This post is a compilation of our views, insights, and opinions regarding the libel case filed by the The Firm (formerly known as the Villaraza, Cruz, Marcelo, and Angcangco law firm) against The Daily Tribune’s publisher and editor-in-chief Niñez Cacho-Olivares.
Here they are:
An Insight on LIBEL by Sybil Alacar (October 05, 2008)
LIBEL AND SLANDER occur when a person or entity communicates false information that damages the reputation of another person or entity. Slander occurs when the false and defamatory communication is spoken and heard. Libel occurs when the false and defamatory communication is written and seen. The laws governing libel and slander, which are collectively known as DEFAMATION, are identical.
A plaintiff who wishes to sue an individual or entity for libel or slander has the burden of proving four claims to a court: First, the plaintiff must show that the DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement. Second, the plaintiff must show that the statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff. Third, the plaintiff must show that the communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message. Fourth, the plaintiff must show that the communication injured the plaintiff’s reputation.
There are four general defenses to slander and libel. Truth is an absolute defense. Consent by the plaintiff for the publication of the defamatory statement is a defense. Accidental publication of the statement is a defense. Finally, the statements of certain defendants in certain circumstances, such as lawyers, judges, jurors, and witnesses, are protected from defamation for PUBLIC POLICY reasons. This type of protection is known as privilege.
The actual malice standard only applies to public officials or public figures who sue for slander or libel. Other examples of public officials include elected officials, such as governors or senators, or non-elected government employees with substantial responsibility or control over public affairs. Courts have held that candidates for public office also are public officials and must prove the actual malice standard before prevailing in libel or slander lawsuits.
To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff’s reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious.
The final element of slander or libel is that the defamatory statement damaged the plaintiff’s reputation, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. Certain defamatory messages are slanderous or libelous PER SE, meaning that the plaintiff need not prove that the message damaged his or her reputation. Libel or slander per se occurs when the message accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime, of having a loathsome disease, or of being professionally incompetent. Other types of messages may damage the plaintiff’s reputation, but because they are not per se slanderous or libelous, it remains the plaintiff’s burden to prove that the defamation damaged his or her reputation.
If the defendant can show that the substance of a defamatory statement is essentially true, then the plaintiff’s claim for slander or libel will fail. For example, assume that the defendant publicly ACCUSED his boss of cheating on taxes. The boss could sue for slander or libel, depending on whether the accusation was written or spoken. If the defendant could prove that the boss actually did cheat on taxes, the defendant would prevail. If the defendant had no proof of such tax cheating, the plaintiff would prevail.
As a student wanting to become a journalist, I’ve got so many questions in mind regarding libel issues which are happening most of the time these days. Media writers who are ignorant of the laws of libel and privacy can get into trouble in several ways. First, they can be paralyzed. They can’t write stories, documentary film scripts or news releases because they are afraid someone will sue them. If they knew the law well, they might have more courage.
Second, they can write something that violates a libel or privacy law because they don’t know any better. This puts them and their organizations at financial risk. Third, they can cause great harm to and violate the rights of those about whom they write. But what if you only speak off about the truth and still you got sued of libel? Is there any way I can defend myself for that? What if the one I’m writing about concerns the lives of a certain government official or any human being who has the great power to rule or influence the public whether it is for a good or in a bad cause. Could there be still justice for those who tell the truth? What if you think you have no defense, but you think it’s a valid story that should be aired or published? What should be the right thing to do? Well I guess it’s a matter of choice in every person whatever it is that desire to do. It just so happen on my part, I find it inequitable for some reasons.
Libel and Malice by Lawrence Solis (October 02, 2008)
Libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
In Philippine jurisdiction, the truth is not always a defense. While something is true, if the purpose is to defame, then liability still exists. To be liable for libel, the following elements must be shown to exist: (1) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (2) publication of the charge; (3) identity of the person defamed; and (4) existence of malice.
As a rule, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive is shown (Art. 354, RPC). As an exception, the presumption of malice does not apply in privileged communication, which may be absolute or conditional.
Absolutely privileged communications is one wherein no liability, even if its author acted in bad faith. This class includes statements made by members of Congress in the discharge of their functions as such, official communications made by public officers in the performance of their duties, and allegations or statements made by the parties or their counsel in their pleadings or motions or during the hearing of judicial proceedings, as well as the answers given by witnesses in reply to questions propounded to them, in the course of said proceedings, provided that said allegations or statements are relevant to the issues, and the answers are responsive or pertinent to the questions propounded to said witnesses.
Conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are those which, although containing defamatory imputations, would not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith. Conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communications are those mentioned in Article 354 of the RPC:
1. A private communication made by a person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty. The following requisites, however, must exist: (a) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (b) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (c) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice.
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
The fact that a communication is privileged does not mean that it is not actionable; the privileged character of the communication simply does away with the presumption of malice, and the plaintiff has to prove the fact of malice in such case.
To further explain my side upon the issue, I have prepared a situation regarding possible malice and libel as presented in previous senate privilege speeches and trials.
