March 10, 2006 · Posted in: Congress Watch, In the News, Media, State of Emergency
TV networks want broadcast franchises amended
RIVAL networks ABS-CBN and GMA-7 yesterday asked the Senate to repeal a provision in broadcast franchises that allows the government to close down television and radio networks in times of national emergency.
In a hearing of a sub-panel headed by Sen. Joker Arroyo, chair of the justice and human rights committee, officials of the two networks said the provision was "unconstitutional and an assault on press freedom."
The mandatory clause in all broadcast franchises granted by Congress states:
"A special right is hereby reserved to the President of the Philippines, in times of war, rebellion, public peril, calamity, emergency, disaster or disturbance of peace and order, to temporarily take over and operate the stations or facilities of the grantee, to temporarily suspend the operation of any station or facility in the interest of public safety, security and public welfare, or to authorize the temporary use and operation thereof by any agency of the government, upon due compensation to the grantee, for the use of said stations or facilities during the period when they shall be operated."
(See the full text of the franchise granted to ABS-CBN in 1995 here.)
Maria Ressa, head of News and Current Affairs of ABS-CBN and Jessica Soho, Vice president for news and news director of GMA-7, said that while their predecessors "might have inadvertently agreed to it," they now wanted the provision repealed.
Although the clause provides for a temporary suspension of operations, Soho said, it will be in the best interest of the networks if the section will be taken out completely. Ressa said "it goes against press freedom."
Arroyo agreed that the provision was unconsitutional. Cavite Rep. Gilbert Remulla said Congress may either repeal it, or parties may ask the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality.
Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno of the Free Legal Assistance Group said the provision raises two issues: one is whether the President indeed has valid powers to take over and temporarily operate broadcast stations during a national emergency; another is the possible "misuse" of the clause. "The provision applies when there is threat to the life of the nation, not if it’s about the political survival of the President," he said.
The Senate conducted the inquiry after senators filed a resolution "condemning the raid on The Daily Tribune newspaper office and the warrantless arrests of protesters and party-list lawmakers" with the proclamation of the state of emergency in February 24.
Media groups, including the PCIJ, have filed a petition before the Supreme Court to restrain government authorities from muzzling the media. They particularly asked the court to nullify NTC circulars that prohibit the airing of materials which "tend to propose/incite treason, rebellion, sedition, or pose a clear and present danger to the State."
They said the circulars were vague and raise issues about who should determine what material is seditious. The reiteration of the circulars even after the lifting of the state of emergency means the restrictions are still in effect. "(They) have continued their efforts to muzzle and gag the press," they said.
10 Responses to TV networks want broadcast franchises amended
MitaMS
March 11th, 2006 at 1:35 am
Bravo the bold and the brave!
blackboard
March 11th, 2006 at 1:52 am
Freedom of the press should be guaranteed at all times! The question is, if the responsibility to exercise it can also be guaranteed? Its all about check and balance and the law sufficently provides that. Let us keep our eyes on the ball.
lbrto
March 12th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
I agree with blackboard.
So instead of repealing it, the most plausible option is to ammend it and require that a congressional enact be necessary before a TV or radio station is closed.
Freedom is not absolute. And this includes the freedom enjoyed by those who regard themselves as the vanguards of freedom.
Besides what assurance do we have that giving the media free rein will make them remain responsible? Have we not seen media abuse even under the present set-up?
lbrto
March 12th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
*kinulang type ko…
It should be “congressional enactment.”
Sorry…
shinbrouken
March 12th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
I agree with lbrto.
Instead of completely repealing these emergency powers, add to the system of checks and balances by requiring these powers to be approved by Congress, or by the Judiciary.
Remember folks, even though Media has an implied role as the watchdog of government, ultimately, running a media outfit is still running a business. And the role of any successful business is to ultimately stifle the competition.
Are we willing to give up more controls over an already overwhelmingly free press?
scud_1975
March 12th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Just a question, are all journalism graduates can be called journalists? There are irresponsible lawyers, engineers, doctors, nurses, etc. and for sure irresponsible journalists too. The difference is, these journalists don’t undergo licensure exams. Ano ba parusa sa kanila pag sumusuway sa kanilang “Code of Ethics”?
naykika
March 13th, 2006 at 12:27 am
“It is the readers or the audience of media who are the best judge of “responsible journalism” by simply not patronizing or buying the newspaper or not watching the newscast on TV if they think that that media entity is not responsible or is reckless in its reportage.”
The Quote above is from the column in Phil Star written by Marichu Villanueva and our exhange of comments; My letter to ichu is signed with my real identity.
