Journalists take a public figure to court: FIGHTING BACK
Journalists take a public figure to court
FIGHTING BACK
By Jose Bimbo F. Santos
“In the history of the world, those who have won have always been those who have challenged the unchallengeable.”
— Oriana Fallaci
Filipino journalists and their sympathizers made history on Dec. 28 when they filed a class action suit against Jose Miguel Arroyo.
On that bright Thursday morning, journalists from various news organizations and members of press freedom groups waited for one another in front of the building of the Makati Regional Trial Court before proceeding en masse to Branch 143, the court that was to receive the class action suit.
If the scene was puzzling to passersby, it was almost surreal to the journalists themselves. Becoming the news rather than reporting about it was awkward enough; finding themselves on the same side even more so.
The reason had to be big enough, and it was: freedom of the press.
It was press freedom that they invoked in taking to court presidential spouse Arroyo who has filed 10 libel cases against a total of 45 journalists since 2003. The libel charges are also asking for damages amounting to P141 million.
In suing Arroyo, the plaintiffs in the class action suit said that he had abused his right and violated press freedom. Their action was based on Articles 19, 20, 21, and 32 of the Civil Code. (See sidebar.)
Initially planning to claim P87 million in damages to symbolically represent every Filipino whose freedom of expression was endangered by Arroyo’s actions, the plaintiffs—encumbered by lack of funds—decided to cut down the amount to P12.5 million. A filing fee of P150,000 (raised by the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility or CMFR and the Southeast Asian Press Alliance or SEAPA) was then submitted to the court. From the outset, it was agreed by the journalists that if the case is won, the amount would be used as a trust fund for press freedom.
Messages
Because the class action suit was the first case of its kind, Arroyo’s legal counsel, Ruy Rondain, called it a “garbage case.” But the journalists were undeterred.
“I do things not because I’m going to win. I do things because I believe that is the right thing to do. If we win, that’s a bonus. What is important is we do what should be done which is not to allow Mike Arroyo to erode the environment for press freedom,” Malaya columnist Ellen Tordesillas wrote in her blog. Arroyo sued Tordesillas for libel, along with seven reporters and editors of that newspaper.
“It’s hard to say whether the case will prosper or not. But if they are trying to send a message (with their multiple libel suits), we are also sending a message to them that we will not be chilled,” Newsbreak editor-in-chief Marites Vitug said.
A statement released by Newsbreak on the class suit also said, “It’s a symbolic amount (P12.5 million). But the value of what we stand for, fair reporting and press freedom, is far beyond this figure. We want to make the point that such behavior or conduct has a price. We want to discourage others from behaving the same way the First Gentleman does.”
Not funny
International media groups and press freedom advocates are not laughing either.
In November 2006, several journalist groups under SEAPA signed a statement of support for the initiative taken by their Filipino colleagues “in the face of blatant abuse and harassment from the husband of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.”
The New York-based press freedom advocate, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), likewise expressed support.
“In a country where impunity for the killers of journalists is a brutal reality and those in power show scant capability of bringing it under control, it is heartening to see journalists in the Philippines take a stand on common ground to confront those who would seek to silence them,” CPJ said in a statement.
Commenting on the flippant reaction of the Arroyo camp to the class suit, Jose Pavia, executive director of the Philippine Press Institute, said, “For them, it may be a laughing matter, but for us this is something very serious. Freedom of the press is serious because it belongs to the people. This is not only about our job or our profession.”
By intimidating the media through his barrage of libel suits, Arroyo is also depriving the people their right to know, said other journalists.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that a person shall “receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Vergel Santos, CMFR board member, says, “It’s more than just denying it (freedom of expression) to us (the media); they (the administration) are also denying it to the people. Malaking laban ito. But most have no idea of the larger picture.”
Two sides of the same coin
No stranger to criticisms regarding human rights violations, the Arroyo administration has succeeded in putting the Philippines on the global map as among the worst violators of press freedom.
In the 2006 World Press Freedom Index released by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the Philippines ranked 142nd among 168 countries in terms of observance of press freedom. The ranking is three places down from the country’s standing in 2005.
According to the RSF report, increased legal harassment by the government and continuing media killings have contributed to the country’s further decline in ranking.
For Santos, the arbitrary filing of libel cases against Manila-based journalists and the killing of those in the provinces are related.
“Kabit-kabit ito lahat pati ’yung pagpatay sa mga peryodista. It’s the same pattern of abuse. They have bred a situation where it is easy for journalists to get killed,” he said.
Conrado de Quiros, Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist, had the same view.
“By themselves, those suits already constitute a threat (to press freedom). But taken in conjunction with the unrelenting decimation of journalists in the provinces, they are an effort to scuttle that freedom entirely. They are two sides of the same coin: the killing of critics outside Metro Manila and the muzzling of critics inside it,” he said.
