When it comes to the civil and political liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, one fundamental principle that laymen do not seem to understand is this: Article III is a limitation on governmental powers. Yes, siree, it is a curb on government and its Three Great Departments overstepping on the rights of individuals, it is a proscription applicable against the State. Differently stated, the Bill of Rights is not limited to the acts of private persons; for that, you have statutes such as the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code, and others.
Allow me to illustrate: there is, of course, that prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures” found in Section 2 of Article III. This means that agents of the government — the police, military, and other law enforcement personnel — cannot arbitrarily frisk you, or look inside your bags, your houses, or vehicles even, without a warrant, except under certain very narrowly defined circumstances.
Yet, in the case of private properties such as nightclubs or the ubiquitous malls all around the country, a mere security guard can demand that you show them the contents of your bags or even your pockets, otherwise you may be barred from entry. Why is that? Because the guards are technically private persons and the premises you will be entering are privately held. In other words, the restrictions on searches without a warrant do not apply to private security personnel.
The same is it with control over media. The right to freedom of the press, or to be more general, free expression, for that matter, means that our Congress cannot pass legislation making it a criminal offense to criticize the Head of State, or a lese majeste law (as that found in Thailand and the United Kingdom), for that would be unconstitutional.
Neither may the government pass regulations limiting the use of social media to certain age groups, sexual or political orientations, or even degrees of intelligence. This is unfortunate, given the great number of total imbeciles on social media today, but then that is the price we pay for freedom.
But to say that firing a columnist such as Mon Tulfo for something that he wrote is a violation of press freedom is to betray an abysmal lack of understanding of how a Constitutional government works, or worse — if one is well-versed in the law — a deplorable sort of mental dishonesty.
Media, while fulfilling an essential role in a democracy, are nonetheless undeniably still businesses. While their owners deserve our commendation for expending effort and taking risks with their funds (and substantial monies are needed to put up and maintain a media concern) to discharge this role, it would be foolhardy for these owners not to keep one eye on the bottom line. Thus, they simply cannot turn a blind eye to acts of their writers that may have adverse results on their enterprise.
Actions tending to expose the media owners to criminal charges of libel or cyber libel, or even civil suits for damages, as well as more stringent regulatory issuances, are fairly to be avoided. This is especially true when these acts are not confined to legitimate news or op-ed pieces, but overstep the boundaries of fair journalism.
Writers such as I have a fiduciary relationship with the media outfits we work for. Since we make use of their platforms to express our views, it is but proper that we refrain from doing anything that would jeopardize our bosses. That is an unwritten rule, a Gentleman’s Code if you will, among responsible journalists. In that sense, our jobs are highly confidential in nature. We break that rule, we are shown the door.
No need for anyone, therefore, to be depressed about Mon Tulfo’s exit from a broadsheet as a violation of press freedom. It was naught but the consequence of his trenching upon a code of honor, which Mon seems to have a penchant for doing.