President Gloria Arroyo with Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor and Secretary Nasser PangandamanA Bad Case to Test Internet Libel or how not to fight a blogger
By: Rain B
This is supposedly a test-case against bloggers. The Philippine Star reports: “Paca-Ambung Macabando, provincial prosecutor of Lanao del Sur, issued his nine-page resolution dated March 12 elevating the libel charges against (Blogger Bambee) De la Paz before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) after she failed to submit her counter-affidavit before the deadline two days earlier. Macabando said a careful analysis of De la Paz’s blog titled “The World had Gone Crazy” reveals that there was an intention to “impute a discreditable act or condition.”
“It was a genuine plea of De la Paz to all persons that may have been reading her blog to support her in portraying Mayor (Nasser) Pangandaman and Secretary Pangandaman as cruel, incompetent government officials, without delicadeza and cannot lead to peace,” said Macabando. (italics mine)
I don’t know what “careful analysis” the provincial prosecutor did, but if he is looking for a test case for e-libel, this case should not be it.
Victorina legal adviser and managing editor can help me out with this, but as far as I know, that law states that in every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.
What could be better motives than seeking redress and/or making public officials be subjected to the highest standards of decent behaviors?
The daughter just saw her father and her brother engage in a violent brawl. It is not clear now who actually instigated it, but the truth is that two politicians were involved. Bambee told her story, asked for prayers and begged for justice. The two politicians were public figures – one at present is an elected official, the other a Cabinet Secretary.
They are public figures, as such their behaviors should be subjected to scrutiny, how much more their involvement in a bloody fight, in the grounds of a posh golf club, during the holidays!
Bambee de la Paz used the best tool to put across her message for free– the blogworld. Nobody is stopping the two politicians to reply to her version of the story in the same platform. On one hand, I am bound to agree that the Pangandamans were tried in the court of public (online) opinion and were judged as guilty even without hearing their version of the story.
I was hoping that they, the Pangandamans, would have bombarded the internet with their own version and allow the internet community to make up its mind. Delfin Montano appeared in national television to refute Brian Gorrell. He gave us an opportunity to think twice about the case and to make up our minds.
Filing a case of libel would only result to at least any of these things:
a. It will aggravate the public sentiment that the Pangandamans are bullies, and this time they are using the courts to overpower a young lady blogger.
b. It will cement the case that the older Pangandaman cannot be an effective peace advocate as he can’t even negotiate peace with a single family, and would resort to the aid of the law to prove his point.
c. It will open a new round of anti-Pangandaman sentiment among bloggers. They might be able to threaten the Philippine-based ones, but the global bloggers can take that case to a wider arena.
d. Has the PROVINCIAL prosecutor ever thought of the principle of domain.
All of these risks for what?
Just to test a case of internet libel?
Good luck if he will win.
But this is certain – the Pangandamans will lose once more in the court of public opinion.
The submission of the case and the issuance of a resolution a mere TWO DAYS after Ms. de la Paz failed to submit her counter-affidavit is, by any standards, WRONG! If anyone noticed, Ms. de la Paz is Manila-based. The case was filed in Lanao del Sur. Normally, the prosecutors will give a respondent at least another opportunity to answer the charges, especially in a case as serious as this, which involves a prison term. There are loads of questions to answer now.
First, did Ms. de la Paz even receive a notice? It is, after all, some distance from Lanao del Sur to Manila. Was Ms. de la Paz given adequate opportunity to answer?
Clearly not, because the Resolution was completely done within TWO days from the last hearing. Quite a hard-working prosecutor we have here. Most prosecutors take full advantage of the ninety day period they have to resolve a case. This prosecutor doesnt seem to have any other cases.
Am I saying the prosecutor is on the take? No.
But certainly the entire proceedings seem out of the ordinary and seems to take undue advantage of the distance of Ms. de la Paz' residence to the venue of the proceedings.
Fast break, anyone?
Big mistake. Again!
Posts
