Tuesday, June 10, 2008 Cabaero: Another justification to decriminalize libel By Nini B. Cabaero Beyond 30
IT WASN’T long ago when the Supreme Court issued guidelines suggesting that judges impose fines instead of imprisonment on journalists convicted of libel.
The administrative memo containing the guidelines, issued by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, was received with much appreciation by the media sector. As it turned out, the sense of gratefulness was premature and the fight to decriminalize libel continues.
A Makati City court last week found Daily Tribune publisher Ninez Cacho Olivarez guilty of libel and sentenced her to six months to two years imprisonment and to pay P5 million as moral damages.
What was shocking was not so much the guilty verdict as the penalty of imprisonment and a multimillion-peso fine. An unfavorable decision is a risk a journalist faces whenever a charge of libel is filed. But the penalty of six months to two years of imprisonment, plus P5 million for moral damages, may be too much.
Olivarez was found guilty for writing in her column accusations against a law firm, the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo and Angcanco Law Firm, who she said was influence peddling for a bid for the construction of the Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. The law firm denied the allegations and claimed the column damaged its reputation.
It was last Jan. 25 when Chief Justice Puno issued Administrative Circular 08-2008 that sets guidelines “in the observance of a rule of preference in the imposition of penalties in libel cases.”
It said imprisonment can remain as an alternative penalty for the crime of libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
The judge may, in the exercise of sound discretion, however, determine if a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice.
Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Winlove Dumayas apparently saw no need to abide by the administrative order or could have exercised “sound discretion” and decided on such penalties for Olivarez.
What Olivarez wrote may have hurt certain personalities but the issue was about a government undertaking or the use of public funds for the airport’s Terminal 3 project.
The Dumayas decision was not a best example of the implementation of the administrative memo of the Supreme Court.
The memo’s suggestion for the “emergent rule of preference for the imposition of fine only rather than imprisonment in libel cases” was nowhere seen in the Olivarez case.
The case was instead the best justification for media groups to renew calls to decriminalize libel and, at the same time, to professionalize the industry.
Even the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said the jail term imposed on Olivarez “goes against the grain of the Supreme Court’s earlier suggestion for judges to prefer fines over prison terms for libel.” It added that the country’s laws have to be updated and the provision for imprisonment removed.
Subjects of media reports who feel that their reputations were besmirched by the published material can still take action against erring journalists and seek redress of grievances. The removal of the jail term would allow media to do their work without fear of losing certain liberties.
