Will ABC 5 yield?

Another brewing issue that is bound to elicit a debate on press freedom interests is a declaration by the Executive Department, through Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor, who was seen on television declaring the state’s intention to subpoena video tapes of a supposed interview with detained Brig. General Danilo Lim which will show that the general declared his withdrawal of support from the government.
This, Defensor said, will prove the state right, and would justify the proclamation of a state of national emergency.
In addition, Sec. Defensor said besides the video tapes, the state has other evidence that there was indeed a conspiracy to overthrow the government.
The question is: What will ABC 5’s response be? What are its options?
The most logical option of course, is to yield to the state. Give it to them. Why create a fuss? What’s the big deal?
And this option has constitutional and jurisprudential bases.
After all, it has long been a legal tradition that the interests of the state in the successful prosecution of crimes---specially those which threaten the stability or the very existence of the government--- precedes private interests, such as private ownership (of video tapes), or freedom of the press to be left alone against state intrusions.
But the press wants to be left alone, doesn’t it?(Specially these days)
However, the well-established rule is that the press enjoys no testimonial privilege from complying with subpoenas, particularly when such testimony is crucial in the prosecution of crimes (Branzburg v Hayes).
On the other hand, this does not mean that the press cannot ask questions first, before submitting itself to the state’s prosecutorial processes.
As a matter of legal and historical fact, before a newsman is compelled to testify, even in those matters where information was gathered under confidential circumstances, the government has the prior obligation to demonstrate a “compelling need” for the newsman’s testimony.
And part of this “compelling necessity” is for the state first to establish that a there was a crime.
Thus, if in that interview, Brig. Gen. Lim merely declared withdrawal of support, is that a crime?
Wouldn’t it be proper , therefore, for ABC 5, to first ask the state some few questions, before it complies with a subpoena?
The press has rights (to due process), doesn’t it?
Secondly, Sec. Defensor was quoted as saying it has evidence to prove the state’s case, other than the video tapes.
The next question is: with the admitted availability of “other” evidence, is there still a compelling necessity to subpoena the press?
It would be reasonable to assume that ABC 5 will just take the easy route of just complying with the subpoena. In the process it would earn good points from the state. Why rock the boat?
By not submitting to the state, this could potentially have adverse repercussions on business.
But there are greater interests.
There are interests, such as the protection of the freedoms that the press enjoys, like the freedom to promote the maintenance of that free flow of information, unobstructed by state intrusions.
The problem is that if ABC 5 submits the tapes without raising questions or objections, it might probably create a state hobby.
We can expect the state demanding all kinds of information, even those considered sacred by the press, like those sealed by pacts of confidentiality.
As the esteemed Mr. Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Branzburg versus Hayes said, “The intrusion of government into this domain is symptomatic of the disease of this society. As the years pass the power of government becomes more and more pervasive. It is a power to suffocate both people and causes. Those in power, whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it.”
“Forcing a reporter before a grand jury will have two retarding effects upon the ear and the pen of the press. Fear of exposure will cause dissidents to communicate less openly to trusted reporters. And, fear of accountability will cause editors and critics to write with more restrained pens.”
This is the real danger.
Will ABC 5 yield?

Shield Law IX Branzburg v Hayes

Every journalist must have a working familiarity with the landmark ruling Branzburg versus Hayes, decided by the United States Supreme Court.

The Court was divided (5-4) and the decision was arrived after intense opposing views by the majority and the dissenters.

In this case the United States Supreme Court ruled that requiring newsmen to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries DOES NOT abridge the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment.


The Brief Facts in Branzburg


On November 15, 1969, the newspaper Courier-Journal carried a story under the by-line of petitioner Branzburg describing in detail his observations of two young residents of Jefferson County synthesizing hashish from marihuana, an activity which, they asserted, earned them about $5,000 in three weeks.

The article included a photograph of a pair of hands working above a laboratory table on which was a substance identified by the caption as hashish.

The article stated that petitioner had promised not to reveal the identity of the two hashish makers.

Branzburg was shortly subpoenaed by the Jefferson County grand jury; he appeared, but refused to identify the individuals he had seen possessing marihuana or the persons he had seen making hashish from marihuana.