Let me tell you a fact: Corruption thrives and enjoys incredible and unprecedented growth in the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo government. We all heard about the telecommunications scam, the PCSO anomaly, the jueteng scandal, Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard, rice smuggling and many more stories of corruption and shady deals.
Senator Panfilo Lacson
Excerpt from “The Incredible Hulk”, August 18, 2003
It has been a little over five years after a ‘bomb’ was dropped in the middle of the senate floor in the form of a privilege speech delivered by Senator Lacson to stir chaos onto the rebuilding Philippine government. His daring words pointed only to the ringleader of the corruption circus, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. In this privilege speech, he defamed the First Gentleman and a few others prominent people for ‘stealing’ the country’s funds.
Lacson was saved of a Libel suit due to his Absolute Privilege Communication that guarantees him of communication as only to fulfilling his duties as member of the Congress.
If we were to examine the actions of Senator Lacson, if he was susceptible and was to be filed with a Libel suit by the First Gentleman, they must find the elements of Defamation namely:
1. Imputation or Damage to integrity
2. Publicity
3. Direction of the imputation or Identifiability
4. Malice
Imputation is obviously there as the ego of not only the first gentleman, but President Gloria Arroyo was questioned as corrupt. It has gained more than enough publicity as it was the most talked over issue of the year. Clearly Senator Lacson has targeted the first gentleman as the principal of the said corruption. What is left now is to prove that Malice reside in the speech.
Malice or ill-will is an action that speaks not in response to duty but to merely injure the reputation of the person defamed. It is either In fact or In law.
Shown by proof of ill-will, hatred or purpose to injure accompanied by further republication of the said matter results in Malice in Fact.
As stated in Article 354(1) a private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty. Malice in Law is presumed malice that needs no proof because defamatory imputation is to exist from itself.
The imputation in his speech is obvious to the naked eye. Malice, on the other hand, is hard to prove. As member of the Legislature, it is under privilege to pronounce wrongdoings in the government. It is his duty.
Intention is the main argument in the proof of malice. Whereas Lacson was fulfilling his duty as a senator. Again with disregard to position, the argument of intention of the speech (1) to inform of the masses the malfeasance of the Arroyos and their compatriots of a subversive reason of (2) destroy the dignity and integrity of this government.
A possible current argument of the plaintiff would be personal vendetta against Mike Arroyo. Ping Lacson has never been a fan of the First gentleman and his works. A speech delivered to injure not only the Arroyos but also the government runs.
The Accused, who must prove their innocence of ill intention, can argue of bringing more self-harm by delivering the speech and was done purely of concern for the citizens of this country.
In my opinion, Malice was present in his speech. Yes, the nation needed to know the truth behind the Arroyo conspiracy. But let us not forget that at that time, the 2004 presidential elections were approaching and Arroyo was showing signs of Re-election. It can be political tool for sealing one’s fate in an election.
But for the government to function its real and only purpose of serving the people, speeches libelous as this can serve as a defensive sentry for warding off or exposing the truth.
WORDS ARE MIGHTIER THAN SWORDS by Janice Ianne Miguel (September 30, 2008)
We Filipinos regard honor as a very important possession that no one, even if it is intangible, can dare to cause damage to it. For us, honor is more important than education and fame, we cultivate and enrich it. As we always say “ Hindi bale nang maghirap, basta’t may dangal”
Just like the right to life and possession, right to enjoy ones reputation is also a constitutional right. That is why the ultimate protector of the whole citizenry, the law of the land, provides that an act to damage the honor of another individual is indeed a crime. It is also called as “ego crime” and is punishable by less than six years.
Libel is one of the seven kinds of crime against honor. It is defined as “a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”
Libel has four elements, first is the defamation imputation, publicity or publication, identifiability and malice. Defamation imputation speaks of the damage that has been done to ones reputation. This can be tested through the words used. If the words induced suspicion from the hearers and readers that can injure his image, it is actionable. Moreover, ironical and metaphorical language is no exemption because it “can be a vehicle for slander”.
Therefore, an individual cannot call or identify a certain person using words than can be defaming or can damage the reputation of another even if it is the truth. Truth cannot be the reason for any damaging statement, as long as it is malicious in character and can injure the reputation, it is punishable by law. However, the defamation imputation can be justified if the person has good intention upon committing the said act. For example, X said, with presence of third person or persons Z, that Y who is applying for a position in a company, is irresponsible and corrupt. The said statement is indeed a defamation imputation but there is justification in this case. X reason out that Y does really have a bad record and that he only wanted to help the company in hiring other people.
Publication is the second element. This states that there is a third person involved, more than the accused and the offended party, other people or audience is present. Publication is defined as the communication of the defamatory matter to some third person or persons. It is also said that a defamatory imputation should be published before it can be actionable. Private communication is not publication. If a person send or said his opinion to another person privately, meaning no one hear or read his message, it is not libelous.
