Saturday, September 24, 2005
Del Mar bill seeks to correct Sotto Law
Ask a broadcaster, preferably a feisty news reporter, if he can be compelled to reveal the source of his story and he will answer confidently: “Of course not. The Sotto Law.”
The Sotto Law, Republic Act No. 53 (as amended), indeed protects the journalist from being compelled to name his news source but, look again, the law does not mention broadcast journalists.
Who are protected by the law? “The publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation.”
It is silent about radio or TV journalists. The rule on interpreting statutes is that what is not included is considered excluded.
Are broadcast journalists then not included in the protection of the Sotto Law? They are, they should be, under the precept that press freedom benefits not only print journalists but all kinds of journalists.
But then the law is the law and, under the Sotto Law, radio and TV journalists are not covered, at least technically.
Expanded
The problem was raised two years ago during a Cebu Press Freedom Week forum by Regional Trial Court Judge Gabriel Englis.
Broadcast journalists present, including Bobby Nalzaro of Channel 7 and dySS, pressed for the correction of the omission.
Well, the House committee on laws recently approved a committee report on House Bill 2960, filed by Rep. Raul V. del Mar, seeking to amend the Sotto Law by including broadcast journalists.
And not only print and broadcast personnel but also duly accredited journalists of Internet and wire service organizations.
HB 2960’s expanded list enumerates: “publisher, station owner/manager, bureau chief, editor, news editor, writer or reporter. correspondent, opinion columnist or commentator, cartoonist, photographer or any other practitioner involved in the writing, editing or commenting on the news for mass circulation.”
The same protection: “the journalist cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news item, news report or information reported or disseminated in the media which was related in confidence to the journalist.”
Exception
The same exception: “unless the court or the House of Representatives or the Senate or any of its committees finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the state.”
There just will be more journalists being protected by the law. The del Mar bill will fill the omission of the Sotto Law and then some, to make the law keep pace with time and technology that has altered boundaries of media and media work.
(September 24, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