In another incident involving petitioner Branzburg arose out of his later story published on January 10, 1971, which described in detail the use of drugs in Frankfort, Kentucky.

The article reported that in order to provide a comprehensive survey of the "drug scene" in Frankfort, Branzburg had "spent two weeks interviewing several dozen drug users in the capital city" and had seen some of them smoking marihuana.

A number of conversations with and observations of several unnamed drug users were recounted. Subpoenaed to appear before a Franklin County grand jury "to testify in the matter of violation of statutes concerning use and sale of drugs," petitioner Branzburg moved to quash the summons.

The newsman’s argument

In refusing to testify, Branzburg, argued that to gather news, it is often necessary to agree either not to identify the source of information published or to publish only part of the facts revealed, or both; that if the reporter is nevertheless forced to reveal these confidences to a grand jury, the source so identified and other confidential sources of other reporters will be measurably deterred from furnishing publishable information, all to the detriment of the free flow of information protected by the First Amendment.

The claim by the newsman is that reporters are exempt from these obligations because if forced to respond to subpoenas and identify their sources or disclose other confidences, their informants will refuse or be reluctant to furnish newsworthy information in the future.

This asserted burden on news gathering is said to make compelled testimony from newsmen constitutionally suspect and to require a privileged position for them.

The issue

The sole issue for determination is the obligation of reporters to respond to grand jury subpoenas as other citizens do and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of crime.

The majority opinion

The majority of the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation, and therefore the Amendment does not afford him a constitutional testimonial privilege for an agreement he makes to conceal facts relevant to a grand jury's investigation of a crime or to conceal the criminal conduct of his source or evidence thereof.

The Court added: We cannot seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects a newsman's agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about crime than to do something about it.

Insofar as any reporter in these cases undertook not to reveal or testify about the crime he witnessed, his claim of privilege under the First Amendment presents no substantial question.

The crimes of news sources are no less reprehensible and threatening to the public interest when witnessed by a reporter than when they are not, the Court said.

Shifting gears?

Having said this, though, the Supreme Court shifted gear and ruled that news gathering is not without its First Amendment protections, and grand jury investigations if instituted or conducted other than in good faith, would pose wholly different issues for resolution under the First Amendment.

The Court added that official harassment of the press undertaken not for purposes of law enforcement but to disrupt a reporter's relationship with his news sources would have no justification. Grand juries are subject to judicial control and subpoenas to motions to quash.

“We do not expect courts will forget that grand juries must operate within the limits of the First Amendment as well as the Fifth,” the Supreme Court said.


The Standards in requiring newsmen to testify

What is striking in this landmark decision is that while the Supreme Court ruled that there is no testimonial privilege available to newsmen, that would immunize them from grand jury subpoenas, the Court laid down an important pre-condition before such subpoena is effected.

The Court said, “if there is no First Amendment privilege to refuse to answer the relevant and material questions asked during a good-faith grand jury investigation, then it is a fortiori true that there is no privilege to refuse to appear before such a grand jury until the Government demonstrates some "compelling need" for a newsman's testimony.

Since then, it has been a pre-condition that the government first demonstrate a “compelling need” for a newsman’s testimony.

As a matter of fact, the U.S. Senate bill which seeks to legislate shield law protection mandates that newsman have to be given an opportunity to be heard on the matter of “compelling need” before newsmen actually are compelled to testify.[1]

These conditions naturally flow from the requirement of “compelling need” required by the U.S. Supreme Court in Branzburg.

No more deep throats?

