What Happened to Independence?

This is a dangerous tendency.

Last I heard, the media is not one to be cowered but what's this recent paranoia that stems from airing the SUPPOSED taped conversation with president gloria macapagal-arroyo and comelec commissioner virgilio garcillano?

A week after Presidential Spokesperson Ignacio Bunye came out with what he had called a "wiretapped conversation with the president" (which he later retracted saying he was not sure if it was indeed the president. "It sounded like her," he said) the National Telecommunications Commission issued a press statement warning, in essence, if that the media continued to re-play the conversation their license could be revoked supposedly for airing a "false information." it would be, so the NTC said, a violation of their circular.

If we take it at face value, which I think, most of us, are already, it is scary enough.

But let's break it down.

1. IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO AIR THE SUPPOSED TAPPED CONVERSATION?

First, you have to answer, what law? Is it Republic Act 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Act of 1965? If you're assuming this then the answer is NO.

Atty. Marichu Lambino of the University of the Philippines' College of Mass Communications said that one of the essential elements in an offense under R.A. 4200 is the presence of an aggrieved/offended party who will say that they've been wiretapped without their consent.

Meaning, in the context of the taped conversation, if it was indeed established that it was the president and garcillano who were talking on the phone, then the two could be the complainants against, again under the law, those who replayed the taped conversation, possessed it etc. aside from the party who actually tapped the conversation. Of course, we all know why this won't happen.

In other words, until an offended party comes up and complains that he/she has been wiretapped, the identity of the tapped conversation can be anything but WIRETAPPED.

Even NTC's Solis clarified that if media outlets re-play it, it will not be a violation of R.A. 4200 but a violation of NTC's circular prohibiting airing/publication of false information.

2. CAN THE AIRING OF THE SUPPOSED TAPPED CONVERSATION BETWEEN WHAT IS PURPORTED TO BE PGMA AND GARCILLANO CONSTITUTE AIRING OF A FALSE INFORMATION WHICH IS PUNISHABLE UNDER NTC RULES?

Yes and No.

Yes, if we make a judgment that it was indeed the president and garcillano talking.

In practical terms, that would be like saying, "Mga Kaibigan, ito po ang pag-uusap ni Pangulong Arroyo at Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano."

No, if we qualify that we are not sure that it was the president and garcillano talking.

That is, if we say, "Hindi po batid kung sina Pangulong Arroyo at si Garcillano ang nag-uusap."

Even NTC would admit that their warning is not an exercise of "prior restraint." They can impose sanctions, only if, we air false information. Considering the discussion above, I don't think we've committed that error as of yet.

"We're requesting the media outlets to exercise prudence, sobriety considering the context. May tendency, that if we play this over and over again, people might think that it was indeed the President on the phone," Solis told me.

The message of the NTC is loud and clear. The rationale of the press release is more preventive than anything else. It is like saying, let's not aggravate the administration any further.
I don't subscribe to anarchy. I, like many others, want stability for our government (not of any particular administration).

But suppressing the truth is another matter. That is, as media practitioners, our primary goal, the essence of our being.

Or have we forgotten, that one warning from the government could scare us?