Mass Media

Laws and Jurisprudence

Mass Media

• * The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations wholly-owned and managed by such citizens. Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry. . ." (Art. XVI, Sec.II [2]).

Relevant Laws, Regulations and Jurisprudence Governing the Philippine Television and Broadcast Communications

• the Television Media Communication, it is but appropriate to lay down the governing laws, statutes and jurisprudence that regulates such agency of mass media. Since the focus of the study deals with the issues concerning the right to privacy in

By virtue of the the provision of the 1987 Constitution Article XII, Section 11:

“No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.”

a.) Legislative Franchise

It is mandated under the Constitution as enunciated in the case of RCPI vs NTC ( 150 SCRA 450), that a franchise cannot be exclusive in nature, nor can a franchise be granted except that it must be subject to amendment, alteration or even repeal by the Legislative when the common good so requires.

b.) National Telecommunication Commission

It has the power to administer and enforce all laws, rules and regulations in the field of Transportation and Communication as provided and in pursuance to Executive Order No, 125-A, Section 5, 1987 and Executive Order No. 546.

c.) Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

In pursuant to the directive imposed under Executive Order No. 546, to be granted by the National Telecommunication Commission.

d.) Movie and Television Review and Classification Board ( MTRCB)

As the name implies, it has the authority to Review Public Affairs Programs to classify, publicly broadcasted programs.

e.) Optical Media Board (OMB)

Formerly known as the Video Regulatory Board and regulates the importation, exportation, acquisistion, sale or distribution of optical media, manufacturing equipment, parts and accessories, manufacturing materials used or intended for use in mastering, manufacture or replication of optical media.

f.) Article III, the Bill of Rights

This is the fountainhead of all laws affecting Philippine Mass Media in the Philippine Constitution, enshrined under Article III Section 4:

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, on the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress and grievances.”

This same Constitutional Provision is the embodiment of the “Freedom of Expression” that guided the evolution of the Philippine Mass Media. And under the provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution’s Declaration of Principles Section 24, Article II, “The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building.”

g.) The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines or Republic Act No. 8293

Under the provision of Section 172 (L) Audio visual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audiovisual recordings are protected by copyright.

Copyright protects the works that are literary and artistic creations by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression as well as their content, quality and purpose.

h.) Kapisanan ng mga Broadkaster sa Pilipinas or Association of Broadcasters of the Philippines. (KBP)

i.) Civil Code of the Philippines

The issue of Privacy in Philippine Television Broadcast and Communications

The issue of the right to privacy in the Philippine television broadcasting and communication is treated together with rights against defamation in the issue of protection of one’s dignity. In privacy, the balance of right of freedom of expression against the right of individuals to be let alone while in defamation the balance of the right of individual to protect their reputations.Although, privacy tend to be commonly regarded ad constitutional right but the same word never appear in the Constitution. Compared to other rights such defamation privacy in a relatively new legal concept with many facets.

Concern for privacy in the 80’s are diverse involving such varied issues on the dissemination of personal credit information via computerized system, electronic eaves droppings, the protection of newsrooms from police searches, relevance of personal information about individuals by government. And a right to know what is one’s own academic records. While the development of mass media broadcasting grew faster and more complicated the connotation of privacy issue become wider in scope.This paper is concerned primarily with invasion of privacy as a tort-a civil wrong or inquiry. Although the recognition of privacy torts varies from country to country, scholars generally have recognized four different torts or branches of invasion of privacy:

One of those related to the news gathering stage, of the communication process: intruding on the plaintiff’s physical solitude. It is akin to tort of trespass;The publication or production of private (true) facts which put the plaintiff in a false light in the public’s eye;The appropriation of another’s name or likewise in commercial or trade purposes;And the “false-light” tort comes closest to the tort of defamation because it is the only one that involves falsity.

The State recognizes the vital and powerful role of Television communication in the field of mass media. The issue of privacy must not be compromised in its pursuit to attain the objective of it’s medium. The issue of privacy is very important that the right of the privacy which may be set against the government is also found in the same Bill of Rights which Mass Media practitioners must abide.