Although Arroyo’s libel suits have so far been directed against Manila-based publications, journalists in the provinces have become wary as well.
Jon Joaquin, managing editor of The Mindanao Daily Mirror, said Arroyo’s libel cases could encourage local power wielders to resort to the same tactics to harass community journalists.
“That’s why it is important to take a stand,” he added.
‘Bullying’
Arroyo’s spokesman and lawyer, Jesus Santos, however denied that his client was intimidating journalists. Instead, he accused journalists of harassing Arroyo.
“Don’t bully the First Gentleman,” he was quoted in a report that appeared in the Manila Standard Today last Dec. 30.
According to the lawyer, “It is the First Gentleman who has been harassed by irresponsible and malicious media people” and “that what the First Gentleman is seeking is fair and responsible reporting.”
“The article was very transparent; we said these were leads and that we pursued them and stated our findings. Our cover story on the Arroyos’ undeclared properties in San Francisco provides proper context to this follow-up article,” the Newsbreak statement said.
For that story which appeared in the magazine’s Dec. 8, 2003 issue, six Newsbreak editors were sued by the President’s spouse.
Advocacy and objectivity
The road to filing the class action suit was not easy. Journalists themselves questio-ned the propriety of suing a public figure and thought about the effect it might have on their jobs.
The Inquirer, for example, has decided against joining the class suit as a news organization, saying that to do so might compromise its objectivity. It has not, however, stopped its staff members from getting involved in the class action.
“We want to remain objective in our news reporting. If we join the class suit and report about the First Gentleman, it may be seen as malicious,” Inquirer publisher Isagani Yambot said.
He added that “the suit would pit the Inquirer directly against the First Gentleman.”
Yambot also remained cautious about joining the suit in an individual capacity.
“I still have to study the case because if I join as publisher, that may be taken as representing the Inquirer,” Yambot said.
Alcuin Papa, an Inquirer reporter, however joined the suit. He said he does not see any possible conflict that may arise from this.
He said the standards of objectivity and neutrality which his newspaper stands for “will still apply in my work” even though he is a plaintiff in the class action suit.
Something wrong?
Objectivity and neutrality are also what the complainants in the suit hope to see in future court proceedings even as this early, Santos already sees “something wrong.”
“If these cases are filed at the same time by no less than the President’s conjugal partner, and all are given automatic due course while other cases like the Garci (wiretapping incident) are dismissed despite strong evidence, then there must be something wrong,” Santos said.
The chilling effect of Arroyo’s libel suits has been one of the principal complaints of the plaintiffs. According to Harry Roque, the lawyer handling the case for the journalists, the libel suits “show very clearly that it is not (Arroyo’s) intent to protect his honor but rather…to chill the media in their exercise of the freedom of the press.”
Roque based this conclusion on the following:
• The articles Arroyo claim as libelous all constitute fair comment on matters on public interest, namely the life of a public figure, and are therefore exercises of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press;
• Arroyo is a lawyer who is expected to be knowledgeable on the state of Philippine jurisprudence, particularly the doctrines of fair comment and privileged communication; and
• Arroyo, being a public figure, should have been tolerant of criticisms as the Supreme Court has advised public figures in the US vs. Bustos et. al., Phil 731 case.
Rise or fall
Libel cases filed against journalists have so far had a low batting average as far as winning them in the courts is concerned. But with the inconvenience and, recently, the danger of having such cases hanging over the heads of members of the press, it has become increasingly clear that they can have a chilling effect on journalists’ work.
In an interview over ANC, Roque said that although there is a good chance that the cases will be resolved in favor of the journalists, “It will take somewhere between five and seven years before they are finally dismissed and meanwhile, the poor journalist is subjected to arrest in full view of her colleagues, has to incur expenses in hiring a lawyer as well as suffer damages in terms of loss of time. And, of course, the unquantifiable damage is the perception that one should not criticize the First Gentleman even if there is valid ground for doing so.”
In that same interview, Luis V. Teodoro, UP journalism professor and CMFR deputy director , said, “The cases may not prosper in court but you could still be arrested when the suit is filed, and those are intimidation factors. Even if a journalist does win a libel suit, other journalists may say, it’s too much trouble, let’s just be very careful, let’s just be quiet next time.”
“What that amounts to is a dampening effect on the exercise of press freedom and this is harmful to a democracy, because what you need in a democracy is critical assessment, constant, vigilant appraisal of what’s going on in government, and fair criticism of those who are in power as well as those related to them,” Teodoro added.
As the class action suit gathers steam and seeks the support of more journalists, Santos said, “This is an issue that will make journalists rise or fall on their convictions.”
“It’s just too bad that some people forget that we’ve been through very difficult times in the past. The freedom that we have was paid for with a lot of (sacrifices from) courageous people, (some of) whom died for press freedom,” Yvonne Chua, a UP journalism professor, added. – With a report from Venus L. Elumbre
Comments are closed.