LIBEL by John Paolo Bencito

A MONOGRAPH ON THE

PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACT OF LIBEL CASES AMONG SELECTED FILIPINO MEDIA PRACTITIONERS WITH RESOLVED LIBEL CASES Dr. Angelina E. Borican Angelo B. Alix John Paolo J. Bencito Ryan Kester Mansion Romelie Janelle Maranan Erwin C. Pe単ano College of Communication Polytechnic University of the Philippines

ABSTRACT In the Philippines, a journalist can be thrown in jail for what he writes or says, no matter if it is factual or correct, so long as he fails to prove the absence of malice â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a curious and unfortunate fact of life for members of the fourth estate in a country long touted to have one of the freest presses in Asia. The study will ground the perceived impact of libel cases according to selected Filipino Media Practitioners with resolved libel cases. The study discussed the profile of the key informants and their case background/s, their familiarity with the libel law, their experiences during and after libel litigation, and how in turn they shaped the key informantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceived impact in terms of their personal, professional, and social lives. The study involved five veteran Filipino journalists, all sued with libel within the last fifteen years with their cases resolved. The study found out that the rich and powerful in the society or community file the cases against journalists for allegedly defamatory writing; that being aware about the Philippine Libel Law is not a safeguard to prevent them from having a case filed against them; libel litigation is costly and stressful for journalists, and death threats may ensue during the course of the trial; journalists based in Manila had a less hard time dealing with the cases compared to provincial counterparts; journalist families feel distressed because of the libel case and colleagues were not surprised either but regard these experience as part of the risk; journalists continue

with their chosen craft, however, modifying their way and style of writing to avoid having other cases; and unanimous in view that libel law must be decriminalized because of its unwary nature and it suppresses the way media performs in a so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;democraticâ&#x20AC;? and free society.

Keywords: Libel, Philippine Libel, Libel Impact, Media Law, Chilling effects

INTRODUCTION Journalism is one of the most challenging jobs in the Philippines. In the exercise of this profession, it is the media practitioner who acts as the trustee and the guardian of the public weal. It is vital that the free discussion of whatever concerns the public interest shall be free and must be delivered by them. By chance, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has laid down the rule that media “should be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy. In the preparation of stories, press reporters and editors usually have to race with their deadlines; and consistently with good faith and reasonable care, they should not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.” (Arafiles vs. Philippine Journalists, Inc., 2004) Delivering significant current events and conveying the truth in everything that the public should know are just reasons why a journalist has massive and enormous obligations on the social equality of a country. He can either make or break a person or an institution. When a journalist steps on somebody’s toes, the person may be dishonored or ill reputed.

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person is defamation. Libel is its written form while slander is its spoken form. Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Libel is defined as “a 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.” Libel, as provided by the provision, is punishable by the law and cites the right of a private individual or firm. As mentioned in the case of WORCESTER VS. OCAMPO (22 PHIL 42), “the enjoyment of a private reputation is as much a constitutional right as the possession of life, liberty, or property. It is one of those rights necessary to human society that underlie the whole scheme of civilization. The law recognizes the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who attacks it, by slanderous words or libelous publication, the liability to make full compensation of the damages done.” Wrong doing and falsehood in investigative stories and articles all have the potential to provoke a libel suit. However, Filipino journalists tend to view

libel as part of the job. As a watchdog of the general public especially those who are in power, journalists may tend to regard a libel charge against them as a badge of honor that one wears with pride. The journalist is counted among the “hard-hitting” and “feisty” members of the press who have taken on those in power. Libel is a tricky case because it encompasses the fundamental right, or some would even say the responsibility of, individuals to freedom of speech. Simply put, it is also the responsibility of the state to give citizens enough space to participate in governance without resorting to the threat of a dangerous punishment such as criminal liability. Publishers and writers often produced great amount of written content on a daily basis that the probability of "libelous" remarks are very high, even when made in the course of their duty to express the truth and uncover social misdeeds and even when malicious intent does not pertain. In legal context, chilling effect is defined as “the measure of the tangible or intangible strong and significant major effect of one things’ or entity's action or influence upon another. The right that might often be described as being suppressed by such impact is the constitutional right to free speech. This may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to

hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. Libel litigation or threats thereof is the common response of political and social actors to expressions or actions regarding public issues. These lawsuits are generally filed by people or entities with power and financial capabilities. The suits are sometimes based on weak or borderline causes and in some cases, completely unfounded ones. Their primary effect is not legal but rather public: silencing criticism of the plaintiffs and harming anyone impeding the plaintiffsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ability to advance their interests. In addition to harming the specific critic, the lawsuits are also intended to deter others from participating in free and public discourse on issues of public importance, and particularly from criticizing those with power. As of now, there is still no actual or concrete standard for the measure of the chilling effect as it is not sufficient to attest that there is really inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction in a person. This study tries to ground the impact of libel cases based on the perspectives of selected media practitioners with resolved libel cases leading to the formulation of the research problem: â&#x20AC;&#x153;What are the perspectives on the impact of libel cases among selected Filipino media practitioners with resolved libel cases?â&#x20AC;?

To answer the research problem, the researchers formulated the following objectives: 1. To describe the profile of the participants in terms of their personal background; 2. To know the case background of the participants; 3. To know the familiarity of the participants on Libel Law; 4. To describe the experience/s of the participants that is/are related to the libel litigation; and 5. To know the impact of libel case/s according to the participants’ perspective in terms of: a. Personal  Family b. Professional Work  Career Decisions  Way and Style of Writing  Media Organizations c. Societal Life  Colleagues and Readers  Sectoral Views

To answer the research problem, the researchers decided to use the Symbolic Interactionism and Structuration Theory to further explain the study. Symbolic interactionism, a theory most commonly associated with George Herbert Mead, has influenced generations of scholars in a number of fields in the humanities and social sciences. Human interaction, according to symbolic interactionism, does not consist of two (or more) actors whose behavior is related in a series of simple causal chains, where each actor’s conduct prompts an immediate and unthinking response from the other. For a symbolic-interactionist, interaction must instead be understood as a dynamic, evolving process of mutual coordination and role taking. Each actor’s conduct cannot be separated from the response of the other, or from the pattern formed by their interaction as a whole. According to George Herbert Mead - one of the earliest interactionists, a central characteristic of human interaction is that humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things - it’s our interpretation that counts. An actor’s indication necessarily foreshadows both the actor’s own future conduct as well as the response anticipated from the other; the indication thereby suggests the actor’s view of the enterprise, or larger social action, in which the two are engaged.

Meanwhile, Structuration Theory is grounded on the process of social structures shaping people's actions while at the same time being shaped by their actions. Specifically, structuration refers to "the production and reproduction of the social systems through members' use of rules and resources in interaction." According to Anthony Giddens, system is a set of normal interchange patterns connecting people, behaviors, messages, relationships, and things, including both human and nonhuman elements. Structure is distinguished from system by being tacit and empowering: it is the domain of rules and resources upon which agents draw in order to act. Rules are principles or routines that can guide or ground actions; resources are anything people can use or adapt to in the course of action. Drawing on social structure, Giddens suggests people are engaged in practice and can engage in specific practicesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;organized systems of conduct that are meaningful to them. Applying these concepts to be a functional model and conceptual schema of a general system would latter employ the use of the Input-ProcessOutput Model, or IPO Model. An IPO model identifies a programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inputs, its outputs, and the processing steps required to transform the inputs into the outputs. The Symbolic Interactionism (SI) and Structuration Theory (ST) as applied with the IPO Model is a framework for evaluating the impacts of

libel cases based on the perspectives of selected media practitioners with resolved libel cases. The journalist interacts with other people and things based on the meaning that he assigned to them. Forces that shape the meaning on how the journalist/s thinks – the journalist himself, the media outlets, the J-schools and the society – work handin-hand to create a socially-constructed reality that having libel cases is not good for a journo, hence, he must avoid them. The journalist giving meaning is the individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by his own thought processes. The experience of having a libel case, going under the litigation process, and having other related experience/s while having litigation may had an effect on how he will interpret his so – called “experience”.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Input • Journalist • Media Outlets • J-school • Society

