Implied consent
The anti-wire tapping case filed by a GSIS official against TV producer/host Che Che Lazaro is an interesting topic of debate. The subject of the case was a telephone conversation with the official that Lazaro aired in her TV show. Lazaro, apparently after futile attempts to seek an interview appointment with the official, called up the latter on the phone and instantly recorded the conversation and there and then told the official that they are on record.
It was a scheming tactic employed by Lazaro to get GSIS to "talk." The purpose was valid as it was her duty as a journalist to present both sides of a story, but was the means employed justifiable, or to a larger extent lawful?
The alleged law violated states that: "It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described." (emphasis supplied)
The main point of debate in this case is whether the recording was authorized. Was the fact that the GSIS official continued talking despite Lazaro's pronouncement that the conversation is being recorded enough to justify that there is implied consent to record the same? Should the party explicitly utter his or her objection to the recording so it can qualify as not authorized?
Consent can be implied based on the action or omission of a person. It cannot be presumed by the person asking for it based on his or her own set of criteria. Anyone caught off-guard in a conversation, like the situation the GSIS official caught herself in, would still talk rather than instantly play dead, especially if the other party is a member of the media. Continuously engaging in the conversation cannot be automatically implied as consent to recording, more apparently if the words of the other party mean otherwise.
Another peculiarity of this case is that the recording of the conversation happened simultaneously with the asking of permission. An important related question is: Does saying "this is being recorded" already asking permission?
There is, indeed, probable cause to file a case against Lazaro. This, I believe, is certainly not plain media harassment, but merely applying the law. Whether she will be found guilty is up to the court to decide.
Eventually, this could be a classic case of "the ends do not justify the means" for the media. It could also serve as another reminder that freedom of the press is not absolute - the media's rights end where the rights of individuals (be them private persons or public officials) begin.
More than a lesson on law, this is an issue of media ethics. Discretion should be practiced by the media in their reporting. If it would cause greater harm than good to apply the principles of journalism, it would not be a crime to temporarily set them aside.
It would have sufficed to just say that GSIS officials refused to air their side on the alleged anomalies in the institution despite several requests for interview. After all, people already know how "aloof" these officials are. There is no need to exert more effort to prove this, especially if the means is not at all acceptable.
There is always a better way of doing things.