Under the 1987 Constitution, Article III Section 2:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complaianant and the witnesses he may produce, and particulary describing the palce to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

Section 3:

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this act or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Again the privacy of an individual in mass media especially television broadcasting and communication is the balance of the right of freedom of expression against the right of the person to be let alone.

Remedies and Protection of the Right to Privacy and Other Rights Involved against Infringement and Violations in the Philippine Setting

The issue of violations and infringement of the basic right to privacy and other rights involves in Philippine television is a pivotal challenge that poses before our government as the inherent defender of these Constitutional mandated rights. It is considered a serious job since what is involved is the right to privacy of a person; property and effect enshrined under the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the State Policies of the 1987 Constitution. And not to overlook the powers that be, of the television medium not only to create but sadly to destroy a person’s protected privacy and integrity.

The State through it’s different governmental agencies such as the Motion Television Review and Classification Board tasked to classify and censor the performance and exhibition of live programmed television shows and imposed penalties sanctions and even suspension to erring television stations, personalities and entities.

The Department of Transportation and Communication that issues licenses and permits to construct and operate broadcast stations and to purchase radio transmitting equipments. It is responsible for the allocation of frequencies and implementation of technical standards. The DOTC is tasked to regulate and if necessary revoke licenses of those who broadcast. They issue certificate of convenience and necessity.

The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible as a watchdog of the people to supervise, regulate the commercial functions of television advertisements and authenticity of the and endorsements not only of products but the whole program as well in line with their industry.

The Congress of the Philippines is responsible for a valid legislation to issue legislative franchise. They can revoke or amend such franchise if necessary.The Optical and Media Board or the OMB formerly the VRB which regulate the importation, exportation, acquisition, sale or distribution of optical media, manufacturing equipment, parts and accessories and manufacturing materials used or intended for use in mastering, manufacturing or replication of optical media. The OMB is tasked to prevent the proliferation of unauthorized replication and infringeable copyrighted films distributed in the market. One major task of the OMB related to the issue of privacy is the confiscation and destruction of unlicensed and uncensored audio visual materials made publicly available in the market that infringes and violate the right of a person to privacy and property.

The KBP or Kapisanan ng mga Broadkaster sa Pilipinas (Broadcaster Association of the Philippines) is the long standing association of the broadcast journalists both in radio and television that promotes freedom of expression through responsible and balance news reporting. They can suspend and even remove erring numbers.

The availability of the remedies through the right to:Due Process as provided under Article III Section 1Forms of Abridgement of Expression

Prior RestraintFreedom from subsequent punishment such as :

The Dangerous Tendency Rule of the Freedom of Expression: the constitutionality of the statute curtailing speech is determined in the same manner that the constitutionality of the statute is determined by answering is a statute reasonable?The Clear and Present Danger Test of the Freedom of Expression- it permits punishment of expression when the words are used in circumstance and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about a substantive bad that the State has the right to avoid.The Balancing of Interest Test in Freedom of Expression the duty of the court is to determine which of the two conflicting interests demand the greater protection under the particular situation presented.

Conclusion

The issue of privacy in the Philippines Mass Media Broadcasting and Communication especially the Philippine Television Media Broadcasting is an important and sensitive issue that our government media practitioner should deal with. The power and influence of mass media is unstoppably growing and the trend of the use and purpose of mass media is seemingly inclined for economic gain since the competition to share and capture the viewing public is growing stiffer everyday because the number of industry players are getting bigger and the market is already partly saturated. The pressure to come up with revenues are often times the rallying point of television networks to create, articulate and sadly sometime violate the right of individuals to privacy, to his person and property

Again, the costs of the sacrifice of infringing or violating these rights do not even come close to attaining financial gain or higher ratings. The mass media is a very effective, powerful, influential and creative source of information dissemination but it can be destructive and a tool to destroy, humiliate and malign and put the person or persons, products and other entity into their instant oblivion or destruction.The rights of privacy to person, property or effects is enshrined in the highest court and most fundamental laws of the land the Philippine Constitution, primarily to inculcate in our minds the importance of these rights and value or impact to one’s existence.