The mere fact of sending a letter is not publication. There are other factors to consider like if the letter sent to the person who is the subject of the letter is sealed, it is not publication as long as it is the only copy of the letter and no other letters sent to other people. However, if there is third person, other than the offended person, who receives and reads the letter, it is publication.
Identifiability of the offended party should be clearly distinguished. It is not enough that the offended party recognized himself within the material but a third person should be present to identify the offended party. However, the name of the offended party is not necessarily indicated but the description or reference of facts, and circumstance that point to the same person.
The last element and probably the most critical and controversial, is the malice or ill-will. A charge is actionable if malice must be prove, whether Malice in law, or malice in fact.
Malice is a term used to “indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed.” There are two kind of malice that needs to be proven and analyze before an action could take place. Malice in law or presumed malice needs no proof for the material is defamatory on its face and on its character.
There is Malice in fact or actual malice if the person is motivated by ill-will and desire to cause damage to ones reputation. Malice in fact maybe shown by extrinsic evidence, rivalry or ill-feeling between the two individuals and that the defendant has the intention to injure the reputation of the offended party.
These two types of malice, is essential in identifying whether the charge is indeed libelous and actionable.
However, in Malice in law, the presumption of malice can be disregard according to article 354: “Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown except in the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral and social duty; 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not confidential in nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their function.”
These two are also known as privilege communications. There are two kinds of privilege communication, absolute and conditional or qualified privilege communication.
Absolute communication is not actionable even if the author acted on bad faith and produced defamatory statements. This is enjoyed only by the legislative and judicial members. This privilege is given to the said public official for them to act, speak and decide on issues without fear of being charge of libel. Conditional or qualified privilege communication is not also actionable unless it was motivated by ill-will and there is a desire to damage ones reputation.
This privilege communication is provided only to avoid the presumption of malice but not to avoid the evil acts. When a public official stated something defamatory with regard to a certain public issue, the presumption of malice is lost and is not actionable. However, if this official made a communication that is not within his duty, then it is not privilege and it is actionable.
Privileged communication can also be overturned if the prosecutor proves that the defendant acted with malice and there is no truth in the said charge.
Decriminalizing libel by Mary Jennyln Chua (September 30, 2008)
Libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real imaginary or any act, omission, condition status or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or judicial person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Every citizen enjoys a private reputation that is being covered by the constitutional state. However, if the right is hindered by malicious judgment of somebody who only tries or attempts to destroy that person’s reputation, then he can be liable for libel.
Yet, libel is not just a simple case that can be just file to anyone whenever he/ she gets insulted by somebody, because libel can only be valid if their is a reasonable ground for applying for it.
Libel is the most common case that journalists and media persons get whenever they get to offend somebody especially those people who are public officials and those who are in high position whom sometimes abuse their powers to file libel cases against media people just because they believe that they are private individuals, which was a contrary to who they are.
For the past years, Mr. Arroyo, the First Gentleman had the most numbers of libel cases filed to journalists. He filed different libel cases to 43 reporters, columnist, editors, publishers and even a subscription manager, of various publications.
He file the cases of libel against one of them for the reason that a magazine named Newsbreak, published Mr. Arroyo’s undeclared property in San Francisco last December 2003. Marites Vitug, editor-in-chief of Newsbreak said that they have only published what they have found out and that they did not added more than what they knew, so they were really disappointed hen they knew about the case and because they felt that they can no longer seek protection from the law.
This was also the reason why many journalists are against how libel cases are being overruled. Lots of journalists, even those who are not media practitioners are already complaining on how this libel is being used to decline the right of the people to express their thoughts for they might just be sued by just only a single word that they will express.
Even I do strongly agree that the First Gentleman and even other public officials are obviously abusing their powers on the power of libel against people who are not in favor with them. These people think that when they have the power they can do anything they want event though they are already stepping on somebody else’s ego.
In the case of Mr. Arroyo, definitely he is one of those people who are abusing the statute just to hide his mistakes to the public. He is assuming that he should be treated as a private individual, but many thinks that he is not aware that he is the husband of the president, that he is a public figure and at the same time a public officer and that he is accountable for criticism if he does something that people sees as his wrongful acts. Yet, he still ignores that fact which only make people think that whenever his wife is in the position he should be considered as invincible.
It is the reason why I also do agree that libel should really be decriminalized. I’m not saying that libel should be totally decriminalize, for if that will be the case there would be lots of people who will abuse the situation and will write improper write-ups of some other people, I’m just saying that libel should be decriminalize in a proper way. People who are inclined in doing improper things should watch their acts carefully so that they won’t be noticed by the pubic. Moreover, public figures should also be sports whenever someone will criticize them because they are part of public matters.
Decriminalizing libel is just proper for only those abusive when it comes to their power. Courts should analyze carefully if the case is libelous enough for libel is slowly turning out to be a way of suppressing the right of the media people in delivering the right information to the public and not just them but also those people who are just being abused by libel.