Process • Libel Litigation • Filing of case • Immersion

Output • Journalist Experiences

Figure 1. Paradigm depicting the Conceptual Framework of the study as applied to Symbol Interactionism and Structuration Theory

METHODS The researchers utilized the qualitative research approach in order to fulfill the needed information for this study. Qualitative method primarily dwelled on statements given by the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s key informants and then further seeked the underlying meanings of facts from the informants. Qualitative approach also involved collection of data within natural setting, and the key data collecting instruments are the researchers themselves. Furthermore, this study is descriptive in nature. In order to fulfill the objectives of the study, the researchers used a particular qualitative research method: case study. It is defined as a research strategy which provides a systematic way of looking at events, collecting data, analyzing information and reporting the results (Flyberg, 2006). Moreover, researchers chose case study as the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tradition of inquiry for it is an empirical study that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context where the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are clearly evident. Since the study focused on the perspectives on the impact of libel cases among selected Filipino media practitioners with resolved cases, case study is deemed the most suitable method for the researchers to explore and investigate the system with depth.

As a primary data generation method, the researchers conducted structured interviews to generate the necessary information needed in the study. Interview seeks to describe and the meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects. The main task in interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say. (Kvale, 1996) In a structured interview, the interviewer asks each respondent the same series of questions. The questions are created prior to the interview, and often have a limited set of response categories. There is generally little room for variation in responses and there are few open-ended questions included in the interview guide. Questioning is standardized and the ordering and phrasing of the questions are kept consistent from interview to interview. The interviewer plays a neutral role and acts casual and friendly, but does not insert his or her opinion in the interview. Self-administered questionnaires are a type of structured interview. The questions that were asked to the participants were anchored on the objectives that were formulated by the researchers. However, since qualitative research does not totally require a structured questionnaire, questions that arose during the interviews were allowed and treated accordingly. The researchers also informed the key informants about the interview questions before the dialogue.

The interviews were conducted with the participants one-by-one to avoid outside interventions and interruptions that may possibly occur in a focused group discussion. The interview was used to probe details of personal opinions, beliefs and information regarding pertinent issues. In the interview, researchers started by establishing rapport and asking general questions and then proceeded to the more purposive ones. For the data gathering method, the researchers used non-probability sampling technique. It focused more on treating the informantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers accordingly instead of coming up with general ideas. Among the non-probability sampling techniques, the researchers employed purposive sampling which is likewise known as judgmental sampling. All the participants and key informants were selected according to the researchersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; set of standards. The researchers have set the following criteria in choosing the key informants of the study: (a) the key informants must be a practicing print or online journalist for at least five years; (b) the key informants must have been charged with libel because of his / her published work and had his / her case resolved within the last 15 years. Resolved can either mean convicted, acquitted or dismissed, and; (c) the key informants must be willing to recount and tell his / her experience on the libel litigation.

Through an extensive review of the existing literature (News Articles from the PCIJ Blog http://pcij.org/blog/), the researchers sought to pick out the following Filipino media practitioners as key informants for the study: (1) Stella Estremera; (2) Marites Danguilan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Vitug; (3) Erwin Tulfo; (4) Jarius Bondoc; and (5) Edu Punay. The researchers used an interview guide in preparation for the actual structured interview of its key informants. It involved the outlining of issues that were explored and discussed in the interview to ensure that all vital and relevant topics were covered. The interview guide is also essential in using the limited time available the conducting the interview making it systematic and organized. (Patton, 2002) The Interview Guide is a list of topics, themes, or areas to be covered in a semi-structured interview. This is normally created in advance of the interview by the researcher and is constructed in such a way as to allow flexibility and fluidity in the topics and areas that are to be covered, the way they are to be approached with each interviewee, and their sequence. The interview guide normally were linked to the research questions that guide the study and will cover. (Lewis-Beck et.al, 2004) It is a loosely-structured, open-ended, and discoveryoriented method that is well suited for this study in order to analyze and interpret the answers of the participants. In this regard, the researchers and informants had a free-flowing conversation to meet

