SMNI says not responsible for anchor's statements

MANILA - Swara Sug Media Corporation of the Philippines, also known as Sonshine Media Network Inc., is not owned by Davao-based religious group leader Apollo C. Quiboloy, an executive of the network told the House Committee on Legislative Franchises as it began its investigation on possible violation of its franchise in Republic Act 11422.

"No, SMNI is not (owned) by Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy, " said Mark Tolentino, legal counsel and officer of the company.

"No, he's not part of the corporate officers. He's just a blocktimer of SMNI," Tolentino said.

"We consider him as a honorary chairman but he's not part of the corporate officers, his name is not part of the corporate papers. He's not a stockholder of SMNI or Swara Sug Media Corporation," he added.

• YouTube takes down Apollo Quiboloy's channel over policy violations

MISINFORMATION

Lawmakers meanwhile said that that the network is responsible for the dissemination of misinformation when it released a video clip that claimed that House Speaker Martin Romualdez has a P1.8 billion travel fund.

SMNI, however, claimed it had no liability because of its disclaimer saying that the expressions of its anchors are not the official acts of the network. They did say that the incident is being investigated.

Committee chairperson Paranaque Rep. Gustavo Tambunting said SMNI's franchise obligates it to make sure it is not used for misinformation.

"In this regard , the franchise of SMNI, Republic Act 11422 Section 4 states as one of its terms and conditions--Responsibility to the Public--the grantee shall conform the ethics of honest enterprise and not use the station's facilities for the dissemination of deliberately false information or will full misrepresentation to the detriment of the public interest," Tambunting added.

"There is a disclaimer of SMNI that any statement made by the anchors are not the official stand of SMNI," Tolentino replied.

Surigao del Sur 2nd district Rep. Johnny Pimentel rejected this.

"Yes although it might not be your official stand but still you are the franchise holder and you are responsible for the provisions stated in your franchise," Pimentel said.

"News reports shall be factual so kailangan factual yung report niyo now aside fromt hat only news that can be attributed to a source shall be aired, so kung ganun kung wala kayong source eh gawa gawa lang niyo yun," Pimentel added.

"In short it is very clear na ginamit lang yung SMNI to have a smear campaign against Congress ay ang dami niyo violations, Broadcasters Code, yung Section 4, so that is why I insist that this committee should call or invite or require the attendance of the 2 anchors," Pimentel said.

House officials and lawmakers also pointed out that the claim that the Speaker had that much in travel funds is wrong.

"For the office of the Speaker these are the staff members of the Speaker who accompanies him in all his foreign trips the total expenses of the office of the Speaker from January-October this year 2023 is P4,347,712. For all the congressmen and the secretariat, this would cover the expenses travel expenses of House members who are on official trips, the total for the same period for period covering January-October 2023 is P35,257411," Secretary General Reginald Velasco told the hearing.

"The total for all Office of the Speaker and the House Secretariat and the members of Congress who go on official trip P39,605,123," Velasco added.

"Maliwanag po sa lahat the records shows that Congress for the year 2023 has spent only P39 million, malayong-malayo po doon sa allegation ng SMNI that Congress spent P1.8 billion," Pimentel said before invoking section 4 of SMNI's franchise again.

"To the SMNI, why should you not be held liable when it is very clear that you have violated section 4 of your franchise? Ano rason ang mabibigay niyo sa amin na di kayo dapat hatulan ng violation against your franchise. Very clear ho, ang allegation ho ng SMNI, P1.8 billion ang ginastos ng Kongreso sa traveling expenses," Pimentel said.

Tolentino then went on to make the distinction, that it was the anchors who made the reference, not the network.

"Actually, there was no allegations about the P1.8 billion. It was just a question given not in behalf of SMNI but it is a statement by an anchor of SMNI and there is a disclaimer in every program of SMNI that any statement made by the anchor guest is not the official stand of SMNI," Tolentino insisted.

"There was no deliberate false information. I'd like to invoke the jurisprudence of the Philippine Supreme Court about freedom of press and freedom expression," Tolentino said.

"In every act provided under the civil code there is a presumption of good faith so the one who alleged bad faith on the part of SMNI the one who alleges that there is violation of RA11422 should be the one to prove it because we are presumed innocent we are presumed doing within the bounds of the law," Tolentino said.