The Battle for Reputation by Honey Marion Cabana (September 13, 2008)
In our recent times, Libel seems to be in fashion. Various media practitioners take this kind of risk if, for instance, they carelessly made their reports and publicized it without the consent of those personalities involved in such write-ups. On one hand, it is consider as one of the utmost and most dangerous threats next to extrajudicial killings.
Libel or an attack against honor can be in form of writing, printing, broadcast in radio or television and even through the expression of arts such as paintings, theatrical presentations and the like. It is considered as unlawful attack to one’s reputation that gives the unjust impression to the person being discussed. In so, the Constitution provides the libel law which manifests that the state value so much on the essence of one’s integrity or reputation as much we value on our right to life, possession and in our liberty. Hence, the law on libel basically barred the freedom of the press. For instance, it shortens the huge coverage of the press to freely express their thoughts and disseminate the information needed by the public, whether it has justifiable motives or not.
Moreover, defamation is an act of invading other’s interest in which it involves the opinions of the writer that the society may also have towards the defamed individual. Once the defamation has made and published publicly it automatically gives the society an idea that certain things really exist. In order to determine, whether the statement is defamatory it should appears that the entire statement was explained in common language as how it appeals to the mind or intellects of those persons comprehending it. In other words, whether the words used were true it could never be a defense to avoid such allegation if the presence of good intention and justifiable motives are lost. We have to remember that any defamatory statement is equated to damage. A damage that place a person’s integrity into disrepute. The Court does not recognizes the intention of the defamer, thus, it is measured the gravity or degree of defamation made upon the plaintiff.
However, Libel can never be considered as a crime if the element of malice is not properly established. It is the heart of all proceedings and judgments in order to prove that there is in fact evil will to disparage a person. Although, any defamatory imputation, at its own phase, is presumed to be malicious, the defendant has to prove that primarily there is no malice at all. The Court defines malice as the most complicated element to attest for the protection of the writer and equally difficult for someone to charge such crime to the defamer. Furthermore, if this element is not honored, anyone can be easily charge libel. Every journalist and whoever members of the press would simply disclose whatever they wanted to talk about or much worse they will be sentenced to imprisonment. This country would be simply called as “land of fool”, if all of us were blinded with own interest and welfare while the information we ought to know were actually control by someone else. How can we achieve a transparent government if this freedom is slowly disregarded.
Moreover, the questions are who may be sued? In what degree would be the offender could defend himself against such crime? How could a journalist or media practitioner per se avoid this libel suits? As a general rule, anyone could be liable on this crime if the statement contains words that are merely defamatory and published it that causes one’s injury. For instance, Libel can be removed if the offender properly established his defenses such as the fair commentary , whether it is true or not, thus possesses a reasonable ground and further assert his good motives and justifiable ends. In addition, to be able to avoid the libel suit, a reporter should think hundred times before he decided to pen down whatever the information or opinions he has. Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy is one of the most significant values to consider. It the reports are made accurate and correct, it lessen the chance of a journalist to face such struggle. But of course, accurate reporting does not assures a reporter to be convicted on such crime if it was not made with good faith motivated by ill-will. A factual error or an honest mistake can justify in order to overcome it. Be careful with the words or languages being applied and as much as possible do not fix any story making it to the point it overturn the story from reality. Remember that libel is a scheme to primarily harass and scare journalist or media from uncovering the truth behind a story. It is their duty to response on the needs of the citizen to be well informed on the happenings in the society. As one of our mentors told us that being sued to libel would not be a hindrance to continue of what you wanted to pursue, but of course motivated with good intention, yet you are consider as a full pledge journalist.
JOEY’S SUMMARY PAPER ON LIBEL (September 12, 2008)
Proverbs 22:1
A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.
Even in melodramatic movies when, oftentimes, we hear hackneyed and age-old lines like, “Huwag mong dungisan ang ating malinis na pangalan,” or “Ipaghihiganti ko ang ginawa niyang paghamak sa aking pagkatao,” – we see an aspect of Filipino culture that puts a lot of premium on the virtue of a good name. This facet is not only highlighted by Biblical precepts like the one mentioned above, but also by the protection that our law provides when a reputation is tarnished, maligned, and desecrated.
To have a good name is tantamount to the possession of life, liberty and property which are constitutionally safeguarded by the law. This is why a person’s entitlement to a good reputation must also be protected. For what kind of life unfolds before a tainted name? To curtail the enjoyment that the privilege of that good name grants is to also restrain the completion and fullness of a person’s life.
That is what libel does.
What is libel?
Libel publicly and maliciously imputes a crime, vice or defect – whether real or imaginary – or an act, omission, condition, status or circumstance that tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt to a natural or juridical person, or cause to blacken the memory of one who is dead by means of writing, printing, lithography, radio, engraving, phonograph, painting, theater and cinema exhibition, or any similar means as articulately stated in the Revised Penal Code’s Article 353 and 355.
Any defamatory statement spoken, however, is slander. Radio and television, although both oral, are classified as libel avenues because of the far-reaching stretch of their captive audience.
How do we know that a libelous remark has been committed? Let me illustrate.
