Republic Act No. 1477 states:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1477
AN ACT AMENDING SECTION ONE OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FIFTY-THREE, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO EXEMPT THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR, COLUMNIST OR REPORTER OF ANY PUBLICATION FROM REVEALING THE SOURCE OF PUBLISHED NEWS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED IN CONFIDENCE"
SECTION 1. Section one of Republic Act Numbered Fifty- three is amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist 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 security of the State."
SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: June 15, 1956
It is important also to cite the progenitor. It is clear that Republic Act No. 1477 only amends a previous law, Repoublic Actg No. 53, which states:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 53
AN ACT TO EXEMPT THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR REPORTER OF ANY PUBLICATION FROM REVEALING THE SOURCE OF PUBLISHED NEWS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED IN CONFIDENCE
SECTION 1. 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.
SECTION 2. All provisions of law or rules of court inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: October 5, 1946
a) The Shield Law (Republic Act No. 53 or amended by Republic Act 1477)
In the Philippines, the Shield Law is provided by Republic Act (R.A.) 1477 approved on June 15, 1956 which prohibits revelation of “the source of any news report or information x x x related in confidence x x x unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.” R.A. No. 1477 amended R.A. No. 53 by changing the phrase “ interest of the State” to “security of the State.” The change limited the right of the State to share with newsmen their confidential sources of information.
The amendment was precipitated when Angel Parazo, newsman for the Star Reporter refused to reveal the source of his information as to the leakage which he wrote about in his paper, invoking the provisions of R.A. 53. He was held in contempt by the Supreme Court because of his refusal [In re Parazo 82 Phil. 230 (1948)]. While the Court was reconsidering its decision in this case Senator Vicente Sotto threw his tirades at the Supreme Court and threatened to file a bill in the Senate to reorganize the Court which resulted in another contempt citation [In re Sotto 82 Phil. 595 (1949)]. Instead of filing a bill reorganizing the Court, he filed another bill amending R.A. No. 53 substituting “security of the state” for “interest of the state” in the original law. This amendment became R.A. No.1477
Accessed October 3, 2007
By Dona Pazzibugan Inquirer Posted date: October 03, 2007
MANILA, Philippines -- Sen. Joker Arroyo has formally asked the Senate to investigate the senators and other officials present at the Sept. 26 executive session with former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri, for violating the secrecy rule on closed-door sessions.
Arroyo also asked the Senate to investigate the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which quoted unnamed sources in reporting what transpired in the late-night executive session with Neri, a key witness in the controversial $329-million deal with China’s ZTE Corp. involving the National Broadband Network (NBN) project.
During a 10-hour Senate hearing earlier on Sept. 26, Neri, the former director general of the National Economic and Development Authority, continually invoked executive privilege in refusing to answer senators’ questions regarding President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her role in the deal.
Quoting four sources, the Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net) reported in its Sept. 30 issue that Neri was “on the verge” of disclosing what he knew when Arroyo intervened and said Neri should be allowed to avail himself of a legal counsel of his choice.
Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya was subsequently asked to join the executive session at the members-only Senate lounge, the Inquirer reported.
“The story is a complete falsehood. I say so with a firm conviction,” Arroyo said as he introduced his proposed resolution during Tuesday’s Senate session.
“Almost all the senators were present in that executive session. The question arises: Were four senators the four sources of the Inquirer report? Did four senators peddle the falsehoods that became the basis of the Inquirer article?” he said.
Sacrosanct
Holding a copy of the Inquirer’s Sept. 30 issue, Arroyo said the report had “destroyed the sacrosanctness of the executive session.”
He said the Senate should investigate the violation of the gag rule, or “no one will believe the confidentiality and sacrosanctness of executive sessions” anymore.
Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Juan Ponce Enrile, Benigno Aquino III and Francis Escudero readily backed Arroyo’s resolution for an inquiry.
Enrile went further, saying the Senate could and should cite Inquirer reporter Juliet Labog-Javellana for contempt, unless she revealed her sources.
