MICHAEL MEDINA
Editor in chief
Critical voices in print and broadcast need not be afraid of libel or the risk of harassments from powerful persons who use it as a tool to silence rebukes and censures if they are in agreement with truth, Rep. Antonio “Tony” Cerilles told the press last week.
Up close and personal, Cerilles spoke his piece on libel in front of journalists during the induction of the newly elected officers of NUJP-Pagadian City Chapter, saying the thrust of the press should be to promote ethical values in their profession in reporting facts.
Nujp stands for National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, where Cerilles was one of the guests of honor during the city chapter’s induction ceremony held at Hotel Alindahaw, July 3.
In his message, Cerilles said: “You should have a set of ethical standards because a press that has no ethical standard cannot gain the respect of the community. Attacking anybody minus ethical standards, you are a loser from the start.”
“It is the individual commitment to this organization that you bring prestige and principle and carry them all with high respect to this organization. I’m sure that many of you are on this field because you want this life of journalism. Definitely, what you have not learned in college, you can do it by practice but the problem lies when you stop learning while working,” the congressman added.
On the issue of the decriminalization of libel, Cerilles explained his stand saying, “The only thing that could stop writers and broadcast journalists is the crime of libel because in the crime of libel your defense is the truth and if you account the truth then there is no need to decriminalize libel as long as you spell out the truth because that would be your defense,”
“But if you don’t want the truth and you just write anything libelous then that is your problem. Personally, there’s a thin line that distinguishes truth and untruth. If you cross the line then that’s your responsibility,” he further said.
NUJP has been maintaining its call for the decriminalization of libel and even challenged Congress “to correct a generations-old injustice, not only on the Philippine press but on the people as a whole, and do away with criminal libel foisted on us by colonizers to silence dissent and which has continued to be used as a weapon by powerful wrongdoers to muzzle the press.”
In an article published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitled “Should libel be decriminalized?” retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban explains that Articles 353 to 364 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) penalize libel, slander and intriguing against honor to protect the reputation of peace-loving citizens.
Under the RPC, a person convicted of one count of libel faces up to six years and one day in prison, and a fine of up to P6,000.
“The right to one’s honor is oftentimes more valuable than the right to property or wealth. A reputation that is tattered by scurrilous defamation is more difficult to restore than stolen goods or money, which can more easily be returned or replaced,” Panganiban added.
“On the other hand, the powerful and the rich can likewise abuse their right to prosecute for libel or other crimes. To make it difficult, expensive and time-consuming for newspersons to defend themselves, plaintiffs choose inconvenient venues for their suits or hire odious lawyers who heckle and harass penniless defendants. Worse, journalists become victims of unexplained disappearances and extralegal killings,” he said.
In handing out an alternative to the decriminalization of libel, Panganiban notes that freedom of speech can be protected from the harassments of wealth and power, without decriminalizing libel by the proposal of distinguishing between “political” and “private” libel.
Political libel, Panganiban explicates, refers to the defamation of public officials or public figures like movie and TV stars for acts done in the performance of their official duties or show-biz careers.
As recommended by Justice Mendoza, the law on libel should be amended to treat criticisms of public officials as “privileged information;” meaning, the criticisms or imputations should be presumed to have been written or uttered in good faith even though they may actually be defamatory, wrote Panganiban.
“Hence, the writer or broadcaster can be held guilty of libel only if the prosecution can prove ‘actual malice,’ [which] means the imputation is false; and the defendant knew the imputation to be false.”
In libel committed against private individuals, however, the present law requiring the defendant to prove lack of malice would be retained to preserve the right to reputation and privacy of these individuals, he added.
Recently, the Philippine Star reported that Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Manuel Roxas II are seeking the decriminalization of libel citing reasons that “it is allegedly being used by some influential people in harassing journalists.”
Roxas, who filed SB 110 for decriminalizing libel and SB 109, the Free Information Act, said he wants to strike off from the statute books all criminal liabilities attached to libel and guarantee public access to information to advance freedom of the press and democratic governance.
Roxas’ SB 110 likewise limits the venue for filing libel suits to the regional trial court where the media office or address of the charged journalist is located.
SB 109, on the other hand, requires government agencies to respond to all written requests for information within two days, subject only to the payment of reasonable fees for viewing or reproduction.
Under the said bill, penalties are levied against officials or employees who knowingly and unjustly refuse to provide access to information, or who consciously release false or misleading information.
The call for decriminalizing libel got the support of other members of the press after First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo filed suits to 43 newspaper editors, publishers and reporters, seeking P141-million in total damages.
The NUJP has said the move “resulted in a chilling effect on writers, editors, and publishers, who may think twice before writing and publishing articles criticizing Arroyo, lest they be sued for libel.”
In their statement then, NUJP said: “The action is a brazen attack on press freedom. The example of the First Gentleman, a powerful and controversial national figure, can only encourage other public officials to step up the use of libel to intimidate critics.”
“The trend is dangerous. It not only tramples on the basic rights to a free press and to free expression, it also opens the door to abuse of authority. History shows that the narrowing of democratic space leads to the repressive use of power.”
Back to Cerilles, he maintains he is against the decriminalization of libel as this will lead to an irresponsible media. “In libel, truth is your defense. Truth is the standard of any journalist; truth of the fact of the case, of what happened. That should be the basis of any writing.”
“That’s why I said that I cannot join the number of legislators who wanted to decriminalize libel simply because in libel, truth is your defense so once you speak of the truth, there is no libel,” Cerilles boomed.
The congressman then told those present that he is pleased one of the principles being adhered to by the local chapter of NUJP is integrity “so that the media can then claim they have dignity.”
Cerilles then ended his message by saying he is glad local journalists are finally bonding together to professionalize themselves.
“I am happy that you have finally done it together. I’m happy that from this day on, you will police yourselves and watch who among your members are erring. I know that your have the best intentions,” he concluded.