Suppose, as a journalist, I wrote and had a story printed stating that a particular government project was tainted with traceable anomalies and insinuated that the head of a particular government office – unnamed as he was – being behind the massive kickbacks because it was a habit of his in all his government postings, am I liable to be sued for libel? Yes.
When is a statement libelous?
For something to be branded a libel, it has to (1) have a defamatory imputation – something that will cause to damage or destroy the reputation of another person. It is the understanding of the words used, not the intention of the writer that matters. In the above example, it is the contention that a person is behind massive kickbacks in a government project; (2) be published. The fact that my story was printed – therefore seen by a multitude others – is enough ground; (3) be identifiable. Even if the official is unnamed in my story, the slightest hint that will make him known to another person is sufficient to file a case; (4) lastly, have malice, which is the term used when a person, out of ill-will or spite, is prompted to injure the reputation of another. The part about proving the intended malice is the most difficult one – especially where a journalist is concerned.
You see, journalists are quite ‘special’ people. Aside from being the targets of extra-judicial killings, they enjoy the privilege of being able to make fair comments about people and issues of public interest, but naturally, within bounds. Without this kind of difficulty, it would seem likewise difficult for journalists to be able to perform their duties as watchdogs, most especially if lawsuits become harassment instruments to deter them from performing their professional tasks.
When is malice proven malicious?
In the illustration given above, how can the court establish malice?
Proving that malice is present is a difficult task. But it can be presumed and proved. When malice is presumed from a defamatory imputation, it is called malice in law, where proof of malice is not required because the defamatory imputation by itself is enough proof of existence. There is malice in fact when it is obvious that the intention to harm is present.
Malice, however, is not presumed in private communications necessary to perform legal, moral or social duty and in reports written in good faith and for justifiable motives, as provided for in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.
Also, in privileged communication, malice is not presumed, but the privilege has to be qualified between being absolute or conditional. Absolute privileged communication must be in consonance with the occasion of such privilege, e.g. when members of the legislation do their duties. Conditional or qualified privileged communication requires not only the occasion of privilege but also the use of that occasion in good faith.
What are the defenses available in libel?
The normal course of the law is to presume a person innocent until he is proven guilty. In the case of libel though, a defamatory imputation is enough to presume malice – and the big irony is this: the truth will not set you free. Not even the pronouncement in the Apostle John’s gospel in John 8:32 that the “truth will set you free” will excuse the maligner from being prosecuted.
Except in two cases, where the proof of truth is admissible: (1) if act or omission constitutes a crime, or (2) if the imputation is related to the discharge of a government employees’ official duties, as intimated in Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code.
Other defenses include privileged communications as already stated above; fair comment on qualifications of candidates for public office; apology or retraction; rectification; self-defense provided that the remarks made in defense are not by themselves libelous; and fair comment on matters of public interest.
Using the illustration in the beginning of this paper, will I have a good defense of my case using fair comment on matters of public interest?
That depends on how the court sees it.
If it is proven that I have personal reasons to begrudge the public official and attack his private character in the same breath, then, my writing may be liable for libel. To criticize a public officer does not give authority to defame his private life. The supposition is that the comments must be fair, and having said so, it must be reasonably based on actual facts.
In the conviction of Ninez Cacho-Olivares for libel brought about by a column she wrote in 2003 against The Firm (Villaraza, Cruz, Marcelo & Angangco), the Court held that the accused did not exert efforts to verify the truth of the defamatory statements and cannot therefore consider her defense on the basis of fair comment.
What are the implications of libel in a journalistic setting?
Both the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines expressed their concern with alarm over the conviction and the sentencing of Cacho-Olivares with both the fine and the imprisonment.
The sentencing goes against the Court’s Administrative Circular 08-2008, dated January 25, 2008, “indicating an emergent rule of preference for the imposition of fine only rather than imprisonment in libel cases.”
This was already applied in the case of entertainment writer, Cristy Fermin, who was found guilty of libel committed on Annabelle Rama and Eddie Gutierrez but was only made to pay the fine of six thousand pesos.
In Cacho-Olivares’ case, the groups believe that the prohibitive fine of more than five million pesos and the imprisonment imposed become an obstruction and make freedom of the press an expensive expression.
Press freedom, when not protected against libel, allows the powerful and the rich to abuse their right to prosecute for libel. In fact, to make it even more difficult for the newspersons, plaintiffs resort to various intimidating ways in order to harass the respondents like filing simultaneous cases sometimes in venues too inconvenient for the defendants.
Also related to the field of journalistic endeavors is the new medium through which writings can be published and encoded onto – the internet and the new cyber trend of blogging.
A case at hand is the malicious blog site of Brian Gorrell, the gay Australian HIV-positive man who was divested of his lifetime savings by a Filipino lover purportedly to invest in a restaurant business. His blog chronicled many libelous statements attributed to members of Manila’s high society.
The freedom of expression being enjoyed by Gorrell – although not a legitimate journalist – is stepping on the privacy of person of those who had libeled in his blog who are frustrated that to date no law seems to be applicable to their current predicament.
