By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
The recent decision of the Court finding Maria Ressa of Rappler guilty of the cybercrime of libel has created another storm on the issue of press freedom. This decision that legal luminaries even in the United States consider a threat to freedom of expression because of its “chilling effect” on the journalists, adds fuel to the fears that have also risen due to the Anti-Terrorism Bill. It appears like a pattern of repression and this evokes deep concern.
There had been calls for the decriminalization of the penalty due to libel. A guilty party will not escape punishment but instead of going to jail from six months to six years, the guilty will just pay a fine. That would be deterrent enough.
Thus, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines President Domingo Egon Cayosa raised the issue of the imposition of jail time on Ressa and her co-accused, former writer-researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. The judge sentenced them to suffer the “indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day minimum to six years of prision correccional as maximum. The court however allowed them post-conviction bail pending appeal.
Cayosa raised a question on the application of Supreme Court Circular 08-2008 with respect to the penalties imposed which pertains to the guidelines of a rule of preference in the imposition of penalties in libel cases.
The IBP President said that in the circular, then-Chief Justice Reynato Puno said judges may, “in exercise of sound discretion,” determine whether an imposition of fine “would serve the interest of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment.”
As Puno put it, the circular only asked judges to “take note” of the preference on imposition of imprisonment. This means imprisonment is not mandatory.
In September 2008, the SC Second Division ruled on a libel case against Erwin Tulfo and other media personnel of Manila-based daily Remate. In a separate Facebook post, FEU Law Dean Mel Sta Maria cited this ruling penned by then-Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr: “Freedom of expression as well as freedom of the press may not be unrestrained, but neither must it be reined in too harshly. In light of this, considering the necessity of a free press balanced with the necessity of a responsible press, the penalty of a fine… with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, should suffice. Lastly, the responsibilities of the members of the press notwithstanding, the difficulties and hazards they encounter in their line of work must also be taken into consideration.”
Indeed, every journalist face the risk of being dragged to court, even with trump up charges, just for the aggrieved party to get even regardless of the intention of the writer or public interest of the report.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr., a former journalist, proposed to Senate President Vicente Sotto III in a tweet, “Let’s decriminalize libel, Senate President Sotto. The money damages alone are far, far, far, far more painful,” in reaction to imposition of jail time.
But Sotto turned down the suggestion pointing out that “bearing false witness” is included in the 10 Commandments of God.
Sotto added, “I wish it were that easy. Grandpa was the author of the 1946 Press Freedom Law. Unfortunately, lying (libel) is found in the Ten Commandments.”
It was convenient for Sotto to cite the Ten Commandments, but the Commandments did not prescribe the punishment for violations. So, we have the command, “Keep holy the Lord’s Day” and Congress repealed the Blue Sunday law so that Sunday is practically a working day.
The Lord commanded, “Thou shall not steal” but did not say what the punishment is for the crooks in government and in business. Or perhaps the senator should also consider those who make false statements in Congress – why is there parliamentary privilege despite falsehoods in those speeches?
Indeed, the senator should be proud of his grandfather who authored the Press Freedom law but is not criminalization of libel a deterrent to press freedom? If I recalled right, the Cebuano fighting journalist told the court he was willing to go to jail, but the court cannot shut his mouth. He did not go to jail but sentenced with a fine, the kind of punishment that several lawyers and Secretary Locsin proposed.
To repeat, the Ten Commandments did not prescribe imprisonment, but we know that Divine justice will make a reckoning later.