————————————————————Naykika>>>
This is a quote from your column which I found so disturbing and self-serving.. The Media, be it print or broadcast can influence its readers and they readers have no way of knowing if the said Media entity is not responsible or is reckless in its reportage. Even in a country where Freedom of Speech and Expression is Untouchable and beyond reproach by any government intervention, there is limitation to such freedom. A reasonable limit that can demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I live in a country where freedom of speech is among the free-est and most lively in the Western world, but Section I of our Constitution (Canada) covers the limitations to all our Freedoms and Rights. That doesn’t means censorship, but a guidelines to all Media that to fully Enjoyed that Freedom, we have to know our limitations. The Philippine Constitutions is mostly pattern to the U.S. With all the safeguards and check and balance, but until you have an effective and independent justice system, no amount of charter and laws will effect the change of mindset and attitudes of just about every segment of society and the Media as a whole has not done much to help, but instead became the tool of its deterioration. Just my opinion.. just like everyone’s..
>>>Naykika
I sent this letter to you, and I have not received your comments on it yet. I’m thinking of posting a copy of this letter on the blog (PCIJ), but I’ll wait for your comment or reply and decide from there . thanks .. Phil star columnist>>>
Please read the column today (March 10) of Mr.Max Soliven, our publisher and well respected veteran journalist, I think he also, more or less, has the same stance on the issue. I just don’t know why this “self-serving” stand, as you stated, could make it “disturbing” to you. It is a fact and reality that media entities have to deal with each day in terms of survival especially in a very competitive media that we have. So as a personal stand on the issue of press freedom, I have been consistent in saying “press freedom” is a relative term. it depends upon the vested interest of your media owner.
thanks.
>>>Naykika
just finished reading max soliven’s column and he quoted iacoca regarding that jourlnalists are elected everyday or something like that. i am a great supporter of the media beause if not for the media we would have not uncovered a few corruptions that also occured even in our almost ideal society. But are you aware that even within every media entity here, there is an ombudsman that look after the behaviour of all its writers and journalists?? That they can not just do anything the owner of the media entity or the “so called vested interest” wants if it is against the Ethics of responsible reporting? That they are subject to libel and class action suit by the injured parties (it is not a criminal offense) instead of just rejecting their paper or not watching their program?? And you are wondering why the government is now planning to impose limits on the freedom of speech? why? because the media is asking for it. anyways good luck to all of you and I still admire miss coronel especially her stand in the New York Times interview.
Now I’m off for a well deserved vacation to visit my dear nephews and my niece, my sis and bro-in-law in sunny Ca. see you all later…
lbrto
March 15th, 2006 at 5:29 am
In response to scud’s post:
Ideally, journalists are guided by the code of ethics. Just like any professional organization, the association of journalits (PPI/PAPI) has the privilege of sanctioning their erring members.
Complementing this on the other hand are penal provisions that provide grievance mechanism for victims of unfounded stories — libel, slander, oral defamation, etc.
As you can see, there are quite a substantial safeguard to protect people’s interest againts unscrupulous journalists.
Pero I personally think it is not enough to deter malpractice cause, only a few knows their rights in our country. And most of these people are found in the higher echelons of the society.
On the issue of franchise repealing, I think that is a necessary tool that should be made available for “extreme cases.” Like let’s say use of the media entity to really cause instability in the country.
However this measure should be used sparingly and RESPONSIBLY, so is the need for STRICT REQUIREMENTS when can this provision can be availed.
To Naykika:
Sana hindi pa rin nawawala ang tiwala mo sa mga journalist ng Pilipinas… 😀
scud_1975
March 15th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
lberto,
Yes..we have libel, slander, oral def. etc that can be filed against irresponsible journalists. But for me, suntok sa buwan para manalo. Wala pa yata ako nabalitaan nanalo sa kasong libelo. The media wields so much power that when their pen strikes, it can make or break a person. Kung totoo man ang sinabi ni Marichu Villanueva base sa exchange of letters with Naykika..lubha naman yatang nakakabahala. You can’t just say don’t patronize that engineer kasi tatlong building na napabagsak nyan, or dont go to that surgeon dahil di pantay mag ayos ng s_so yan. Media has a big responsibility to the people dahil ang tendency ng mga pinoy maniwala agad sa kung anong lumabas na balita. They are not like doctors na kahit ilang beses mamatayan ng pasyente di natatanggalan ng lisensya, or lawyers na kahit tabla o talo lang lagi sa kaso hindi na didisbar. And once makagawa ka na ng maling balita, di na malulunasan ng simpleng erratum o kahit ano pang bawi.
Just take the case of Dan Brown, kumita muna ng limpak limpak na salapi ang Da Vinci Code bago sinabing kathang isip nya lang.
lbrto
March 16th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Kaya nga andyan ang organization gaya ng PPI.