Blogging is also being employed by local journalists as a tool through which they could express opinions other than those they write as columnists or reporters of media organizations. Who knows if the practice, now being regulated by their companies, will soon become focal points of future libel cases when journalists become more subjective than objective in their handling of opinions.
What does this writer make of libel?
On the outset, whether or not a person is a public or private person, the fact that reputations are tattered by a mere piece of news, measures must really be enforced in order to preclude abuses from both sides.
The journalists contend that in the name of fair reporting, no censorship in reportage must be adhered to as it defangs and chains the democratically enshrined freedom of the press. That no one is above the law and should be made accountable is the journalists’ battle cry. However, these same journalists, acting beyond the normal limitations of fair game, ask that leniency be extended to them when pushed in a corner.
When a person’s reputation is wronged, no one should take away his right to sue, to correct the injustice done him. But the motive should hinge only on one thing: the uncovering of the truth. While it is true that apology, retraction or rectification cannot undo nor diminish the harm already done, a statement rectifying a malicious allegation would still make the offended party feel better about his name or his person.
This is where responsible journalism should come in: checking facts, sources and information, quotes, and the verity of events and actions before hammering down the points to print.
But the glaring irony is this: the court determines what truth is, what lies are. And in libel cases, not even the purest of truth – except in cases mentioned above – will unshackle you when your motives are weighed and found wanting.
Even if the law is seemingly blind to the very essence of a libel case – that is, exposing the lies to uncover the truth – at the very least, a journalist can take comfort in the fact that there is nothing that can rob his peace away from him every time he stands for the truth.
Daily Tribune and the Libel Law in the Philippines by Erickson Beco (August 31, 2008)
Libel, as defined in Article 353 of the Philippines’ Revised Penal Code, is:
“A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”
Libel therefore, and as provided by the said provision, is punishable by the Law and cites the right of a private individual or firm. As mentioned in the case of Worcester vs. Ocampo (22 Phil 42), “the enjoyment of a private reputation is as much a constitutional right as the possession of life, liberty, or property. It is one of those rights necessary to human society that underlie the whole scheme of civilization. The law recognizes the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who attacks it, by slanderous words or libelous publication, the liability to make full compensation of the damages done.”
As a consequence, individuals charged with libel, most notable of which are journalists and members of the media, can be arrested or meted fines, depending on the gravity of their offense and the extent of the damages that have been done against the “aggrieved” party.
Luis V. Teodoro, a journalism professor at the University of the Philippines and Deputy Director of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) – a non-stock, non-profit foundation established in 1989 that supports and uplifts ethical and professional values in the Philippine press – cites some of the heftiest and most intriguing fines that have been meted out off libel charges. On an entry on entitled Libel’s Perils dated August 17, 2003, posted on his personal blog site “LuisTeodoro.com”, he writes:
“…One columnist convicted of supposedly libeling a former senator, but who has appealed the conviction, was for example ordered to pay P10 million in fines. And who can forget the P101-million libel suit filed by former President Estrada and his Executive Secretary against the Manila Times in 1999?”
HOW DID THE NIñEZ CACHO-OLIVARES LIBEL SUIT HAPPEN?
John Marzan, in his Blogspot blog entry dated June 16, 2008 made a detailed account of The Daily Tribune libel case, sequencing the events that took place and dissecting the incident one by one. He writes:
“…Apparently, the Tribune was scooping the rest of major publications by then with its series of articles itself written by Olivares and all the while, someone’s reputation and feelings were being hurt. As it is, when Fraport finally filed an arbitration request, the allegations in the series were confirmed. The major papers followed suit. But no other libel suits were filed similar to Ninez’s.
How’s this for libel? As far as my logic tells me, if Olivares was really guilty, so should the rest be. So why were there no libel cases filed against the rest? Because NCO’s came ahead of “confirmation” and the rest, after?
After reading some of the old articles and studying the timeline of events on the Niñez case, here’s what I think happened.
1) The TRIBUNE and Niñez Cacho-Olivares published articles that had the FRAPORT people accusing influential lawyer Villaraza, Climaco and others within the Arroyo admin of extortion and harassment. One of the evidence that Niñez had was a tape that contains “illegally recorded” conversations between Fraport and their lawyers.
2) Villaraza protested and claimed that the TRIBUNE articles were lies. He presented two letters of apology, one from Bender and one from Stiller, to disprove the tribune article’s claims about FRAPORT extortion complaints.
But while Malacañang Thursday hailed Villaraza for coming out of paid advertisements that published Fraport lawyer, Dietrich Stiller’s carefully worded denial letter to Villaraza, which was no categorical denial of either the taped Fraport conversations at the Shangri-La offices of Fraport, or a categorical denial of his not ever having stated that Villaraza had demanded $20-million, paid offshore to an entity in Hong Kong, for legal and political services to be rendered in the background.
3) Since the Tribune refused then to back down from their reports, and FRAPORT’s statements and letters at that time seemed to contradict the Tribune, it looked like a “slam dunk” for Villaraza when he went after Niñez-Cacho Olivarez by filing all these libel cases against her.
