Ladies and gentlemen and members of this most noble assembly allow me first to greet you a pleasant afternoon, I believe that my partner has successfully shown to you that there is no great and inherent necessity in the status quo for imposition of a new law to regulate the practice of journalism.

But before I proceed to my speech, as our beloved listeners today, pretend with me that for the next 7 minutes that the analyses of your affirmative side are substantially correct. Let us accept the inherency and harm they have presented (review the concessions). As your second speaker for today’s debate, I am tasked to discuss about the extent of practicability of the government’s proposal to regulate journalism. They said that by creating a law, which is mainly concentrated and focused on the idea of limiting the number of people allowed to enter and practice journalism. We say coming from your negative side, that by the imposition of this new kind of law: the plan won’t solve the problem and it will create great disadvantages in the future.

Primarily my speech shall cover one main thing:

1. The effectivity of the proposal and feasibility, which answers the question of whether the new law is practicable or possible, or not.

But before that, let us first respond to your negative speaker.

With all that being said, let us continue discussing about the practicability of government’s plan.

We, on the negative side firmly believe that the new law is not going to be an effective answer or solution to the problem. When we talk about an effective media regulation. In our view, there are certain requirements that are needed to be achieved and certain cases needed to be considered. I’ll talk about three thing today.

First, independence of the regulatory body. What do we exactly mean and what is its importance? When we say independence, we mean no other than a body regulating the media or the broadcast journalists shall never be a subject to the control and direction of either the government, religious organizations or any industry.

Justice Black once said in the New York Times v United states case, that “the constitution grants freedom of expression, the responsibility of the state is to secure and protect this right in order to achieve its role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed not the governors. This right is protected so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government.”

By imposing a new law which shall welcome the Professional Regulation Commission, which is in an agency of the Government exercising quasi-judicial, legislative and executive powers. This is a body that acquires powers to sanction journalists for example or create any policies at any time it wants. And to further limit the number of people to practice his or her right to act as a voice of the public, is clearly a violation of this fundamental right.

Therefore, as to form and substance, a regulating body should have its own independent existence not only to be an effective tool in solving the problem but also not to undermine and infringe the civil rights of the public. This is never going to be present in the government’s plan.

Second, Representation. One of the primary stakeholders not mentioned to us by your affirmative side is the media operators. In order for us to launch an effective regulatory scheme, one important matter to be mentioned is that all stakeholders are equally represented and benefitted. We on the negative side believe that the scheme or mechanism should represent a very high proportion of media operators in the market-place. For example here in the Philippines, the ABS-CBN, GMA and the TV5.

In creating a new law which shall create a boundary between the controls of the media operators to the people they are trying to accept as their journalists are clearly going to be a reason for its failure. In understanding its importance, take for example what is happening in the status quo, media operators are acting independently. This secures that its media operators and their influence extends across its own industry.

Therefore, when you take away this control from the media operators, you also take away their right to full and equal enjoyment to manage their own business. Because in the first place, this affects the quality of media or news they are envisioning to supply or produce to the public.

Take for example some reporters who were not able to finish a degree in journalism. Atom Araullo, who aquired Physics as his degree. The ABS-CBN is glad to have him not because of his degree, not because of the exams he passed. He was there because he is believed to be an effective journalist because of his great work ethic and competence but he has qualities that appeal to the public. This then provides the network more viewers and higher rating. So we can’t limit how the media operators organize their own business.

Third, Cable Exceptionalism. To better understand this matter, one of the main factors that is needed to be considered by your Government is the presence of cable operators.

In the Philippines, we have certain cable companies such as Cignal TV and Sky Cable. Plus, there are also radio news cables present in our country. These particular cable operators has massive amount of consumers. What is not clear in the paradigm of your Government is whether or not the law shall have certain authority to regulate them. One important point that needs attention is that cables transmit the programs directly into people’s houses. Presumably this means that cable television and radio cannot be regulated.

This tells us, that the problem asserted to you by your government with regards to sensible and responsible journalism will never be cured by just mere imposition of a law regulating the person who wants to enter the profession of journalism. This clearly shows how impractical and useless their paradigm is. Because it will not solve the problem and will just waste the time, effort and money of the government.

To finally end my speech, let me say that: in order for us to identify whether a particular law is going to be effective, remind yourself if it is necessary and effective by examining the status quo. I believe that your negative side has proven that the policy of your government is neither necessary nor effective. With that, we rest our cases. Thank you.