Cebu Citizens Press Council

Decriminalizing Libel

ARGUMENTS FOR PROVISIONS IN SENATE AND HOUSE BILLS THAT THE CEBU PRESS SUPPORTS

(Adopted by newspaper and broadcast editors and representatives of the Cebu Media Legal Aid at a meeting held last March 12, 2008 at Cebu City Marriott Hotel)

[1] Removing jail term as penalty
No journalist wants to end up in jail for what he writes or says. Five bills in the Senate and one in the House all seek to abolish imprisonment as penalty for libel. We agree with the legislators that removing the threat of jail term will enhance freedom of the press.

[2] Keeping libel as a crime

We are for retaining libel as a crime, not fully abolishing it, as Sen. Francis Escudero proposes. Freedom comes with responsibility and being made to account for excess or abuse helps to sharpen the journalist’s sense of responsibility.

Libel as a crime requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which serves as safeguard for the journalist.

We also want complainants of excess or abuse of the press to have means of redress in the courts instead of using violence or intimidation.

[3] Raising the penalty of fine but within range not oppressive to community journalists

The fine under existing law of P200 to P6,000 is too low these days, but the P100,000-P300,000 as proposed by Sen. Loren Legarda is excessively high, considering the weak financial capability of community journalists.

Between the P20,000-P50,000 range proposed by Rep. Prospero Nograles and Senator Legarda’s proposed P100,000-P300,000, perhaps a range more realistic (to the journalist paying) can be adopted.

[4] Limiting liability for libel to news reporter, opinion maker, or author of the alleged libel. Editor, publisher, news director, or station manager shall be liable only if he reviewed the alleged offensive material before printing or airing.

All too often, a person in the paper or broadcast station is dragged to a libel case in which he cannot be found guilty under the law. Libel requires malice, which in turn requires at least knowledge of the “offensive” material.

[5] Limiting venue, in case of community journalists, to the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the respondent holds office or conducts business

Existing law is used to harass community journalists. A public official who resides in Cebu but holds office in Manila can file his complaint in Manila. A private person who worked in Cebu and the alleged libel is about his work in Cebu can file his complaint in Parañaque where he resides.

Community journalists are oppressed not just by the hassle of answering the complaint but paying for its much higher cost when the venue is far from the place of work or business. Community journalists can be found guilty by default, for not having resources to answer complaints far from the newspaper’s or broadcast station’s home.

[6] Cutting prescriptive period of libel from one year to six months from publication

The Cebu press appreciates the cut-off time. A person aggrieved by an “offensive” material doesn’t even have to wait for a month to decide whether to sue. Still, the Cebu press is comfortable with the six-month period.