4) But on October 2003, everything the Tribune had been reporting 5 months ahead of other papers re FRAPORT’s ahem… “misgivings” with Villaraza were confirmed when the contents of the FRAPORT arbitration request was made public. Niñez was ahead of the curve in what FRAPORT’s intentions were. Her newspaper was reporting in advance what we would all later find out–FRAPORT was serious with it’s allegations, that the “letters of apology” were just a way to keep the influential wolves at bay until the complaint has been filed.
So is this libel?
Point of contention is existence of malice:
It is important to remember that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true; if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed. Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends. (underscoring mine)
So there, truth is no defense. I find this odd but so be it.
But the future of a nation’s gateway, its main airport— that is not a justifiable end? Saving our premier airport from the claws of undue personal interest would not pass for good motives?
Ahh, it must be shown! I see. So it must be Ninez’s perpetual insolent smirk that made her lose: Who is she to think she has in her any streak of patriotism or sense of duty with that look that could only mean malice! If anything, all else are incidental.
I have been saying, so-called principles only follow intentions: tell me what, then I’ll choose which principles are useful and which to ignore or downplay.
The Daily Tribune, owned and operated by its publisher and editor in chief Niñez Cacho-Olivarez, is probably the most controversial newspaper in the Philippines today – having been linked to various controversies with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration.
At the onset, Olivarez maintained that she wanted The Daily Tribune to be “exactly the opposite; not interpretative, unbiased, exciting and fresh, and contemporary in its presentations.” She always wanted a “serious newspaper that would be read by both the young and the old”, and she wanted a paper that would be known for its “free, but responsible journalism.”
In spite of its aspiration for truth and democracy, The Daily Tribune’ s newspaper offices on T.M. Kalaw, Manila, as well as its printing press, were deliberately searched and raided by “armed and uniformed” policemen at 12:45 a.m. on February 25, 2006 without showing valid notices or warrants to those who were in the Tribune premises at that time. It came at the dawn of Pres. Arroyo’s declaration of a state of national emergency (SOE) following a series of protests waged by various militant groups and other sectors against the “corrupt governance” of Mrs. Arroyo’s administration.
Copies of the newspaper dated February 26 were confiscated without prior indication of purpose and reason. Authorities had the area secured by padlocking it and detaining at least three policemen to guard the said establishment so that “nothing would get lost”. The said “security measures” lasted for weeks until the SOE in the country was lifted on March 04, 2006.
The Senate and several media organizations, noting the “disreputable” suppression of communication, and the media as a whole, largely condemned the said action. Such a “desperate move” initiated by authorities through the discreet orders made by PGMA was a clear display of disrespect and disregard to the Constitution, particularly to the protection it provides for press freedom and freedom of expression. The order was a bold defiance of the provision cited on Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states that:
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances”.
Since that incident, the government began consuming a keen eye against The Daily Tribune, especially against its chief editor Cacho-Olivarez.
The Daily Tribune may be politically opposing the present administration, but does it deserve the libel charges it now faces? Was it the government’s way of suppressing the free practice of journalism in the country?
REFLECTION
This particular case pitting The Daily Tribune’s editor-in-chief and publisher Niñez Cacho-Olivares against a top law firm in the country today highlights the excessive weight being put by the Philippine Courts on libel cases; more importantly to those that are pressed against journalists and media people and entities alike. This has been a “hot item” for several months in the past, and has “resurfaced” in time to resolve the issue and put an end to numerous speculations regarding the Tribune’s and Olivares’ plight.
Prior to the main scenario at tow in this study, the Daily Tribune also frequented the front pages of other newspapers, as well as news programs on televisions, radio, and Internet, in 2006 when its offices at T.M. Kalaw in Manila were deliberately searched and raided by “armed and uniformed” policemen following President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s declaration of a “state of national emergency” (as embodied by Proclamation No. 1017 dated February 24, 2006, curiously while the nation is commemorating the 20th anniversary of the EDSA People Power I).
In resolution, the Supreme Court rendered the said action, also based on the consequences other related incidents events that took place, invalid and unconstitutional, thus making no sense of the government’s decision to go after individuals and groups of individuals they labeled as “enemies of the state”. Instead, President Arroyo’s governance was left hanging in a balance after local and international media organizations and human rights advocates alike condemned her administration’s relentless attempts to suppress press freedom and the people’s exercise of free speech and expression.
Since then, The Daily Tribune has been the government’s “apple of the eye” as it (Tribune) boldly continued to defy the limits of neutrality and became the Arroyo administration’s staunchest critic. This, as politicians and other renowned political analysts would claim, was primarily because the Tribune was identified as a supporter of former-president Joseph Estrada’s administration.
As noted in the initial parts of this study, Olivares was sentenced to a six month-to-two year jail term and was ordered to pay a hefty P5-million for damages made against The Firm and its members. However, she was permitted to post bail while still fulfilling legal remedies to sustain a favorable action in her favor.
