Correction, please: Supreme Court did not "uphold" journalists

Relative to the trial of the damage suit against Mike Arroyo stemming from various libel suits he had filed against reporters in the past, two news outfits reported that the Supreme Court “upheld” the journalists (here and here). That’s really misleading.

As a backgrounder, since around 2003, Mike Arroyo has been the subject of countless news reports linking him to government scams. He reacted by filing libel suits against the journalists to wrote the stories. These journalists filed a case for damages (a civil suit, not a criminal case) against Arroyo alleging that the libel cases constituted “curtailment of press freedom.”

The Makati Regional Trial Court admitted the complaint — and that is SOP if the complaint, meaning the document, contains all requirements laid by law. The original complaint demanded P12.5 million for each of the complaints (a total of P487.5 million). Thereafter, the complaint was amended and the amount was reduced to a total of P12.5 million.

Arroyo sought the dismissal of the amended complaint claiming there was an attempt to avoid the payment of the correct docket fees. The Makati RTC disagreed, Arroyo went to the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA said the Makati RTC was correct and Arroyo went to the Supreme Court. The only question brought before the Supreme Court was whether the Makati RTC was in procedural error in admitting the amended complaint. The Supreme Court said go ahead with the trial. The Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the issue in the complaint for damages. In fact, the order is for trial to proceed. And until trial is over, no party nor their rights had been upheld by anyone.

It’s crazy for anyone to claim at this point that the Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the reporters. Trial on the merits has not even started. Of course, I understand that the word play is all propaganda and psy-war but what about the rights of the public who relies on fair news reporting? I wish that media outfits would be less misleading. The Supreme Court upheld a ruling of the Court of Appeals, not the substance of the allegations of the journalists. There is a huge difference.

Now then, if that is clear, let’s go into substance of the complaint for damages, the docket fees and why Arroyo was raising the amount of docket fees as the basis for the dismissal of the complaint.

All the issues are rooted in the freedom of the press.

From Article III of the 1987 Constitution:

SEC. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances.

From the Civil Code of the Philippines:

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;

(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication; x x x

Do those two legal provisions mean that the press is untouchable? Some members of the media like to think so. They want total freedom to say and write whatever they want and they don’t want to be held responsible for what they say or write by claiming that the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press and the Civil Code provides them with a legal recourse against any person who attempts to curtail that freedom.

But is there such a thing as an absolute right? What the Constitution guarantees is that a law that impairs freedom of speech, of expression and of the press will NEVER BE PASSED. The Constitution does NOT guarantee that a person claiming freedom of speech, expression or of the press will have better rights over any person who feels that his rights have been violated (i.e., his reputation smeared) by words uttered or written in the guise of any of those freedoms. That is precisely why there is a law on libel, defined in the Revised Penal Code as follows:

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Written defamation is libel; oral defamation is slander. Both are criminal offenses. It’s all part of a system of checks and balances to avoid abuse. And libel does not pertain to the press exclusively. Anyone can commit libel — didn’t Katrina Halili file a libel case against Hayden Kho’s mother?

Many media people want libel decriminalized. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they want media to be untouchable — it just means it’s okay to be the subject of a civil case (and pay damages) for things they say and write in the course of their work (which may turn out to be inaccurate) but it’s not okay to be imprisoned or subjected to the payment of a fine and to be labeled a CONVICTED FELON.

Insofar as freedom of the press vis a vis libel is concerned, there is merit in that position but only if we have a fair media — something which, to me, is questionable. Just consider the last elections and think about how the monster broadcast media outfits took sides with their news reporting despite allegations of unfair trending and biased opinion shaping.

Now, the docket fees. When anyone files a case for damages (most civil cases, actually), the amount of docket fee is computed based on the amount of the claim — a percentage, to be more precise. It’s a guard against the filing of malicious lawsuits, the theory being unless you’re dead serious about your complaint, you wouldn’t pay so much out of your own pocket.

In the original complaint, the total claim was P487.5 million and the fee was something like P9 million. Now, where in heaven’s name would journalists get P9 million up front? I was a columnist for almost five years and, I tell you, the total compensation I received from 2005 to 2010 is loose change when we talk of P9 million.

In short, the complainants decided to reduce the amount of damages claimed to P12.5 million so that the docket fee would be reduced as well to something they could afford to pay.

What Mike Arroyo wanted was to dismiss the amended complaint that asked for P12.5 million and PROCEED with the original complaint for P487.5 million. In short, he wanted to place the complainants in a position where they would NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY the docket fees and, as a consequence, withdraw their complaint. That was the strategy of Mike Arroyo’s lawyer.

In other words, both parties to the damage suit — the journalists, on the one hand; and Arroyo, on the other — were playing around with procedural rules to push their respective agenda. The show is being run and manipulated by lawyers.

P.S. Note that there were two CA rulings and the Makati RTC was chastised in one but then, of course, that part is downplayed by media and only one report mentions it.