"We acted in good faith and there was no statement, official statement given by SMNI. Gumagawa po kami investigation internal investigation kung may nangyari ba talagang statement about the P1.8 billion, because based on our initial investigation there was none it was just a question," Tolentino added.

Another legal counsel and officer of SMNI, former Rep. Rolex Suplico, insisted that they cannot tell their anchors what to do.

"The network cannot tell the anchors what to say, what questions to ask. I just wanted to point out that we cannot dictate on our anchors what questions to ask how to ask it when to ask it. In the same manner if there are guests here. We cannot also tell the guests to answer this way or that way. they exercise a certain degree of independence," Suplico said.

Lawmakers rejected this.

"It is important to note that the recent broadcast by SMNI against Congress against particular groups and individuals and recently against the travels, Speaker's travel expenditures do not fall under the ambit of the constitutionally protected expression very clear po na smear campaign yan," Pimentel said.

"Pag yan ho lagi ang ginamit natin eh ano po ang saysay ng Section 4 which is what is a privilege granted by congress and this is a very clear section," Tambunting said.

"Kung ganiyan po mangyayari tapos magtatago tayo sa disclaimer eh sandali pag usapan po natin lahat ng prangkisang inaaprubahan ng Kongreso ngayon kasama na diyan ang SMNI," Tambunting added.

Tambunting also said that while free speech and press freedom are constitutional rights, the allocation of TV and radio frequencies is not a guaranteed right.

"It is subject to the authority of Congress over the grant, amendments, extension or revocation of legislative franchises. TV and radio frequencies are part of the national patrimony and are owned by the state. No private entity has any claim or right over TV and radio frequency allocations," Tambunting said.

The lawmakers who have sought the congressional investigation also spoke up to justify the probe.

Free speech, vile speech

"There is free speech, then there is vile speech. In these deliberations, let us make it so that the evidence that SMNI is a purveyor of the latter comes out, and so that its accountability under the laws is demonstrated," House Deputy Minority Leader France Castro said.

"SMNI, its hosts, and its shows have repeatedly engaged in acts of dissemination of fake news and malicious red tagging. It habitually engages in the reporting as news of misleading claims, deliberately disseminating false information, willful misrepresentation, wild accusations, and red tagging against the opposition, critics, and officials of the government in violation of the terms of its legislative franchise and to the detriment of public interest," Kabataan Rep. Raoul Manuel said.

"Ang ginawa lang daw po nila ay nagtatanong but any responsible media practitioner if given an information would first validate that information before they go out on public," Quezon 3rd District Rep. David Jayjay Suarez said.

"Under the KBP under Sec. 5. nakasulat unconfirmed reports should not be aired unless there's an immediate and urgent need for the public to know about them," Suarez also said.

"Hindi po kayo nagtatanong. Kung nagtatanong kayo di dapat ang ginawa po nila...pumunta sila sa Congress tinanong nila dito sa mga tanggapan at opsina kung totoo ba itong report nila dahil meron silang natanggap na diumano ganito kalaki ang ginastos at pagkatapos malaman kung ano ba talaga saka nila ilabas kung ano yung nilalaman ng report after they have validated," Suarez added.

SMNI officials also explained that while their franchise was issued in the name of Swara Sug, they operate under SMNI as a trade name.

Tolentino also told lawmakers that one of the anchors embroiled in the controversy, former undersecretary Lorraine Badoy, is paid P100,000 a month in talent fees.

'BINUBUSALAN KAMI': SMNI LAWYER

While Tolentino welcomed the opportunity to address the allegation, Suplico felt that they are being muzzled.

"We are here we consider this as our opportunity to explain ano yung side ng Suara Sug Corporation. Ano ba talaga, may fake news ba, may red tagging ba, may mga unauthorized reporting ba or wala so this is our opportunity," Tolentino said.

"At the same time medyo ang pakiramdam namin binubusalan kami sana wag naman sana mali ako pero ang feeling namin parang nilalagyan kami ng busal," Suplico said.

Tolentino also maintained there's no basis for a case of libel against them.

As for former President Rodrigo Duterte who is facing a case of grave threats in Quezon City for threats allegedly made during a program aired on SMNI, the SMNI officials maintained they do not speak for the former chief executive.

RELATED VIDEO

Watch more News on iWantTFC