He also challenged Arroyo to support him in amending or repealing the law protecting journalists from being forced to name their sources.
Enrile was referring to Republic Act No. 53, which states that the publisher, editor or reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any information related to him/her in confidence.
‘Borderline case’
Arroyo agreed with Enrile that the Senate could cite Javellana for contempt in order to compel her to reveal her sources. But he stopped short of asking the Senate to actually cite Javellana.
“This is a borderline case. I have not given much thought to it. But there must be some power the Senate has to enable [it] to get to the root of [this matter],” he said.
Enrile belied the Inquirer report, saying he was seated beside Arroyo during the executive session.
“I thought you were already asleep,” Enrile told Arroyo.
Aquino and Escudero said that since the report was false anyway, the complaint should be for slander or libel “by some of our colleagues against Senator Arroyo.”
“If it’s entirely false, how could the rule on executive sessions have been violated?” Aquino said.
Said Escudero: “Nobody made any intervention in the executive session. It was a free-flowing discussion; there was not even an argument.”
Lacson resolution
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said he would file his own resolution calling for an inquiry into the leak.
“I am one with other senators who felt offended when details came out. Nonetheless, I feel that not only those who made the leak violated the [secrecy] rules on executive sessions, but an official of Malacañang as well,” he said.
Lacson had questioned Andaya’s presence at the executive session, saying it “virtually defeated the purpose of the executive caucus, which was to allow Neri to speak unhindered with nobody pulling his string.”
According to Arroyo, Andaya and Deputy Secretary Manuel Gaite attended the executive session because Sen. Alan Cayetano, chair of the blue ribbon committee and of the inquiry into the ZTE deal, had told Neri that he could bring along legal counsel of his choice.
Aside from the senators, Rodolfo Noel Quimbo, director general of the blue ribbon committee, was also present, Arroyo said.
Ethics committee
Sen. Pia Cayetano offered to take Arroyo’s complaint to the ethics committee, which she has agreed to chair.
Under Senate rules (Section 128 Rule XLVII), those present in an executive session cannot divulge what transpired unless two-thirds of the members vote to lift the ban.
A senator who violates the confidentiality rule may be expelled upon a two-thirds vote of all the senators.
“The accusation is quite serious. But I am hopeful that my colleagues [and I], on our own, could still arrive at a consensus without having to go through a drawn-out public inquiry and to resort to drastic measures,” Cayetano said.
Challenge to PDI
Arroyo challenged the Inquirer to waive its right to invoke RA 53.
The senator said the Inquirer had been at the forefront of the campaign to compel Neri to reveal his conversations with the President on the ZTE deal.
“The Inquirer cannot maintain the moral high ground if it will not allow Ms Javellana to reveal her sources and hide behind the cloak that reporters cannot be compelled to reveal their sources,” Arroyo said.
He said the report had compromised the Senate’s powers to extract sensitive information from its resource persons during an executive session.
“Some of us violated the rules. Can we not punish them? How can we investigate others if we can’t investigate ourselves?” he said, adding:
“Only then can we reassure the public that we can follow our own rules.”
Why blame media for Senate leak?
Accessed October 8, 2007
By Frank Chavez Inquirer Posted date: October 08, 2007
MANILA, Philippines -- When Romulo Neri invoked executive privilege, the Senate committees investigating the $329-million contract for the National Broadband Network (NBN) project awarded to China’s ZTE Corp. decided to call for a closed-door session on Sept. 26.
Some senators aspired to elicit from Neri answers which he refused to divulge publicly in connection with his conversation with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo after he informed her of the P200-million bribe offered to him by then Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos Sr.
Neri was the director general of the National Economic and Development Authority, the agency that evaluates proposed government projects, when Abalos offered the bribe early this year in exchange for his endorsement of the ZTE proposal.
Quoting four sources, a reporter came out with a story in the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Sept. 30 issue that Neri was about to divulge what he knew when Sen. Joker Arroyo allegedly intervened and said Neri should be allowed to avail himself of legal counsel of his choice.
The report said Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr. was present at the executive session.