all the objectives that were needed to be accomplished in the study. This needs to be used to have a clear and convenient conversation between them. The questions were formatted according to the objectives to fill out the information needed in an orderly manner. This will help create a better understanding and analyzing the information that the participants explained. Moreover, the researchers also used a camera and a voice recorder to document the interviews, at the same time, the researchers wrote notes during the process. Some interviews were done through electronic mail due to the key informantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current job assignment and location. The audio, video and electronic mail were recorded and transcribed during the interpretation of all the gathered data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This part aims to present the results, observation, and analysis of data gathered through in-depth interview. The data presented are organized by the objective of the study. PHILIPPINES’ TOP CALIBER WATCHDOGS Profile of the Key Informants With more than a decade and counting of being journalists for different media outfits, the respondents of the study are considered veterans in the field of journalism. 50-year-old Stella A. Estremera has been working for the media industry for 19 years. A graduate of BS in Architecture from the University of Mindanao, Ms. Estremera is currently the Editor-inChief of Sun.Star Davao from 2003 to present. Ms. Estremera was convicted in connection of a ten-year old libel complaint citing an article published in 2003 claiming that she did not even write. The decision by the Regional Trial Court Branch 18 in Digos City convicted Estremera on the crime of libel, together with her former publishers. The complainant, Baguio Saripada, sued the journalists for libel over the article “32 pushers ug user mitahan” (32 illegal drug pushers and users surrender), published in Sun.Star Super Balita

Davao on 28 July 2003. Rex Otero, the reporter who wrote the article, was not included in the libel complaint. Marites Danguilan- Vitug, 59 years old, has been working as a journalist for 30 years and is currently the Editor-at-Large of the social news website Rappler.com. A respected multi-platform journalist, Vitug has been actively engaging in social change through responsible journalism for the past three decades. Her work encompasses from print, online and broadcast. She is one of the Philippines' most accomplished and respected investigative journalists, winning awards and public recognition for her books and reportage on Philippine justice, security, and political affairs. Vitug is the author of several books and articles such as: Power from the Forest: The Politics of Logging, Under the Crescent Moon: Rebellion in Mindanao (with Glenda Gloria), Jalan- Jalan: A Journey through EAGA (with Criselda Yabes), and Our Rights Our Victories: Landmark Cases in the Supreme Court (with Criselda Yabes); and Shadows of Doubt & Hours before Dawn, both tackling the Judiciary beat. Known as a guileless newscaster and radio commentator for TV5 Network, Inc. and a columnist at The Manila Times, 42-year-old Erwin Tulfo has been in the media industry for 18 years. Youngest among the famed Tulfo Brothers and known for his feisty commentary, Erwin is currently anchoring

broadcast giant TV5’s primetime newscast – Aksyon Prime alongside Luchi Cruz-Valdez and hosts radio program Punto Asintado in 92.3 News FM. He is part of the 45 journalists sued by former First Gentleman Mike Arroyo with libel. He now also works as a columnist for The Manila Times. Jarius Bondoc has already spent almost half of his entire life being a journalist. Mr. Bondoc is a columnist for the Philippine Star and a radio commentator for DWIZ 882-AM. Peers and avid readers admire him for his fearless exposés of bureaucratic corruption and inefficiency. He said he wouldn’t be afraid because his columns, which are mostly about politics, government, the economy, society, religion, culture, and world events, are based on deep research and analysis. He has received numerous threats on his safety, and at times that of his family, he pounds away on his keyboard with only the aim to somehow influence the course of events for the better. Mr. Bondoc has exposed prominent cases and has received plenty of prestigious awards and citations. Bondoc was founding president in 19881990 of Plaridel Media Forum, an organization dedicated to fighting corruption in the media and upgrading skills of practitioners. He is married, with one daughter. His advice to budding journalists: Never be afraid to expose the truth.

Edu Punay, on the other hand, is 31 years old and has been working as a journalist for 11 years already. A senior correspondent for The Philippine Star, Mr. Punay works for the justice beat – one of the most sensitive, if not, most prone for journos to have libel suits. The key informants are all considered veterans and big-wigs in the media industry; being the youngest, Edu Punay has the shortest exposure to the media industry with 11 years of practice followed by Erwin Tulfo and Stella Estremera with 18 and 19 years in the profession, respectively. Furthermore, Marites Vitug and Jarius Bondoc were the most experienced among the key informants, serving the field for 30 and 36 years, respectively. PROBING THE CONTENT Article used as ground for the libel suit Estremera’s article, Pusher Ug User Mitahan (Pushers and users surrender), published on July 28, 2003 in Sun.Star Davao’s Visayan tabloid, Sun.Star Super Balita caused the filing of the libel suit against her. Baguio Saripada of the General Services Office of Digos City, Davao del Sur filed the libel case against Estremera. The verdict on the case is guilty. The libel case against Vitug, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court, was filed by the Supreme Court Justice himself, Presbitero Velasco.

