Sunday, December 7, 2008

Victorina Will Continue To Fight

by: Atty.Trixie Angeles


The Constitution says that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, and of the press. This provision assures us that free speech is the rule, and it is protected. Government is therefore prevented from prescribing laws such as censorship that prohibit expression prior to publication or punishment after publication. But not all speech is protected.

Libel, sedition and obscenity are some of the known exceptions. Libel is defined under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonour or contempt of a natural or juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead,

The elements of libel are:

a. imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another
b. publication of the imputation
c. identity of the person defamed and
d. existence of malice

For conviction, all elements must be present and proven. Standards are lower for public figures which include but are not limited to actors, "celebrities," and politicians. Defamatory statements or imputations are presumed to be malicious –even if true – if no good intention or justifiable motive for making it is shown.

A columnist inferring that a government official has dipped his hand into the public coffers may defend himself by showing that such a statement was made in accordance with the public interest of transparency. If, however, there is no justifiable reason to have made the malicious imputation, even if such an imputation is true, it shall be considered libellous. In such a case, truth is not a defense. Quite recently, (January 2008) the Supreme Court recommended to the lower courts the imposition of fines and the payment of damages, rather than imprisonment of those convicted of libel. It also recommended to Congress the decriminalization of libel.

Congress, on the other hand, came up with the Right to Reply bill, requiring media to provide equal and commensurate space for the subjects of a news item or column, to present their sides. It has not passed plenary, though. In consonance with the Supreme Court recommendations, criminal libel should be a thing of the past. However, since there are instances where a person could be wrongfully maligned, its civil liability will remain. We must note that the internet appears to be the last bastion of absolute free speech. Yes, currently the local courts appear to be less inclined to explore its parameters. This is perhaps due to the difficulty of establishing jurisdictions, or maybe due to the lack of ‘cyber-knowledge’ among some of our magistrates. Yet for most of us, online blogging categorically makes for a far more interesting reading than traditional media.

The phenomenon of blogging has removed the censorship power from those seeking commercial political and religious advantages that makes mainstream media pander to their interests. It has allowed the democratization of free speech by taking away the filters of opinion that publishers have by virtue of ownership. The internet has allowed us to say things we cannot say or are afraid to say in print, television or even in movies.

Brian Gorrell, for instance, would not have found an audience for his story had he gone to the papers first, nor would Malu Fernandez have been given the internet version of an extreme reality check. These have the effects of providing an alternative to mainstream media and directly empowering the ordinary person. It is all well and good. Yet the law addresses the bad stuff –malicious imputations and the like -- because clearly, there is a need to do so. We acknowledge that democratic space is necessary and so is the need to protect individual rights, such as the right to be protected from libel.

Because of the empowering effect of the internet, a single person can destroy the reputation of one otherwise outstanding citizen. That person need not be telling the truth. But a blogger can continually blog untruths until, as Goebbels said, the lies are repeated often enough and become appreciated as the truth. Anyone who has been the object of unfair gossip knows what this feels like and for the most part, sometimes time doesn't heal.

Our discussion therefore must seek a balance between the right to free speech and the right to be protected from libel.

Do we do this by applying a less stringent form of the libel law to the internet or should we leave such balance to be achieved naturally by the force of public opinion?