Selfegulation, really?

Bencyrus Ellorin

AT first glance, I thought the decision of the local chapter of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP) to discipline one of its members was what most people have been wishing for––for the organization of broadcasters to police its own ranks.

It would seem that suddenly, the leadership of the local KBP chapter has come to its senses and decided to rid our airwaves with one less broadcaster whose use of the airwaves with impunity.

Preventing someone from going on the air may well be within the powers of the KBP. The organization has been given the mandate to exercise selfegulation in the broadcast industry. But this power has often been not used, and when used may need a little more scrutiny as in the case of “block-timer” Renato “Dodo” Canoy.

But before I delve on the recent cracking of the whip by the local KBP, in the media world, there is some sort of hierarchy in the exercise of freedom of expression – loosely used synonymously with freedom of the press, which could literally refer to the printing press.

The legal dictionary defines freedom of the press as “the right to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction; this right encompasses freedom from prior restraints on publication and freedom from censorship.”

Freedom of expression, on the other hand, covers the exercise of the following: “to engage in freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.”

Section 4, Article 3 of the Constitution protects the rights to free speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. The Constitution says that it is illegal to hamper the exercise of these rights – meaning prior restraint and censorship are illegal.

Liberally, the right to talk over the airwaves can be viewed as covered by the freedom of speech. And thus, nobody can shut off anyone.

But when one uses the airwaves, it becomes different. Airwaves or radio spectrum, the medium of radio broadcasts, “is a finite resource that is part of national patrimony,” and using it is a privilege and not a right. That is why broadcast stations need to have a franchise from no less than Congress.

The origin of KBP’s right to give licences to broadcasters can be viewed as a form of selfegulation. Strictly, nobody should be allowed to have a radio program without a license from the KBP. But an exception has been made, and this has been invoked especially by radio block-timers or broadcasters who are not employees of a broadcast station but are  merely buying airtime akin to advertisements. Those who are not licensed by the KBP can be assumed to be under the supervision of the station manager or somebody in the broadcast station who is accredited by KBP.

Now, the revocation of Canoy’s KBP accreditation for reportedly criticizing on air fellow broadcaster Ronnie Waniwan may raise more questions than enlightenment.

Waniwan has been known for his acerbic commentaries against politicians, purportedly in favor of another politician. He has done this in Bukidnon, Gingoog, and in Cagayan de Oro. I have nothing against him. Neither can I claim to know him but local media people know that he has been buying or used to buy airtime himself.

Now, Waniwan is trying his luck in politics. Nothing’s wrong with that.  Councilors Zaldy Ocon and Alden Bacal used to work as broadcasters, and they continue to have radio programs.

It has been said that it is unethical to hit on a fellow member of the trade. Personally, I don’t think this is written in stone. If we are to very liberal about it, it is nobody’s business to shut anyone out. I also don’t think it is a healthy practice as it may encourage members of the press to become an Old Boys’ Club of sort.

And more queerly, Waniwan has transformed himself into a politician, which makes him an open target to criticisms. Waniwan or officials of the KBP should not be onionskinned on political commentaries, be it personal or not because the public deserves to know everything about somebody who seeks power.

I am afraid this will either create a chilling effect, discouraging broadcasters from peeling the characters of those seeking public office using the scalpel of free expression.

While I do not question the authority of the KBP to discipline one of their own, they better come clean on this one and ensure that the airwaves remain a level playing field for everyone.

Unfettered exercise of power does no good.