Freedom of the press and secret sources
To be sure, fair, accurate, truthful reporting by the press is the hallmark
and badge of a healthy and self-assured society. But such ideal must not be
purchased or achieved at the cost of press freedom itself but rather by caring
for and nurturing, cultivating, and promoting the growth of said freedom,
impressing upon its practitioners due regard for the truth and the entitlement
of the public they serve to accurate reporting instead of the publication or
airing of private biases and jaundiced views.
It is thus even as I am personally disturbed by fallacious, specious, and at times downright false and deceitful reporting and comments, meant only to promote private and selfish interests, I must extend my concurrence to the well-written opinion of Justice Puno. For, as was said of old, when one rows through a sea of conflict between restraint and freedom, one should hold both oars steadily, but always with the oar of freedom in the stronger hand, lest an errant course be laid. (Justice Melo, dissenting in A.M. No. 93-2-037-SC, April 6, 1995)
JUSTICE PUNO, dissenting: Upon these facts, the majority would hold respondent guilty of contempt of court.
In adjudging respondent in contempt of court, the majority attempted to
establish an equilibrium between the importance of a free press and the need
to maintain the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of
justice, the civil law duty to "act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith," and the right to private honor and
reputation. The majority tilted the balance against freedom of the press and
respondent Jurado after finding that some of his columns were either false or
slanted as he made no effort to verify them before their publication.
How
to strike a balance that will accommodate equally compelling yet competing
State interests has divided men of stratospheric intellect. Until the fast
decibel of time, and while man continues to be bereft of infallibility, the
best of minds will continue with their search for the elusive variables that
will correctly tilt the balance between press freedom and other freedoms.
Thus, with high respect to my learned colleagues in the majority, I beg to
differ with their conclusion on where to fix the elusive balance in the case
at bench.
A brief revisit of the history of the struggle to protect
freedom of the press ought to be enlightening. It will remind us that freedom
of speech and freedom of the press are preferred right for they are
indispensable preconditions for the exercise of other freedoms. Their
status as the cornerstone of our liberties followed the shift of sovereignty
from monarchs to the masses — the people. For the people to be truly
sovereign, they must be capable of rendering enlightened judgments and they
cannot acquire this capability unless they have an unclogged access to
information, the main pipeline of which is the press. Early enough, Madison
had the prescience to warn that "a popular government without popular
information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or
tragedy or perhaps both."
The history of press freedom will also
reveal that while its importance has been given lip service, its unabridged
exercise was not won without a costly struggle. Ironically, the attempts to
restrict the newsmen's pen came from government itself. The attempts were
disguised in different insidious
forms. They came as sedition laws which
sent newsmen behind bars. They came as tax laws which impoverished newspaper
publishers. Through long, difficult years, the press survived these
assaults.
Nonetheless, the struggle to preserve press freedom is
distinct for it is a story with a first but without a final chapter. In the
decade of the 60's and onwards, a new weapon against press freedom was
unsheathed by government. It was the sword of subpoena. In Congress as in the
courts, it was wielded to pry open newsmen's secret sources of information
often derogatory to government. The unbridled use of the subpoena had its
silencing effects on the exercise of press freedom. Common law denied newsmen
the right to refuse to testify concerning information received in confidence.
The press has to go to the legislature for protection. The protection came to
be known as shield statutes and their scope varied. In the United States, they
were of two (2) tapes: (1) laws that shield the identities of newsmen's
informants from disclosure; and (2) laws that shield not only the identities
of news sources but also the content of the communication against disclosure.
Test cases also filed in courts seeking a ruling that a newsman's right to
gather news is constitutionally protected, and hence, cannot be impaired by
subpoenas forcing disclosure of the identities of their sources of
information. To date, the American case law on the matter has yet to jell.
In
the Philippines, the shield law is provided by Republic. Act No. 1477,
approved on June 15, 1956 which prohibits revelation of "the source of any
news-report or information . . . related in confidence . . . unless the court
or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by
the security of the State." R.A. No. 1477 amended R.A No. 53 by changing the
phrases "interest of the State" to "security of the State" The change limited
the right of the state to share with newsmen their confidential sources of
information.
Prescinding from these premises, let me now slide to the constitutional balancing made by the majority. I whole heartedly agree that except for a more overriding consideration, the Court should uphold the importance of an orderly administration of justice. It appears that respondent's reliance on his constitutional right to freedom of speech and of the press failed to impress the majority as an overriding consideration. Among the reasons that obviously swayed the majority in submerging the significance of freedom of speech and of the press below that of an orderly administration of justice were: failure of respondent to obey the invitation to appear made by the Ad Hoc Committee, his refusal to reveal the sources of his information, and the falsity and slants of his columns.