Reliable sources (Part 2)

When five reporters – Jose D. Aspiras of The Evening News, Francisco de Leon of The Manila Chronicle, Manuel B. Salak of The Manila Times, Gregorio Coronel of the Philippine News Service, and Max J. Edralin of the Philippines Herald – were sent to jail on December 7, 1955 by Pasay City Court of First Instance Judge Emilio Rilloraza for refusing to divulge their news sources, they became instant celebrities.

They stayed a little more than a day in confinement and spent the night, not in a smelly and cramped cell, but in the offices of then Pasay Chief of Police, Col. Ricardo Nieva. Their first visitors were President and Mrs. Ramon Magsaysay. The President expressed his support and the First Lady brought cots and mosquito nets.

Max Edralin, the only one of the five reporters still among us, recalls that a flood of visitors visited them in jail, apparently moved by headlines and outraged editorials in Manila’s newspapers. The reporters received them at the office of Col. Nieva.

The visiting government officials – even then, they could sense a good opportunity for a front-page photo-op – came bearing gifts, mostly liquor and cigarettes. According to Max, Teodoro "Doroy" Valencia, then the President of the National Press Club, ordered him, the youngest of the detainees, to collect and turn over the booze and cigarettes to the NPC. Max says he obediently, albeit regretfully, turned over about 30 bottles of whiskey and 50 cartons of cigarettes.

Hotel Filipinas, a leading hotel at the time, sent food for all the "prisoners" and visitors, and even dispatched uniformed waiters to ensure that everyone was well attended to during their common ordeal.

In the meantime, the reporters’ lawyers – including Enrique Fernando (later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), Felino Ampil for the Herald and Alfredo Gonzales for the Manila Times – filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court the very day after the promulgation of the CFI decision.

The Supreme Court acted quickly, in record time, in fact. Max reports that within five minutes after the filing of the petition, the Court ordered all the newsmen released upon posting of a bond in the amount of P200, pending further hearings on the petition. The "jailbirds" were still entertaining visitors when their lawyers arrived at about 4 p.m. on December 8th with the happy news that they could all go home. Well, actually not so happy. Max says that Col. Nieva wanted to take the reporters out for a "good time," but the lawyers firmly instructed all the reporters to go straight home.

In succeeding hearings before the Supreme Court, the defense panel was bolstered by then Senator Emmanuel Pelaez and Congressman Ferdinand Edralin Marcos, Max’s cousin with whom he says he was "fairly close." Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla appeared for Judge Rilloraza.

We can’t say how that epic encounter of legal luminaries turned out. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was rendered academic due to developments we discuss below. Max Edralin does not recall whether it was ruled upon or dismissed as moot.

Judge Rilloraza had based his decision citing the reporters in contempt of court on Republic Act No. 53, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 1948 case of Angel Parazo (in 82 Phil. Reports at p. 230), a reporter of a local daily then in print, the Star Reporter. Ironically, R.A. No. 53 was the law which exempted publishers, editors and reporters from revealing their sources of news and other information.

Usually referred to as the Sotto Press Freedom Law, after its principal sponsor, Senator Vicente Sotto, R.A. 53 was signed into law as early as October, 1946, a few months after independence. Its one substantive provision stated: "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."

The Parazo case clarified two aspects of R.A. 53, which Judge Rilloraza reiterated in his decision. First, the law did not grant an absolute exemption. Second, the exception that disclosure could be required when demanded by the "interest of the State" was not limited to cases where the security of the State was at stake. Both in the Parazo and the five reporters’ cases, defense counsel argued that the phrase "interest of the State" referred only to cases where national security or public safety was involved.

In Parazo, the reporter refused to identify the source of his news story that certain examinees in the 1948 bar examinations had denounced alleged leakages of the questions in some tests. He too was cited in contempt and ordered jailed for a month unless he made the required revelation.

The five reporters were held in contempt of court in December, 1955 for refusing to reveal the source of a story of an alleged extortion attempt to change an impending decision of Judge Rilloraza in the murder case against Defense Secretary, and concurrent Justice Secretary, Oscar Castelo.

In both cases, the refusals to disclose sources were deemed to have been covered by the statute’s exemption for situations where the interest of the State required revelation. In Parazo, the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "interest of the State" included "matters of national importance in which the whole state and nation…is interested and would be affected, such as the principal functions of Government like administration of justice…"

Judge Rilloraza quoted liberally from the Parazo decision. He concluded that the administration of justice would be obstructed by the reporters’ refusal to disclose their news source and that the matter therefore concerned the interest of the State.

Evidently in reaction to the plight of the five reporters, Congressman Floro Crisologo filed a bill which, six months later on June 15, 1956, President Magsaysay signed into law as Republic Act No. 1477. The new law amended R.A. 53 by deleting the phrase "interest of the State" and replacing it with the "security of the State."

Max Edralin says that today, when filling up a form with the routine question: "Have you ever been convicted by any court of law?" he proudly answers "yes." It gives him another opportunity to give a long account of a cherished moment in his career as a journalist.