I fully and unequivocally support the position of the National Press Club against proposals to tinker with the Bill of Rights.
The NPC expressed concern about a proposal of the Consultative Commission to revise the Bill of Rights, particularly on freedom of speech and of the press, something that was not done even during the darkest days of martial law.
NPC president Tony Antonio noted that since the American colonial period, there was never an attempt to trample on the people's sacred right to free expression and the existence of an unrestrained press.
Antonio said the Con-Com's draft Constitution proposes in Article IV. The Bill of Rights, that no law shall be passed abridging the "responsible" exercise of the "freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."
He noted that the Con-Com added the word "responsible" to the old provision.
And what do Con-Com members mean by adding the word "responsible" to the original context of the freedom of the press? So they could tinker with the affairs of the media by filing charges or slapping us with printed copies of the new constitution when they feel they are offended by reports of their corruptions?
Clearly, Con-Com members or whoever are behind them have agendas darker than the color of their armpits. They want to shut down the media people who are going paparazzis over the politicos illegal activities. They want to pinch the eyes of the never-blinking reporter whose main goal is to report to the public the different activities of the people who have been enjoying the proceeds of the public's taxes.
Yes, they could change the terms of their offices, extend the calendar days of their long overdue projects, or wipe the asses of their bosses, but for God's sake, leave the media and the freedom of the press alone.