In the case’s more recent developments, Judge Winlove Dumayas of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the latter’s motion for reconsideration last September 02. “The Court is convinced the imprisonment of accused Olivares is the correct penalty,” Dumayas said, thus affirming the libel verdict for the editor’s write-up published on June 28, 2003 focusing on the alleged corrupt practices of the Carpio, Villaraza, Cruz (CVC) Law, also known as “The Firm”. A Philippine Daily Inquirer news story published last September 04, 2008 entitled, “Editor’s libel conviction affirmed”, cites Dumayas’ basis on asserting the Court’s ruling on Olivares. As Dumayas was quoted saying in the said article:
“The relentlessness of her attacks against the private complainants shows the deep malice animating the accused…her reckless disregarded for the truth and utter failure to lift a finger to check her facts smacks of an attitude of irresponsible publication that is abhorred by even the most lenient pronouncements of our Courts.”
Olivares’ camp, defending their stand against what could be another setback they have to face and deal with anew, expressed disappointment on the Court’s verdict. “We cannot expect to be called a democracy and at the same time send our crusading journalists to jail for daring to write about matters of public interest,” uttered Alexis Medina, Olivares’ lawyer. They claimed that the trial court committed numerous errors of fact and law in deciding over the matter, more importantly that the Court “failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that malice had been intended in writing the story” – malice being the most significant element that constitutes a valid commission of libel.
The Firm, on the other hand, expressed satisfaction over the Court’s decision.
“We reiterate our commitment to press freedom and we remain steadfast in our desire to defend and protect its legitimate exercise. We likewise continue to be vigilant against its abuse,” said the CVC Law in a statement.
Personal Insight on Libel by Aubrey Diligencia (October 09, 2008)
Libel is one of the most known cases for the journalists; thus in a life of a journalist, sometimes libel could also be a sign that you’re a full pledge journalist, because you hold the key to the truth but in some cases of libel truth is not a reason to commit such crime. Generally, libel is any publication that injures the reputation of a certain person.
Under our 353 of the revised penal code of our country, Libel can be defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Libel is a defamation committed by means of writing, printing, engraving, radio, photograph, painting or theatrical or any similar means. This crime is usually made through publishing, such oral defamation is another crime which is slander.
Who may be sued?
Not only journalists or reporters, it could also be filed against ordinary person, as long as there’s a damage done whether its true or not as long as his/her intention is not good and have no justifiable ends.
Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) defamatory imputation which tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt, It is the attack on the reputation of a person, a false publication calculated to bring in disrepute (b) publication of the imputation, through publication, the said attack is done through publicizing such information (c) identity of the person defamed, before a libel case must be done, there must be a clear basis that the victim is the subject of such offense. And thus in some cases the subject of the offense or the offended person/party is more relevant or significant than the offender and his/her intention (d) and the last one is the most relevant the “malice”. Malice is a wrongful act done intentionally or with evil intent, without just cause or excuse. Thus, Malice is the very heart of Libel. There is two type of malice. The first one is the malice law and the second one is malice in fact. Malice in law is co-related from a defamatory imputation. Under Malice in law, there’s an exception in Article 354, the first one is Private Communication, the second one is fair and true report which will lead to Privileged Communication which is Absolute and Qualified or Conditional. Absolute communication were enjoyed by the Legislative branch of our Government, this communication is under the congress and Senators, if not then it will fall to Qualified or Conditional Privileged communication which is done by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, social duty. Malice in Law could also be an escape, once the judge didn’t see any probable cause or if such act is proven to be fair and truth, then such Libel will not be anything, it will only end to a bitter goodbye.
Malice in fact is deeper than the first malice, it will cover all the reasons and possibilities if such act will proceed to Libel, it will investigate further all the things that push the offender to do such thing especially if it is a fruit of grudge, hatred or spite. Proof of malice is needed.
In the case of our former President Corazon Aquino versus Louis Beltran, Libel is apparent in Beltran’s statements against former President Aquino, to say that our President Aquino hide under her bed during Malacañang search, its ironic works damages the reputation of the President such as the reputation of all Filipino citizens because of the fact that a President represents the whole country. It is good to examine this case but then because the offender died, the case was closed.
Journalists must be extra careful in every thing that they say and write. From every words uttered there’s equivalent rewards or punishment, it could be for good or bad. As often said above, truth is not an excuse to uttered malicious words. They say that truth can set you free but for some instances in can set you to jail if you’ll abuse such fact. There should always be a good intention, it’s like a sacrifice, when you sacrifice, and you’re expecting something good.
But then with regard to the Job of the Journalists, Libel should not be a hindrance in attaining their goal, its hard but then only those who have guts have the power to go on with their job. Journalists are like the fourth branch of our government for they are the ones who are watching if the three official branches are doing their job clean and well, their work is not for themselves for the good of the people. Their actions and words are strong enough to cause revolution for the people believe in them. It’s sad because sometimes their good motives and intentions cost their lives.
http://www.cmfr-phil.org/_pjrreports/2008/march/0308_story02.html