I remember my former professor Fr. Joaquin Bernas write that the proscription against prior restraint is not all there is to press freedom.
The press freedom clause in the constitution also protects media practitioners against what is called "subsequent punishment."
In other words, the press must not be burdened with apprehensions that their publications would later on put them into trouble by the state.
If the press publishes in fearful anticipation of a state-sponsored backlash, then there is no press freedom.
Recently, the National Telecommunications Commission has issued a memorandum circular banning stories with "anonymous sources".
According to the report by the Philipine Daily Inquirer, news from anonymous sources is not allowed.
This memo could very well change the way broadcasting of stories with "un-named sources".
Since anonymous sources is no longer allowed, then news reporters are obligated to include in their report the sources of their stories.
Such a situation is an affront to a newsman's basic freedom.
Since news reporters are now obligated to identify the sources of their stories, then nobody will come forward to feed newsman with "tips" or "leads" with which newsmen usually pursue their stories.
The relieance of anonymous sources has traditionally been used as a starting point in the exposes of corruption like so-called fertilizer funds-scam, malpractices in government, including cheating in elections.
Most of these "un-named" sources are sometimes low ranking government employees, but who are "in-the-know", or who can point to the paper trail of documentary evidence that will eventually establish wrong-doings by high-ranking government officials.
They talk to newsmen, always on the condition that their identities are not revealed.
One of the triumphs of journalism was the conscientious publication of stories which eventually exposed what was later on known as the Watergate Scandal. It resulted in the resignation of a President.
The truth prevailed because the reporters of the Washignton Post relied on an anonymous, un-named source to whom the reporters Bernstein and Woodward would only identify as "Deep Throat" (identified 30 years later as Mark Felt of the FBI).
Now, the state is banning the use of "anonymous" sources in broadcasting news reports.
Who will now come forward and talk to newsmen, and give leads to newsworthy stories?
This is suppression of press freedom of the highest order.

Shield Law IX: The Editorial that sparked it

It was the editorial published in the defunct Manila Post on June 4, 1946 that sparked the move to enact a shield law in the Philippines to protect journalists from forced disclosures of the sources of their news reports.
Because it has historic value, the I will quote the editorial. I lifted this from the deliberations of the Senate of the First Republic on the proposed shield law (Senate Bill No. 6) since as of now, I haven't gotten hold of the best evidence: a copy of the June 4 1946 issue of Manila Post (yet).
I would not know how to get one, since the paper has long 'retired' or (permanently) "put to bed"---to use a newspaperman's lingo.
The editorial wrote:
"Two very recent instances familiar to Philippine newspaper readers reveal that even in this democratic sector of the globe a free press has not yet been fully realized. The staff of the Pacifican, army paper complained sometime ago of too much censorship. The other day a member of the Roxas cabinet "off limits" newsmen from his office because he could not stomach the criticisms against the President.
"The unforgetful public will recall that the 'back pay' Congress took offense at the well-intentioned criticism of the editor of this paper against the lawmaking body and wanted to investigate him. It will also be recalled that a few months ago a report of this paper was jailed for not complying with a Supreme Court magistrate's order that he divulge the source of his news. The reporter, true to the ideal of fearlessness to which this paper is voted and in consonance with a well-established journalistic canon, preferred incarceration to violation of the confidence reposed in him by his informant."
The paper may since have folded up, but it has left an indelible legacy to Philippine journalism. It was to make that bold initiative to shake the halls of Congress to enact an important piece of legislation that would serve to institutionalize the much needed protection for those dedicated to maintain the free flow of information to society.