Senator Arroyo resented the report, which he claims is a complete falsehood, but demanded just the same that the matter be investigated -- with a threat to impose sanctions on four senators and to cite the Inquirer reporter Juliet L. Javellana for contempt, unless she reveals her sources.
Questions
Why was Andaya inside the Senate executive session? Who alerted or sponsored him to join the executive session? Who volunteered him to be Neri’s counsel? Was he Neri’s counsel of choice or was he specifically chosen by a senator?
By allowing Andaya, a Cabinet member and, therefore, part of the executive branch, did the Senate committees not breach their own rules on closed-door sessions?
Was Andaya’s presence an executive branch’s intrusion into a purely Senate closed-door session? By allowing an official of the executive to attend the session, did the Senate committees not breach their own rules of secrecy?
Was Andaya’s presence a subtle but intimidating reminder and warning to Neri that what he would say at the session would immediately reach the President? Would this explain the fever and chills that assailed Neri on that occasion? Did the presence of Andaya help assure the obvious cover-up and suppression of truth?
Republic Act No. 53
The Senate committees cannot compel the Inquirer or its reporters to reveal the sources of its Sept. 30 story on the executive session. Republic Act No. 53, as amended by RA No. 1477, is very clear:
Section 1. Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, 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 security of the State.
The “security of the State” should not be equated with the interest of the incumbent chief executive or any of her Cabinet members. As a guide, “security of the State” could refer to national security matters, trade secrets and banking transactions, classified law enforcement matters, classified information and diplomatic correspondence, to cite a few. But none of these is touched in Javellana’s news story.
It is beyond the power of the Senate committees to punish the Inquirer or any of its reporters for contempt for refusal to divulge the sources of the news report or information appearing in the publication, which was related in confidence to a reporter.
The senators cannot even ask that the Inquirer or its reporters waive the protection of RA 53. Such waiver, being obviously contrary to law and public policy, would be null and void.
On the contrary, the secrecy of executive sessions simply emanates from internal rules of the Senate. It could, therefore, be waived. One of the best services senators can render to the nation is when they waive the secrecy of their exclusive club so that the people may be informed -- pursuant to their constitutional right of free access to information -- of matters of transcendental importance and extreme public interest such as the ZTE broadband deal.
Contempt
The Senate, as an institution, has neither inherent nor expressed contempt power. The power is vested on the Senate merely as an incident to its legislative function. Since its power to enact laws cannot be delegated to its committees, its incidental contempt power is likewise subject to that prohibition. In other words, the Senate as a whole should be convened to vote on and approve a contempt citation.
The power of the Senate to punish someone for contempt emanates from its primary “legislative function,” without which the power to declare a person in contempt could not have a separate existence.
The exercise by the Senate, or Congress for that matter, of the awesome power to cite for contempt was questioned in the case of Arnault v. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29. The Supreme Court said that the legislative body indeed possessed contempt power as “incidental” to its law-making power.
Being merely “incidental,” the power to punish for contempt is inextricably linked with the primary “legislative power.” As such, whatever the Senate cannot do with respect to its legislative power, it also by force of necessity, cannot do to the incidental power to cite for contempt.
The exercise of “legislative power” cannot be delegated to any other body or authority and is exclusively reserved to the Senate and House of Representatives as institutions.
If the Senate cannot delegate the exercise of its legislative power, the conclusion is inevitable that it cannot, either, delegate its power to punish for contempt, which is merely “incidental” to the primary “legislative power,” and without which the former cannot even spring to life.
The Senate cannot and does not, by the principle of non-delegation, abdicate its power to make laws to a mere Senate committee or committees. Verily, a mere Senate committee (much less a group of committees) cannot by itself make laws. Although its investigations are indispensable to the law-making process, to the study of bills and the inclusion, exclusion, or modification or provisions contained therein, it is ultimately the Senate as a body that declares which bills are passed into law or not.
As the Senate cannot delegate its lawmaking powers to a mere committee, it neither can assign its power to punish for contempt.