It was due to an article and a book Vitug wrote entitled “Shadow of Doubt”, both probing the Supreme Court. On Tulfo’s case, the complainant was Carlo “Ding” So of the Customs’ Intelligence Unit whom Tulfo quoted in his column Direct Hit in Remate back in 1999 as an “allegedly corrupt Customs Official”. He was found guilty together with four other journalists, namely Philip Pichay, Susan Cambri, Rey Salao, and Jocelyn Barlizo. Two articles written by Bondoc regarding a businessman he tagged as a “drug lord” and a Manila Prosecutor whom he accused of favouring a certain “drug lord” served as grounds for libel suits against him. The two cases were DISMISSED. Meanwhile, an article written by one of his reporters wherein he served as the Editor-in-Chief/Publisher also caused a libel case against him and was found guilty but was reversed lately. According to the Philippine Libel Law, writers or editors of different printed media may be sued with libel for their written articles. But it is also stated in the law that proprietors and editors as well as all the people involved in the publication of these printed media will also be sued together with the writer. In Jarius Bondoc’s case, he was the editor and publisher of their publication at the time when he was sued with his third article where he was found guilty. Lastly, the libel suit filed against Edu Punay was caused by an article he wrote on The Philippine

Star about the extortion of former Undersecretary Fidel Exconde Jr. in 2010. The complainants are all government officials and influential people. It is evident that in libel cases, most often the complainants are public officials attacked by newspapermen. It has been held that a candidate for public office may be the object of comment and criticism, in relation to their mental, moral and physical fitness. But if it appears that it was actuated by actual or express malice and is defamatory in its nature, the criticism becomes Libel. (US vs. Sedano, 14 Phil 338). This goes to the issue of distinction between criticism and libel. A criticism against a government figure becomes libel when these criticisms are proved not to be true. The key informants’ fate differs on the outcomes of their cases. Stella Estremera and Erwin Tulfo were convicted on the charge of libel before the court. Marites Vitug, Edu Punay and Jarius Bondoc’s cases were dismissed by lower courts and the fiscal due to lack of probable cause. Further, Jarius Bondoc’s other case was pursued and he was acquitted of any criminal liability. It is evident that in libel cases, most often the complainants are public officials attacked by newspapermen. It has been held that a candidate for public office may be the object of comment and criticism, in relation to their mental, moral and physical fitness. But if it appears that it was actuated

by actual or express malice and is defamatory in its nature, the criticism becomes Libel. (US vs. Sedano, 14 Phil 338). This goes to the issue of distinction between criticism and libel. A criticism against a government figure becomes libel when these criticisms are proved not to be true.

GEARED UP FOR JOURNALISM Familiarity with Libel Law as stated in the Revised Penal Code All of the respondents are familiar with the Libel Law as affirmed in the Revised Penal Code. They were all given information about the law by their respective media outfits. The widely accepted definition of libel is: â&#x20AC;&#x153;It is a 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.â&#x20AC;? (Article 353, RPC) Punay reassured that he is acquainted with the law. His media outfit briefs their employees with regards to the issue and since he is assigned in the Judiciary beat, the Supreme Court holds seminar covering the libel law and the Supreme Court per se for them reporters.