Shield Law VIII: Privileged communication

It can be noted, curiously, that the proposed shield law first introduced in the Senate proceeded from the concept of "privileged communication". Of course the thrust was to promote the constitutional guarantee of press freedom.
Yet, Senator Vicente Y. Sotto, the author of Senate Bill No. 6 originally considered the shield law as proceeding from the realm of privileged communications, like those specifically enumerated in the rules of evidence.
In the bill's explanatory note, Senator Sotto sought to place "news reports or information among the privileged communications side by side with those given by the clients of an attorney or of a doctor, or to a priest in the confessional."
Senator Sotto, a lawyer, not surprisingly, patterned the bill from the privileged communications which under the rules of evidence, are not to allowed to be subjects of testimonies of witnesses.
Under the rules of evidence, certain witnesses are disqualified from testifying when the matter to be testified on were learned in confidence.
Under the rules of court, the following are disqualfied to testify by reason of privileged communications:
(1) the husband or wife cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during marriage;
(2) an attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client;
(3) a doctor cannot in a civil case, wihtout the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given or any information which may have been acquired while attending to the patient in a professional capacity;
(4) A minister or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession be examined as to the matter confessed;
(5) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to communications made to him in official confidence.
Senate Bill No. 6 wished to add the journalist as among those who were disqualified to testify on matters learned in confidence from their sources when it was revealed in confidence.
The common denominator in disqulfiying witnesses in privilege communications is when the matter revealed from one person to the other was "confidential."
Thus the Philippine Shield Law derived its philosophy fromthe concept of "confidential information"
In addition, in the original Senate bill No. 6, the only exception from compelled disclosures is when the court so directed, for the public interest.
The fact that it was only the court (original proposal) that was empowered to order compelled revelations only shows that the concept was patterned after the provisions of the rules on evidence.
This is not so, in American state shield laws.
In many state shield laws in the U.S., the insulation of journalists from compelled revelations
is not necessarily based on privileged communications.
As a matter of fact, American state shield laws do not require that the information "be made in confidence" in order to insulate the newsman from compelled revelations.
The general rule in the United States is that a newsman (their laws say "covered person") cannot be compelled to reveal the source of his information, regardless of whether or not it was obtained in confidence.
I believe, the Philippine Shield Law can be modified and expanded by doing away with the concept of "privileged communications" or "confidential information."
I support the position that newsmen must be insulated from compelled disclosures regardless of whether or not the information was obtained in confidence.
The proposed amendment therfore, is to remove the phrase "which was related in confidence."
This would augur well to promoting a free and independent press.

Shield Law VII: How it all started

I found it interesting to dig into the history of the Philippine Shield Law.
Today I made some research, to find out how the Philippine Shield Law came to be.
It was the Philippine Press that pressed for the passage of a shield law to protect practicing journalists.
The defunct Manila Post published an editorial on its June 4, 1946 issue voicing the need to protect working journalists in the exercise of their profession. It was a protection "demanded by preponderant public opinion."
This prompted Senator Vicente Sotto to file Senate Bill No. 6 during the First Congress of the Republic.
Now I understand why the Philippine Shield Law is also known as the "Sotto Law".
The title of the Senate Bill No. 6 filed by Senator Sotto shows clearly the legal basis upon which the shield law originally relied---the concept of "privileged communications".
The title originally stated:
"An Act to exempt the publisher, editor or reporter of any publication from revealing the source of published news or information obtained in confidence."
The explanatory note of Senate Bill No. 6 states:
"We are simply putting in a crystallized form what seems to be demanded by preponderant public opinion. The Manila Post in its editorial of June 4 1946, has given us notice that the time has come that press freedom should be acknowledged in a positive manner by placing news-reports or information among the "privileged communications" side by side with those given by the clients of an attorney or of a doctor, or to a priest in the confessional. The importance of the role of press in our political set-up warrants such a privilege so that it can function free from fear or intimidation. Incidentally it will also infuse among the members of the fourth estate a sense of responsibility which they owe to their constituents, the public."

Snippet: Biography of Senator Vicente Y. Sotto :
Senator Vicente Sotto was born in Cebu City on April 18, 1877 to Marcelino Sotto and Pascuala Yap. He finished his secondary education at the Colegio de San Carlos in Cebu City. He obtained the degree of Bachelor of Laws and Judicial Science and passed the bar examinations in 1907. In 1902, Senator Sotto entered politics when he ran for the municipal councilorship of Cebu and won. In 1907, he was elected mayor despite his absence during the election owing to his involvement in a court battle caused by a kidnapping suit lodge against him by his opponent, and was forced to stay in Hongkong. After seven years in the Crown Colony, Senator Sotto decided to return to the country in 1914. In 1922, he was elected representative of the second district of Cebu until 1925. On November 1946, he ran for Senator and won and served as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance until 1950 (Source: www.senate.gov.ph )

