Press freedom

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

Since the dawn of democracy in the world, there are hundreds of quotes about the freedom of the press. The Founding Fathers of America where the modern concept of democracy bloomed had issued many wise words to explain in different ways the recognition of the freedom of expression as the bedrock of the new form of government. They enshrined it in their fundamental law.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders, made clear the imperative of a free press for a democratic government. He said, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

The newspaper at the time was one of the mechanisms of free speech but today the media of expression have expanded beyond the printed word, unimagined during their time.

Another founder, Benjamin Franklin warned that “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” His prophetic words became the barometer of the intentions of government as well as the public. When free speech is endangered, the rights of the people are imperiled.

The issue of press freedom once again became an issue because of the decision of the House of Representatives to deny the renewal of the franchise of ABS-CBN, a television giant. Critics of the government consider the decision as an affront to press freedom simply because the television network is part of the general meaning of the “press”.

Initially and strictly, the “press” refers to newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and books that are produced through a printing press. These media of expression are not required to secure a franchise or grant from the government. They are therefore free from government intervention in their content.

Unlike radio and television media, the operations of newspapers or writing of books are beyond government control and regulation. The only limits to their freedom are the laws of libel which penalize not the exercise of freedom but an abuse of it.

We know that freedom is not absolute. In its simplest limitation is the right of others. Our rights to free speech or writing are limited by the rights of others or security of the state.

Because newspapers are not granted rights by the government, there is no need for the government to deny or refuse renewal, even a business permit. Free press, therefore, is an inherent right of citizens to express freely without prior restraint.

The case of the ABS-CBN is different. Its closure for lack of franchise or permit from the government is the prerogative of the giver of the franchise – Congress.

Was the House within its rights to deny the renewal? Clearly, yes, because the grant of a franchise is circumscribed by the conditions that go with it, like the lifetime of the franchise. In the ABS-CBN case, it was 25 years.

That condition already imposes restraint on the television network. It is not a matter of freedom of the press but a business relationship between the grantor and the grantee.

The network is just like any other citizen that can express his ideas or opinions freely. The condition of the franchise does not include this restraint and in the present case, the government did not close the network for what it had been saying as a free citizen, but the conditions of the permit, like its ownership.

The congressmen that denied the renewal were extremely careful that their decision would not be tied up to the freedom of the press. The network’s franchise was not renewed because of what its reporter or commentator said, but how it conducted its business and how it kept faith with the law.

Of course, we can suspect some sinister motivations that influenced the congressmen to cast a negative vote, but that is presumption or personal motivation. ABS-CBN was not without fault, but its culpability is not due to free expression but how it conducted its business, perhaps even with the thought that the constitutionally shielded freedom of the press would also protect it.

If there is a lesson to be learned here for media establishments and practitioners, it is simply this: the freedom of the press is not absolute. This thought should guide us when at some point in our practice we are tempted to overstep beyond the boundaries.