A COUPLE of weeks ago the House of Representatives approved on second reading a bill that is supposed to enhance the protection, security, and benefits for media workers.
Authored by ACT-CIS Representative Jeffrey Soriano, House Bill No. 454 is aptly titled the “Media Workers’ Welfare Act.”
Also listed as authors are the two other ACT-CIS representatives Edvic Yap and Jocelyn Tulfo, Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte, Benguet Rep. Eric Yap, and Quezon City Rep. Ralph Tulfo.
***
The proposed measure provides for security of tenure for media workers who have passed the probationary period of six months of continuous service.
The bill also provides for hazard pay for media workers required to work in dangerous or embattled areas, and requires employers to provide them bulletproof vests, helmets, life vests, etc.
The bill further provides for insurance coverage in addition to those already specified under Philhealth, the Social Security System, and Pag-IBIG fund.
***
What the press releases do not say, however, is that a “rider” was injected in the proposed law providing for liability on the part of media entities or organizations in the event of errant content in their platforms.
Section 12 of HB No. 454 states that media entities or franchise holders “shall be liable for claims arising from gross negligence, malicious acts, and violation of laws in connection with the work of blocktimers and media workers, regardless of the nature of the engagement…”
Media organizations can only escape liability upon proof “that due diligence was exercised or that the fault is attributable solely to the concerned blocktimer or media worker,” and that “any agreement to the contrary shall be void.” This means that disclaimers will now be legally ineffectual.
***
Supreme Court decisions define a “rider” as a provision which is alien to or not germane to the subject or purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated.
Riders are illegal under the 1987 Constitution. Article VI Section 26 (1) states that “every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.”
The reason is to prevent “hodge-podge” or “log-rolling” legislation. This sort of legislation combines more than one subject on unrelated matters and is often meant to mislead the legislature and the public.
***
Our opinion is that Section 12 is a rider because it is not germane to the avowed objective of affording rights or privileges to media workers.
The provision seeks to assign liability on offensive media content. It does not belong in the same class as additional insurance coverage, hazard pay, overtime pay, etc. that the bill seeks to endow upon a specific sector.
Section 12 does not benefit the media worker or block-timer. The people that the bill avowedly seeks to favor are not thereby shielded from liability. If at all, it extends culpability, criminal or otherwise, from the individual to the media group or organization.
***
The inclusion of section 12 reveals an ulterior motive behind the filing of HB No. 454.
Many of the benefits that it mandates are already provided for under existing law, e.g., the Labor Code, the SSS Law, etc., or regulations that are adhered to by employers regardless of whether they belong to the media sector.
Suspicion arises that a slew of benefits under existing law were merely collated to hide the real intention, which is to inveigle media groups into the jaws of self-censorship if they are to avoid liability or non-renewal of franchises.
Democracy thrives on our tolerance for diversity of opinions. The bill in question is not what it pretends to be./PN
