it leaves behind its skin, but when a man dies he leaves behind his name". In my almost four decades in the practice of law I had a number of occasions to help clients seek judicial vindication in defense of their honor. I looked at personal or institutional honor from a strictly legal and professional vantage point. There was a sense of something like a clinical detachment. I could not fully feel the extent of the anguish in the heart of a client whose good name has been maligned. Indeed, one must be at the receiving end of a false and malicious imputation to feel the great pain that an attack against honor creates. As I reflected on the pain of humiliation caused by the tabloid article, it somehow occurred to me that perhaps one of the burdens of holding a public office is to be ready for any accusation however false and malicious. There are those who advise that a public official must not be too sensitive to unfavorable media reportage, arguing that if one cannot stand the heat, then he must get out of the kitchen. This piece of prescription may sound practical. But it ignores the value of honor. It sets aside the need for truth. It disregards the indispensability of fairness if human society is to survive. Others may look at the whole question as the balancing of the exercise of the freedom of the press and the right to honor. But two freedoms cannot be mutually exclusive simply because no freedom is so absolute as to encroach on somebody else's right. The freedom of the press does not carry with it the right to assail the honor of anybody or to contribute to the impairment in the public mind of the image of an institution. For this reason I am seeking a judicial vindication of my honor through a libel case. In the Ethics Committee of the House of Representatives, I will ask the tabloid reporter who originally wrote the story about the so-called "Gang of Five" to disclose the source of the information as a basis for verifying the accuracy of the initial news "feed". Most likely, the tabloid reporter either personally or through counsel will invoke Republic Act No. 1477. It id worth stressing that RA 1477 does not protect a journalist from liability for false or defamatory publications. It does not give a news writer the unbridled license to do serious harm by publishing false and malicious reports. He cannot forever hide behind the Aegis provided by RA 1477. The moment a journalist or news reporter/writer publishes a patent false and malicious article, he is brought down into the level of ordinary citizen subject to th4 usual penal sanctions. As aptly put by the Supreme Court, "False reports about a public official or other person are not shielded from sanction by the cardinal right to free speech enshrined in the Constitution. Even the most liberal view of free speech has never countenanced the publication of falsehoods, especially unmitigated dissemination of patent lies". In other words, Republic Act No. 1477 does not declare that the publication of an information, which was relayed in confidence, is not actionable. Its confidentiality does not purge the publication as defamatory. All it does id give the journalist the right to refuse to reveal the source of the news or report published by him. Therefore, the journalist when called upon to account for the false news reported by him has the following options: a) to demonstrate the veracity and truthfulness of his report by disclosing his source; or b) to refuse on the ground of Republic Act 1477, in which case he must be ready of the consequences of publishing false and defamatory reports by not being able to disprove its falsity. This is precisely the reason why Section 1 of RA 1477was started with the sentence "(W) Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws..."I am confident though that considering all the circumstances surrounding the case and the applicable precedents and existing laws as earlier discussed this irresponsible, malicious and in the words of Sen. Joker Arroyo, fecal journalist will have to answer for the consequences of her reckless act. The Rotary Club of Manila, the first and biggest in Asia, is my home. This home is precious to me that I have always pledged to live by uts noble principles. As a member of the Club and after having served as president for Rotary Year 1995-1996, I will never do anything to dishonor her. Any act of misconduct on my part us a betrayal. Now, you be the judge! Good day and thank you.
|