Corollarily, for the very reason that only the Senate as a body can pass laws, it follows that only the Senate, not its committees, can cite anybody for contempt. Thus, notwithstanding that culpable actions may have been committed during a proceeding in a legislative committee by someone held to be in contempt, he or she must still be referred to the Senate for appropriate judgment and penalty.
Relevantly, in the case of Arnault in which the legislative power of contempt was contested and was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it was the Senate as an institution which punished a witness for contempt, not a mere committee, although the contumacious refusal of this witness to answer questions occurred while he was testifying in proceedings before a special committee of the Senate.
Void
That any Senate move to delegate to its committees its incidental power to punish for contempt is void and without legal effect finds support in Judge Thomas Cooley, who explained that a committee could not punish for contempt but may only report the conduct of the alleged contempt to the house, as follows:
“Each house must also be allowed to proceed in its own way in the collection of such information as may seem important to a proper discharge of its functions, and whenever, it is deemed desirable that witnesses should be examined, the power and authority to do so is very properly referred to a committee with any such powers short of final legislative or judicial action as may seem necessary or expedient in the particular case. Such a committee has no authority to sit during a recess of the house which has appointed it, without permission to that effect. x x x A refusal to appear or to testify before such committee, or to produce books or papers would be a contempt of the house; but the committee cannot punish for contempt; it can only report the conduct of the offending party to the house for its action.” [Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., Vol. I, pp. 275-276] (emphasis supplied)
The ruling in the case of In re Davis, 439 Pac. 160 affirms and reinforces the principle formulated by Cooley that the legislature itself must exercise its legislative functions, and its power to punish for contempt of its authority comes only as an incident to its power of legislation.
Further, in the case of Ex Parte Gray 144 S.W. 531, it was ruled that:
“[W]here a committee of investigation finds a witness unwilling to testify, the question of conviction and punishment should be referred to the body appointing the committee. This apparently is the procedure contemplated by Article 3, Section 15, of the Constitution, and is the procedure followed by House on the proceedings against Walter’s and Gray.”
Gagging senators
Supportive of the principle is the concurring opinion rendered in the same case, as follows:
“In our opinion our Constitution, while the Legislature may function through a committee, and, because of the refusal of any person to answer proper inquiries before the committee, the matter may be reported to the house appointing the committee for its actions, and said house of the Legislature may by appropriate proceedings adjudge such person in contempt, and he be thereafter imprisoned for the time specified by the Constitution for such contempt, the committee itself has no such power because of the forbiddance of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied).
It is best for the Senate committees investigating the ZTE broadband deal to limit their investigation, on an alleged leak on the closed-door meeting, to the four suspects among them.
Should their investigation yield positive results, they should impose sanctions on the “guilty” senators. The public would not really care. But leave media out of it. Media simply report news and information gathered by their enterprising reporters. Why blame them if some senators are motor-mouths?
Since senators want to maintain omerta, they themselves should know how and when to zip up their traps. Announcing that the Inquirer and its reporter would be investigated certainly sends an intimidating and stifling effect on press freedom. This definitely sends us back to the days of the dictatorship. Senators should not bully media for any leak of information from their secret session. Senators must learn how to take a leak.
------------
The author is a former solicitor general.
Editorial : Protecting news sources
Accessed October 9, 2007 Inquirer
Posted date: October 09, 2007
On Sept. 30, the Inquirer reported that Romulo Neri, former director general of the National Economic and Development Authority, was “on the verge” of disclosing what he knew about the $329-million National Broadband Network deal when Sen. Joker Arroyo intervened and said that Neri should be allowed to avail himself of a legal counsel of his choice. The story by Juliet Labog-Javellana was based on the account of four sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Arroyo called the report a complete falsehood and asked the Senate to investigate the senators and other officials present at the executive session for violating the secrecy rule on closed-door sessions. He also asked the Senate to investigate the Inquirer for publishing the report. He and Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile said the Senate should cite Javellana for contempt unless she reveals her sources.