Shield Law VI: Constitutional bases

The Shield Law draws support from several provisions of the constitution.
The Shield Law promotes the constitutional guarantees to freedom of the press. The constitution states that no law shall be passed abridging freedom of the press.
The press must be free to publish without fear of subsequently having to face the prospects of being judicially sanctioned.
Part of the freedom of the press is the maintainance of the free flow of information.
In the process of news-gathering, the press must have an assurance that their work products, or even those materials used must generally be insulated against the undue intrusions by the state through the use of subpoenas.
Also, the constitution under Section 7 of Artilce III states that the right of the people to information on matters of public concern should be recognized.
The press must not be prevented from performing its role as a bridge in the flow of information which are of public concern.
Also, among the policies of the state is the express recognition of the vital role of communication and information in nation building (Sec. 24 Article II).
It is also submitted that in criminal processes, the shield law protects an accused's basic constitutional right to a fair trial.
This is illustrated by several state shield laws in the Untied States, and even the pending bill for a federal shield law which mandates that it is only in extreme circumnstances, when vital matters are not available from any other source that resort to materials gathered by the press can be made.
Having said this, our own shield law may be inadequate. Thus, the Philippine shield law must be reformed so that clear guidelines can be established as to when the state can subpoena materials from the press in pursuit of fair criminal prosecution.
Without such guidelines, the constitutional right of the accused to a fair trail will not be protected.

Shield Law V: What about unpublished information?

The Philippine Shield Law seems to imply that the protection to newsmen from compelled revelations pertains only to the source of information which APPEARED IN THE PUBLICATION.
So the shield law applies in "published information"--information that appeared in the publicaiton.
What about "unpublished information"?
Can a lawyer in a case subpoena a newsman to produce materials like contents of audio tape recordings which were not used in the publication?
There is what is called "out-takes" in news parlance.
A lawyer can specifically ask the court to produce portions of the tape interview other than those that appeared in the publication.
The lawyer seking the subpoena can argue that what he is seeking is "unpublished information" which is outside the coverage of the Philippine shield law.
Can the newsman be compelled to produce "unpublished information"?
Yes, because Philippine law covers only those "appearing in said publication"
Let's take a look at the California shield law.
According to the Califronia shield law a newsman cannot be cited for contempt for "refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public."
The California shield law defines "unpublished information" as information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication.
I am in favor of expanding the Philippine shield law to include "unpublished information" as among those which newsmen cannot be compelled to reveal.
To limit the protection from compelled disclosure to published information defeats the purpose of the shield law and does not help in maintianing the "newsman-source privilege".

Shield Law IV: Resisting a subpoena

Journalists can resist a subpoena.
In Philippine law, the shield law still has to evolve. We do have a shield law, but it is seldom used.
If a newsman is served a subpoena and is required to bring to court matrials which are confidential in nature, he can resist the subpoena.
The procedure is to file a motion to "quash" the subpoena. In this motion the newsman must politely explain to the court that he cannot produce the material being sought as it is condiential in nature, and producing such materials may violate what I would call the "newsman-source confidence" pursuant to the shield law.
But the Philippine shield law is not absolute immunity from compelled revelations.
Let us remember that what cannot be revealed is the SOURCE of any news report or information APPEARING IN SAID PUBLICATION.
It is required that such information must have been related to the newsman IN CONFIDENCE.
Therefor, it the source of the information was not given in confidence, then a newsman can be required to produce such material.
Let me cite a common example. A suspect in a crime confesses to a newsman the crime the former committed. This was revealed while the suspect was detained and in full hearing view of other people like other detainees, and the police. This confession is tape-recorded. A news item appears in the newspaper.
Can the tape recording be subpoenaed for use as evidence for the prosecution?
It is obvious that the source of the infromation, the confessor himself did not confess in confidence.
Thus, such material can be required to be brought to court via a subpoena.
Because our shield law requires that such information must hav ebeen revealed in confidence, the law is quite restrictive.
For how much information really is gathered with an explicit agreement of confidence?
That is why I propose that we follow the American state shield laws which generally does not require that the communication be confidential before the shield law can be invoked.
Under US state shield laws, a newsman cannot be compelled to testify or produce any document, unless the court is convinced, AFTER A HEARING and giving the newsman an opportunity to be heard, that the party seeking to compel production of such testimony or document has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain such testimony or document from all persons from which such testimony or document could reasonably be obtained other than the newsman himself.
I fully agree with this concept.
Using the newsman's materials as evidence (for the prosucution) must be the last resort. It should not be resorted to until all means to obtain such information have been exhasuted.
Newsman, by the nature of the profession, obtain infromation that are not normally obtainable by ordinary persons. This peculiar characteristic must be observed and respected.
In other words, the prosecution must not be too quick to subpoena a newsman in procuring evidence.
The proseuction must first obtain the evidence by other means.
Otherwise, we will be having lazy policemen and prosecutors so sloppy in gathering evidence.
We must always bear in mind that newsmen should be netural.
They should not be made part of the prosecutorial team.

