Rufus: Right of Reply bill unconstitutional

MANILA, Philippines - The Right of Reply bill, which would compel media organizations to use the statement of a person who is the subject of an adverse report, is unconstitutional, according to opposition Rep. Rufus Rodriguez.

During Rodriguez’s debate with one of the bill’s authors, Bacolod City Rep. Monico Puentevella on Monday night, he said the measure, if enacted, would violate a provision of the Constitution mandating that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press.”

“This is a provision we copied from the 1791 First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” he told Puentevella.

Rodriguez said that in 1913, the state of Florida passed a “Right of Reply” statute requiring media entities to use the statement of a political candidate complaining about a critical story.

Subsequently, a candidate sued the Miami Herald for refusing to print a candidate’s statement, he said.

“The case went all the way up to the US Supreme Court, which declared the Florida statute unconstitutional based on the First Amendment that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press,” he said.

“I have no doubt that if a similar case reaches our Supreme Court, this Right of Reply bill, if enacted, will be declared unconstitutional,” Rodriguez stressed.

Puentevella, who claims he is a former Bacolod City media practitioner, said it is not for him, Rodriguez or any House member to say that the proposed Right of Reply law is constitutional or unconstitutional.