Media in the news (2)

Let me finish off what I started last week regarding media being in the news. Citing unnamed individuals within the Nacionalista party as their source, ANC divulged a psychiatric report allegedly prepared by the Ateneo psychology department on the mental state of Senator Noynoy Aquino in 1996. The latter cried foul saying that the report was bogus and untrue. Criticized for circulating the report, the NP complained as well and pressed ANC to name who from their ranks provided the report. ANC still stonewalled citing the journalistic privilege to protect their source of information. While I do not belittle the importance of such privilege for news gathering purposes, this involved a unique situation where both the alleged leaker (NP) and leakee (Noynoy) challenged the station to reveal their source and waived any confidentiality rights so that the truth regarding the authenticity and source of the report could be verified and any wrongdoing subsequently punished.

So what would be the recourse of two parties who believe they have been both maligned by a media report? Can they legally compel the disclosure of the report or would they need to file a full blown case of libel so that they can initiate discovery procedures? I was told by friends in the media that the main check against irresponsible reporting lies with the editor who is supposed to check the veracity of the news release. But what if the editor is irresponsible as well or worse, in cahoots with the reporter in manufacturing a sensational story? In this case for example, the signatory of the alleged report was Fr. Tito Caluag. A quick check with the Ateneo would have revealed that Fr. Tito was never connected with the Psychology department. Moreover, is he not currently working with ABS-CBN so the authenticity of the report could have easily been verified with him?

My four centavos on the issue is that media establishments need to create more safeguards to ensure that they will not be “electrocuted” (ma-koryente) and also that its power is not abused. For regardless of errata or corrections subsequently published or aired, reputational damage has already been inflicted. I stated last week that I find the news and public affairs programs of ABS-CBN to be generally balanced and fair. Yet they should impose the same strict standards on the people they interview on themselves. In this particular instance, it would seem that the fair thing to do is to either disclose the source or apologize to the parties concerned. A Zen saying comes to mind: “We know the sound of two hands clapping; but what is the sound of one hand clapping?”

*      *      *      *

Difference in perspective II: Last week, I commented on the seeming difference in the way our country’s major newspapers reported on events. Specifically, in reaction to the initial automated electoral exercise conducted in Hong Kong, the Philippine STAR observed that the voting went generally smoothly while the Philippine Daily Inquirer focused on the fact that two (out of the 20) PCOS machines malfunctioned. Agreeing with my observation is a jurist who I believe will be appointed to the Supreme Court someday. In a text message, he pointed out that the headlines of that Saturday regarding the Judicial and Bar Council’s reaction to the SC decision on whether the President can appoint the replacement of the retiring Chief Justice Puno further validated my observation. The STAR’s headline was a more factual “JBC questions SC ruling” as distinguished with the Inquirer’s “JBC slams SC over CJ case.” A case perhaps of one seeing the glass scratched and another seeing the same glass broken?

*      *      *      *

Clarificatory Questions: Speaking of questions regarding the midnight appointment ruling, let me raise a few clarificatory questions of my own. A plurality of the Court (five out of 15) thru the Bersamin opinion directed the JBC to continue its proceedings for the nomination of candidates to fill other vacancies in the judiciary and submit to the President the shortlist of nominees corresponding hereto. Does this mean that the 1998 Valenzuela decision has been overruled?

The Bersamin opinion relied heavily on the interpretation given by then Con-Com Commissioner Florenz Regalado that the prohibition did not apply to members of the judiciary. Of course this has been contradicted by former Commissioners Joaquin Bernas and Christian Monsod. While the chairman of the Committee on Article VIII, former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, is no longer with us, three other members still are (two of whom are former Supreme Court Justices), namely Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Justice Adolfo Azcuna and Atty. Ricardo Romulo. Perhaps the Supreme Court could invite the three legal luminaries as amicus curiae to provide their opinion on the matter.

The plurality opinion also ruled that the JBC has no discretion to submit the list after the 90-day period occurs because that would shorten the 90-day period allowed by the Constitution for the President to make the appointment. Is this doctrine applicable to a vacancy in the Chief Justiceship only or to other Associate Justice positions as well? With respect to the latter, the JBC practice has been to submit a list only after the vacancy occurs. So will this practice change now? The ruling has impracticable consequences since vacancies may arise accidentally. Moreover, if the President uses her appointing power pursuant to the ruling, it is almost certain that one of the sitting Justices will be appointed to replace Chief Justice Puno. Does this mean that the JBC should also start deliberating on potential nominees and submit a list even before the vacancy actually occurs to accommodate the 90 day period given to the appointing power?

*      *      *      *

“Wall Street is the only place

that people ride to in a Rolls Royce

to get advice from those who take the subway”     — Warren Buffett

*      *      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]