Shield Law III: The Subpoena

One of the annoying processes that a newsman would have to encounter in the exercise of his profession is the process called subpoena.
I have noticed that many times, newsmen most of whom have no propoer legal training, quiver or even panic when served with a copy of a subpoena. Others who are used to receiving subpoenas, would understandably be annoyed by it.
Newsmen should be ready to become receipients of a subpoena because it is part of the territory.
A subpoena is defined as a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at a the hearing or trial of an action.
A subpoena may also require a person to bring to court documents or other things in his control.
One good advice to newsmen if they receive a court subpoena is to immediately refer the matter to the legal counsel of their news organization. If there is none, then refer to the editor or senior executive of the organization so you can be provided proper advice.
It must be stressed that a subpoena is a compulsive process. This means you cannot just shove away a subponea. Generally, it must be complied with.
If it is to be objected to, there is a strict procedure for opposing and a lawyer is needed for this.
The law says in case of failure to attend, the court or judge issuing the subpoena may issue a warrant to arrest the witness and bring him before the court where his attendance is required.
More, the witness who fails to comply with a subpoena may be imposed an economic sanction by requiring the witness to pay the costs for serving the subpoena.
For journalists, many times a subpoena will require them to bring recordings of their interviews, their notes, journals, to be used by a party in the case.
This is where the shield law comes in.
In many cases, journalists can invoke the shield law to resist a subpoena particularly if the materials sought are confidential ("reavealed in confidence").
Remember that under the sheld law, a journalist is shielded from revealing the source of his information.
If he is made to produce a tape recording of an interview, or worse a video recording, this would necessarily show the identity of the source.
Some legal practitioners are crafty, and they will use the subpoena process to uncover what are supposed to be law-protected "secret files" of journalists.
So journalists must always be careful when served with subpoena.

Shield Law I: The Elements

What are the elements of our Shield Law?
First, what does the law protect? The shield law protects agasint compelled revelations. Compelled disclosures are usually done via a subpoena upon a newsmen. Subpoena always has a compelling feature because non-compliance or defiance would warrant sanctions, including jail-time, as what had happened lately to American news reporter Judy Miller.
The law says a newsman CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO REVEAL the source of any news report or information....
Therefore, if a newsman is merely requested by a lawyer in a case to testify about an information obtained in confidence, and the newsman voluntarily testifies in court, the shield law does not come into play.
Who are the persons covered by teh shield law? As the law says, they are the PUBLISHER, EDITOR, COLUMNIST and DULY ACCREDITED REPORTER.
This element is a bit controversial because the the persons covered are specific. Who is a "duly accredited reporter"? Accredited by whom? The local press club? the national press club? What about freelance reporters, are they covered too?
What is the subject which cannot be forcibly revealed? The law says what cannot be subject of compelled revelation is the SOURCE OF OF A NEWS REPORT OR INFORMATION.
The law also specifically requires that the news report MUST HAVE APPEARED, meaning, it must have been published.
It would seem that the shield law does not protect against forced revelations of unpublished materials, notes of reporters, their journals.
What kind of publication does the shield law protect? The law protects NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES and PERIODICALs. Moreover, these publications must be of GENERAL CIRCULATION.
This law was was enacted in the 1950's so it did not cover broadcast like t.v. and radio news, much less news postings in the internet.
So can radio and television newsmen be compelled to testify and reveal the source of their information?
Finally, it should be emphasized that we do not have an absolute shield law.
The law says that if the revelation is demanded by the SECURITY OF THE STATE, then the courts, ath House or committee of the Congress can compell such revelation.
As we can see, the law has its deficiencies or inadequacies, and needs to be updated because so many things have happened since its enactment in 1956.
Frankly, it is surprising that we have not heard of the press pushing for the amendment of our shield law.

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....