Monday, January 30, 2006

The Philippine Shield Law

Yes, the Philippines has a shield law for journalists.
It is embodied in Republic Act No. 1477, an amendatory law.
But the first shield law was enacted in 1946, Republic Act No. 53.
A "shield law" is a law designed to shield journalists from being forced to reveal the sources of information they gathered or obtained in confidence.
The concept of shield law is of American origin, but later spread into Europe, and even played the role in the prosecution of war crimes.
The philosophy behind this concept is that journalists must have this kind of protection against forcible revelations, otherwise they will not be effective purveryors of truth because nobody would talk to them and give them "leads" for their stories out of fear of retribution.
I will have to discuss the shield law extensively in this blog, as I believe it has an impact in the maintenance of an independent press.
As a journalist, the shield law must be discussed among practicing members of the media.
As I see it now, there seems to be a lack of sources of information being circulated among newsmen on the importance of a shield law which has resulted to newsmen being used as unwitting tools in the prosecutorial processes.
Newsmen are supposed to be neutral.
Yet, many a times newsmen are bullied into siding with the prosecution because they are forced (via a legal process called subpoena) to dish out information beneficial to the government's prosecutorial duties, and sometimes to the prejudice of the accused. One of the basic rights of an accused is the right to a fair trial.
My stern objection is that as a newsman, I cannot allow myself to be a sidekick of the prosecution. It should not be that way.
And I believe being compelled to reveal information, particularly those I gathered or obtained in confidence, is a violation of my constitutional right to press freedom.
First, let me cite verbatim the existing shield law under Republic Act No. 1477.
Its a brief piece of legislation. But its wisdom and policy is revealed in its simplicity.
Later let us try to to dissect the law.
Republic Act No. 1477 states:

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1477

AN ACT AMENDING SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FIFTY-THREE, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO EXEMPT THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR, COLUMNIST OR REPORTER OF ANY PUBLICATION FROM REVEALING THE SOURCE OF PUBLISHED NEWS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED IN CONFIDENCE"

SECTION 1. Section one of Republic Act Numbered Fifty- three is amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State."

SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: June 15, 1956
It is important also to cite the progenitor. It is clear that Republic Act No. 1477 only amends a previous law, Repoublic Actg No. 53, which states:
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

SECTION 1. The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the interest of the State.

SECTION 2. All provisions of law or rules of court inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: October 5, 1946
Tomorrow, let us dis-mantle the elements, so we can see in clearer fashion, what our own shield law is all about, what protection it accords, who and what it covers, its limitations.
Till tomorrow then....

5 comments:

"fiona" said...

Mr. Jay dejaresco

your space in blog realy help me alot. I am a journalist student in CEU and the article about the philippine shield law build my confidence to continue my course, because i was afraid by the media killing today.. thank you so much for the information you have given to me...

Jay Dejaresco said...

Thank you Fiona. Stay the course, and...write on, man.

Anonymous said...

why this law being imposed?? what will be the consequences if the reporter or medias revealed their source?

Jay Dejaresco said...

@ Annonymous.. Unless you signed some contract or something, there will be no legal liability if you, as a journalist, will reveal your source. But certainly you will loose your sources. I think you will loose your reliability as a repository of confidential information. In short, you will loose your trust-worthiness.

Jave Matugas said...

Hello po. Is there a law that protects journalists against media killing? What is this law? How is its effectivity?