The Inquirer is standing by its story. We also believe that we cannot be compelled to reveal the identities of sources since the information was given in confidence and on condition of anonymity. Our stand has a strong basis in law. Republic Act No. 53, as amended, otherwise known as the Sotto Law, says that the publisher, editor, columnist or reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information which was given to him unless it is demanded by “the security of the State.”
We do not believe that “the security of the State” is involved in the inquiry into the anomalous ZTE deal. What is involved primarily is the issue of corruption, as alleged by two witnesses in open hearings. Neri himself disclosed that he was offered P200 million by former Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos. Jose de Venecia III, son of the Speaker, said Abalos offered to give him $10 million so he would withdraw his bid for the NBN project.
In the executive session, Neri was on the verge of revealing more about the project when, according to our four sources, Arroyo intervened and allowed Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya to join the session as Neri’s legal counsel.
Arroyo himself has said that the case against Javellana is “a borderline case.” He is apparently aware of the protection given by the Sotto Law to journalists. The Senate committees investigating the case cannot compel Javellana to disclose the names of her sources, and the Senate cannot cite her for contempt if she refuses to identify them.
It is not only the law that gives protection to journalists who quote anonymous sources in their stories; their professional code of ethics also gives them such protection. In journalism, the protection of sources is a cornerstone of press freedom. A journalist who violates the confidentiality of his sources will soon see these sources drying up.
Ideally, the sources of information in a news report should be identified. But this cannot be done all the time. There are times when a journalist has to agree to keep his source or sources anonymous for certain reasons. One reason is if the life of the person giving the information would be endangered. Another is if he would lose his job because of the information he is disclosing. There may be other reasons, and it is up to the reporter and his editor to decide whether to use the material given on condition of anonymity.
Even now, Enrile is already proposing to amend or even repeal the Sotto Law. That certainly would be a reactionary move; it would remove one protection given to journalists in carrying out their work. Especially in these times when high government officials seek to hide anomalous multimillion-peso deals from public scrutiny, journalists will have to continue the practice of using information given by sources “on condition of anonymity.” Journalists are discerning people and they should be trusted to vet their sources very carefully before bestowing on them the mantle of “anonymity.” Also, there is the two-source rule: information given by one anonymous source has to be corroborated by another source. (In the case of the Javellana story, there were four sources.)
If the Senate committee on ethics decides to conduct its inquiry, it should focus on the senators as well as the other people present at the executive session and not on the reporter who wrote the story. Javellana was only doing her job. The four sources who talked to her were the ones who supposedly broke the confidentiality of the ex In the Philippines, the Shield Law is provided by Republic Act (R.A.) 1477 approved on June 15, 1956 which prohibits revelation of “the source of any news report or information x x x related in confidence x x x unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.” R.A. No. 1477 amended R.A. No. 53 by changing the phrase “ interest of the State” to “security of the State.” The change limited the right of the State to share with newsmen their confidential sources of information.
The amendment was precipitated when Angel Parazo, newsman for the Star Reporter refused to reveal the source of his information as to the leakage which he wrote about in his paper, invoking the provisions of R.A. 53. He was held in contempt by the Supreme Court because of his refusal [In re Parazo 82 Phil. 230 (1948)]. While the Court was reconsidering its decision in this case Senator Vicente Sotto threw his tirades at the Supreme Court and threatened to file a bill in the Senate to reorganize the Court which resulted in another contempt citation [In re Sotto 82 Phil. 595 (1949)]. Instead of filing a bill reorganizing the Court, he filed another bill amending R.A. No. 53 substituting “security of the state” for “interest of the state” in the original law. This amendment became R.A. No.1477.
NOTES from http://wikipedia.com
7In Re : Emil P. Jurado 243 SCRA 299, at 357 (April 6, 1995)
8 Pacifico Agabin, “Projecting and Protecting the Judiciary” Philippine Journalism Review December 1994, p. 35.
10 “House Junks Amante’s Controversial Media Bill,” Manila Standard October 3, 1994.
2. Probe of PDI, 4 solons sought over leak on secret meeting
