Ridiculous Right to Reply Bill

My colleagues in the mainstream media have already wrote their pieces against the Right to Reply bill. Doronila described the bill as "offensive to the freedom of the press" and "as pernicious as the muzzling of the press by totalitarian dictatorships." His quips are just some of the hundreds of words used to describe the effects of such a bill would do should it pass executive scrutiny.

The bill's author, Senator Aquilino Pimentel challenges us to make a "reasoned argument" against it. He thinks that it's logical---a news paper hits you, you hit back. Good. But, is this sound reasoning?

Consider this--a newspaper reports a scam based on a final report given by a government agency. The agency condemns a Senator for being part of that scam. Notice that it's a final report, meaning, the agency already made the necessary preliminary investigation, called both parties, the accuser and the accuse to a hearing and already made a conclusion, which now forms a part of the final report.

Now, under the Right to Reply bill, the newspaper will then be held liable for a crime should it fails to give the accused the right to reply, for what? To contest the results of that final report? It's final already, is'nt it? Why will the newspaper give the accused the right to reply?

And is'nt it right to say that the accused be made to reply in court or in that government agency, not in the newspaper?

Likewise, a newspaper writes about a Supreme Court ruling. The Highest Tribunal says that the son of a Senator is guilty of rape. Under the Right to Reply bill, the newspaper is now obliged to give space to the rapist who will probably contest the ruling of the Highest Tribunal and say his innocence.

There are so many instances that we can cite here that refutes the arguments of Pimentel and his colleagues. What Pimentel is probably referring to here are opinions, not news. He should have qualified the provisions of that bill. But, if he do so, will he not violate press freedom and the right to self-expression clauses enshrined in the Constitution? Yes, he will.

Consider this---an opinion writer, under the Right to Reply bill, will lose his job because the bill will effectively curtail his responsibility of writing a learned column. For example, my friend Jarius Bondoc writes about an anomaly at the DOTC. With a space requiring just 2,000 or 3,000 words, would it be sufficient to write about the side of the DOTC? Probably yes, Bondoc still has some space left. But, it is his discretion to include that reply in his column. NO ONE has the right to tell him otherwise.

Likewise, my friend Neil Cruz of the Inquirer and Julius Fortuna will also lose their shirts because of this bill. Why? Their columns will eat up so much space if we allow millions of Filipinos to exercise their right to reply for or against the things which they wrote in their columns.

So, now, Mr. Pimentel, is this logic for you?