Urgent Press Advisory
From: Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR)
Subject: Hearing on the class action suit filed by members of the Philippine press
Date: 25 October 3007 (8:30 a.m.)
Place: Makati Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, 13th floor
—
Following is a CMFR report on the recent developments in the case.
Court temporarily stops class suit against president’s husband
The class action suit filed by 40 journalists and three media organizations against presidential spouse Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo for his alleged abuse of right and violation of press freedom, had not even reached the pre-trial stage a year after it was filed. Both sides had been locked in an argument over legal technicalities.
But in a decision dated 24 September 2007, the Court of Appeals (CA) granted Mr. Arroyo’s petition asking for a preliminary injunction on the hearing of the affirmative defenses, thus putting the case on hold.
The class action suit was filed against Mr. Arroyo on 28 December 2006 in response to the numerous libel suits â 11 against 46 journalists â he had been filing against media practitioners since 2003. Libel is a criminal offense in the Philippines.
“(P)etitioner’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction is granted.⊠enjoining respondents, their agents and anybody acting in their behalf from continuing with the preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses based on the amended complaint,” the decision, signed by CA Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta stated.
The decision also said it would be injurious to Mr. Arroyo if the hearing on the affirmative defense will be continued.
“Based on the pleadings submitted, the possibility of irreparable injury to petitioner (Mr. Arroyo) has been shown, at least tentatively or provisionally, to justify the restraint on the subject hearing on the affirmative defenses based on the amended complaint. Said preliminary hearing or its continuance will unduly expose petitioner to the rigors of trial in the case below even before the jurisdictional issues raised in the present petition are resolved,” the decision stated.
Harry Roque, the lawyer of the journalists in the case, however expressed befuddlement over the decision since it was actually Mr. Arroyo who requested presiding judge Zenaida Laguilles of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) for a hearing on the affirmative defenses.
On 6 February 2007, Roque filed an opposition to the RTC to Mr. Arroyo’s motion to set the case for preliminary hearing on affirmative defenses. Mr. Arroyo’s two points in his affirmative defense state that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiffs did not pay the correct amount of docket fees, and that the plaintiffs have no cause of action because not all of the complainants were libeled by Mr. Arroyo.
Ruy Rondain, Mr. Arroyo’s lawyer, argued that the plaintiffs were not able to post the docket fee of P9 million each. The complainants are asking for P12.5 ($276, 600) in damages, but Rondain noted that the word “each” is written in the final complaint, indicating that each complainant, 36 individual journalists and three media organizations, sought to be given P12.5 each, with total charges amounting to P487.5 million ($10.78 million). There were 36 individual journalists in the complaint filed on 28 December 2006, but four more joined the suit, which was then added in the complaint’s amended version. The media organizations include the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), which has been calling for the decriminalization of libel since 1990
Roque had filed a motion to amend the complaint on 6 February 2007 asking the word “each” to be replaced instead with “aggregate” so as “to make the words of the Complaint conform squarely with the intention of the Plaintiffs to claim damages for the Philippine press as a unified institution.”
Rondain, however, in his reply filed on 2 March 2007, stated that it is “difficult to believe that plaintiffs, all seasoned journalists who claimed they read the complaint before verifying it, would also miss that suppose ‘typo'” Rondain also stated that “the bottom line is that plaintiffs intended to mislead to save on docket fees.”
Laguilles, however, on an order dated 16 March 2007, granted Roque’s motion to amend the complaint and Rondain’s motion to set the case for hearing on the affirmative defenses.
Roque said he is considering whether to just comply with the CA decision, or file a motion for clarification.
The class suit is the first of its kind in the Philippines and hopes to prevent other government officials from harassing journalists and eroding press freedom through the whimsical use of the Philippine libel law.
The Defacing of The Press Freedom Mural in NPC
âThe Law Concerning Art Preservation and Artistsâ Rightsâ in America states that no person, with the exception of the artist, has a right to deface or alter a work of fine art.
âDroit morale,â a legal concept meaning âmoral rightsâ is the cornerstone of the law. In this case, âdroit moraleâ is the concept that art work is more than a commercial product.
An artistâs reputation and career is dependent upon the works of art he or she creates. Each work of art has the artistâs signature on it, literally and figuratively.
The droit morale essentially says the owner of a work of art does not have the right to alter, deface or destroy the work of art.
The work of art is something that belongs to society as a whole.