“The test of democracy is freedom of criticism.” — David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel
“If you don’t have this freedom of the press, then all these little fellows are weaseling around and doing their monkey business and they never get caught.” — Harold R. Medina, US lawyer, teacher, and judge
“A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad.” — Albert Camus
Unlike most other countries where libel is a civil case and the worst that can happen to someone is that he or she is made to pay damages, the Philippines counts libel as a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment and fine. Anyone with a libel case filed against him has a real future in prison, as was the case with Davao City broadcaster Alexis Adonis who spent two years at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm (more commonly called by its old name Davao Penal Colony or Dapecol) because of a suit filed by House Speaker Prospero Nograles.
I used to think that no journalist ever actually gets imprisoned for libel, but Adonis’ case has proven me wrong. Adonis was eventually released, but his case has already sent chills running down the collective spine of the media. And that, I think, is just the point: those who support criminal libel — that is, members of Congress who up to now refuse to act on proposals to decriminalize it — want to maintain it as a proverbial sword of Damocles they can hang over journalists’ heads. Fear of imprisonment can be a strong deterrent against speaking one’s mind.
And even if prison is not on the mind of an accused journalist, just having a libel case can be enough to sidetrack him from his job. As retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban said, “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.”
We of course welcome developments such as Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s circular issued last January urging judges to impose fines instead of prison terms as a penalty for libel. But that is not a permanent solution; what will happen if Puno is no longer chief justice, which will happen on May 17 when he retires? The answer lies in Congress, which really must pass the bills decriminalizing libel. There’s a fat chance of this ever happening, however: why would politicians remove a law that gives them an easy way to muzzle the people who dare criticize them?
I asked councilor Peter Laviña yesterday about this, and he said Congress can certainly be criticized for sitting on several proposals to decriminalize libel. But as a veteran of three consecutive elections, he also had wise words for candidates and journalists during this political season: “The best way is for bets to present to the people their programs and avoid mudslinging and character assassination, and for media to avoid the pit of political lies and propaganda.”
Fellow three-term councilor Angela Librado-Trinidad, for her part, said since public office is a public trust, the holders of public office “must be open to public criticism and scrutiny.” “In the words of the Supreme court, public officials must not be onion-skinned. It’s an entirely different thing if the comment is directed against a private act. This should be the standard in libel cases involving public officials,” she said. |