The trends of the fast changing evolutions of the mass media industry may be unstoppable and unpredictable but the Constitution and other laws that laid down the protection of these rights and that regulate and limit the mass media practitioner in our country is reliably consistent and dependable.

• In Miriam College Foundation vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127930, the right of students to free speech in school premises is not absolute. This right must always be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. While the Campus Journalism Act provides that a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he or she has written, the same should not infringe on the school’s right to discipline its students. Thus, this section of the Campus Journalism Act should be read to mean that the school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has written, except when such article materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others.

• In Social Weather Stations vs Comelec, G.R. No. 147571, Sec. 5.4 of R.A. 9006 provides that “surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published 15 days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall not be published 7 days before an election, was held to be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of expression for laying a prior restraint on the freedom. Applying the test of validity in the O’Brien Test, the section is invalid because 1) it imposes a prior restraint on freedom of expression; 2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period; 3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than the suppression of freedom of expression.

• In MTRCB vs ABS CBN Broadcasting Corporation G.R. No. 155282, the court upheld MTRCB’s power of review over the TV program “The Inside Story” citing Sec. 7 of P.D. 1986 which exempts only television programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its departments and agencies, and newsreels. “The Inside Story’ a public affairs program described as a variety of news treatment, cannot be considered a newsreel

• In the same vein in, Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs Comelec G.R. No. 132922, the Supreme Court ruled that Sec. 92 of B.P. 881, is constitutional, even as it provides that air time may be procured by the Comelec free of charge, the same being an exercise of the plenary police power of the state to promote the general welfare.

• The Court brushed aside the arguments of petitioners, in this wise: a) all broadcasting, whether by radio or television, is licensed by the government, and the franchise issued to a broadcast station is always subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress when the common good requires, and there is no better measure for the common good than one for free airtime for the benefit not only of the candidates but even more of the public, particularly the voters, so that they will be informed of the issues in an election, for after all, it is the right of the viewers and listeners, not of the broadcasters that is paramount; b) the Comelec does not take over the operation of radio and television stations, but only the allocation of airtime to the candidates, to ensure equal opportunity, time and the right to reply, as mandated by the Constitution; and c) there are substantial distinctions in the characteristics of the broadcast media from those of the print media which justify the different treatment accorded to each for purposes of free speech, viz; the physical limitations of the broadcast spectrum, the uniquely pervasive presence of the broadcast media in the lives of all Filipinos, and the earlier ruling that the freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser than the freedom accorded to the print media.

• In the case of National Press Club vs Comelec, 207 SCRA 1, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 11 (b) of RA 6646 which prohibited any person making use of the media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes except to the COMELEC. The Court ruled that this held to be within the constitutional power of the COMELEC to supervise the enjoyment or utilization of franchises for the operation of media of communication and information, for the purpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space and the right to reply as well as uniform and reasonable rates of changes for the use of such media facilities.  

• This ruling was re examined in Osmena vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 132231 where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of Sec. 11 (b) of RA 6646, as a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state to regulate media of communication and information for the purpose of ensuring equal opportunity, time and space for political campaigns. The regulation is unrelated to the suppression of speech, as any restriction on freedom of expression occasion thereby is only incidental and no more than is necessary to achieve the purpose of promoting equality. Consistent with this policy are Sections 90 and 92, B.P 881 on the right of the Comelec to procure newspaper space and broadcast time to be allocated equally among the candidates.

Related Laws

• REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7079• AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

AND PROMOTION OF CAMPUS JOURNALISM AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1986CREATING THE MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD

Sources

Carter, Franklin, et.al., “The First Amendment and the Fifth State: Regulation of Electronic Mass Media,” Minnesota New York, The Foundation Press Inc., 1986.Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8293. 3. 1987 Constitution of the Philippines