There was a Cebuano senator who became known as the author of the Press Freedom Law. Senator Vicente Yap Sotto wrote Republic Act No. 53 in 1946. Actually it is one among the shortest laws I have read containing, as it does, only three sections. The substantive provision is found in section one which reads “(t)he 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 is the repealing clause and section 3 provides its effectivity.
Perhaps because of the brevity of the Sotto Law, no lawmaker had attempted to introduce substantial amendments to it. The few changes that were passed only skimmed thru the scope of the law. Verily, the amendatory enactment sponsored by a senator who now is seeking re-election in the 2025 polls only extends section 1 of RA 53 to expand the coverage to journalists from broadcast, news agencies, and internet publications.
This brings me to the topic which a friend of mine mentioned during our conversation --“legislative exhibition”. I thought he referred to legislative investigation in aid of legislation because we have lately been hearing of such inquiries conducted by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. I found out that my friend really meant exhibition, a kind of show, like what the Harlem Globetrotters do in playing funny basketball games.
To my friend, what the senator did in 2019 to amend the Sotto Law was a legislative exhibition. He applied a simple make-up in the text of RA 53. The proposed amendment was super trivial. But to show (that’s the word my friend used) a sign of importance to the change he suggested, the legislator wrote an extremely verbose explanatory note consisting of 10 paragraphs even if the amendment itself just made a complex section one sentence longer. Oh, what a weird legislative exhibition! And the senator wants to get re-elected.
Here is another wizardry. A legislator pulled off the rack of vetoed laws a copy of a measure (I call it as prior draft) and filed the same en toto for the legislature to act on anew as if it was newly crafted (I call it subsequent draft). This prior draft actually already passed the legislative mill and in fact, when it was presented to the chief executive for action, it was vetoed reportedly for being ultra vires. This is a legal term meaning done beyond one's legal power or authority. Months later, the said chief executive vacated his office. Thinking that the new leadership believed in the legality of the prior draft, the lawmaker filed it (subsequent draft) again and lo, it expressed thru the legislature and in due time, the new chief executive approved it.
The first “legislative exhibition” I mentioned above was an apparent insult to the unsuspecting Filipino citizenry. We were dazzled by his popularity that we ignored his incompetence. The amendment to the Sotto Law which he crafted was an embarrassing product of an author possessed of a mediocre mind. If this lawmaker happens to be re-elected in 2025, such electoral victory is a triumph of mediocrity over an unthinking populace.
The second “legislative exhibition” is more an example of impeccable timing than scholarship. An opportunity to secure the legislature’s approval of a measure of otherwise uncertain legality came. We could not fault the lawmaker for seizing the chance to have it procedurally enacted until someone brings to court its inherent constitutional defect. Voila.