When asked if she is aware of the Libel Law, Estremera promptly responded, “Yes, I am familiar with the libel law.” Tulfo also noted that he is informed of the law. Bondoc is mindful of the law and is, in fact, currently advocating for the decriminalization of the libel because of its unconstitutionality. He said, “Pagka sinampahan ka ng libel suit, ibig sabihin, there is presumed malice in what you wrote, or in what you… you published. And for us, it’s against the constitution, because there has to be a presumption of innocence, ‘no? That’s guaranteed in the constitution, in the bill of rights, that every accused should be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, ‘di ba?” Vitug recognizes Libel Law in a broad sense. For her, there is liberty in writing about public figures because they are reasonable targets for criticism. One shall not enter a battlefield without ample armor, may it be swords and guns, or merely valour. And in a journalist’s case, it is the drive to know the truth and the understanding of libel law. To boot, there are four essential elements for a libel case to pursue, namely: a. the imputation must be defamatory; b. the imputation must be made public; c. the imputation must be malicious; and d. the person defamed must be identifiable. (People vs. Monton, 6 SCRA 801) The imputation of the crime on the other hand, can cover the following: a. crime

allegedly committed by the offended party; b. vice or defect, real or imaginary, of the offended party; or c. any act, omission, condition, status of, or circumstance relating to the offended party which tend to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

JOURNALIST vs. LIBEL CASE Experiences related to the Litigation Process Litigation process on the libel suits of all the respondents took a long time. Aside from the hassle, the whole process is very expensive, unless the expenses on the litigation were shouldered by their company. The libel suit filed against Estremera on 2003 took 10 years, wherein they were going to and out of Digos City just for the postponement of the hearing. “It was ten years of going to and from Digos City, around 65 km from Davao City for the hearing to be postponed to another date. Of the innumerable times we went there, the only time there was actually a hearing was for an arraignment and around two presentations of witnesses, all others were postponements,” she exclaimed. Estremera’s group was not aware of the case until after the issuance of warrant of arrest to them. A verdict was made on December 18, 2012 but was only announced after almost a year.

Vitug faced powerful people on her libel cases like former First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, Supreme Court Justice Velasco and Chavit Singson, to name a few, since she is most of the time up against this type of public figures. Postponement of hearings became typical for her. Her lawyers worked her case pro bono so it didn’t add to the weight on her shoulder. “What was interesting was that one of the court employees, where the case was filed, suggested that we go to the justice department instead of through the courts because of the influence of Velasco. After all, the Supreme Court supervised the lower courts,” she disclosed. Usually sued by government officials because of his fearless claims against them, Tulfo deems public officials be open to criticism. The libel case where he was found guilty was filed by Carlo So of the Customs’ Intelligence Unit together with his editors and fellow journalists. Being a publisher and/or an editor carries out the responsibility of facing a libel case due to one of your writer’s piece. Bondoc was sued three times for his written articles, while the others were written by his reporters wherein he was an Editor-in-Chief and a Publisher. Two of the libel suits filed against him was dismissed by the Fiscal and the Court and the other one was charged guilty. In this event, his group filed an appeal to overturn the court decision since he was in the U.S.A. when the article was published. Eventually, the court declared him acquitted. Most of

Bondoc’s libel suits never prospered except for one which he thinks was flawed. All of Punay’s libel suit were dismissed by the fiscal. The media organization he works for provided him lawyers for his case. However, he shared that there are other media outfits that do not have their own law firm and have to seek for assistance from the Public Attorney’s Office. But a libel case is not only curbed in the courtroom. The key informants also shared their experiences outside the libel litigation. Three of them received death threats. Tulfo received death threats because of his line of work, and observed that most journalists receive death threat first before a libel case. “What I notice, if, ah... an individual would file a libel case, first you get threats, right?” If you don't get threats, the next thing if you hit somebody, write something negative about that individual and they don't like what you wrote, you'd... definitely get two things. Either you get a libel case, which is okay, or you get death threats,” he noted. For Bondoc, libel suits are the least of his worries because he considers libel normal for the profession. He said, “Actually, I’ve been harassed ‘no. And of course, the death threats ‘no. Normal ‘yan sa akin, pero… para sa akin mas serious ‘yan eh.”

Punay also received several death threat/s but most of them were not involved with the libel case. Meanwhile, Estremera and Vitug did not receive any death threat. “I did not receive any death threats in the Velasco case,” Vitug declared. The five esteemed journalists are in unison in the view that libel is a form of harassment to the profession and a threat to media practitioner’s and people’s right – freedom of expression and right to information. A comparison of the experiences of the Manila-based journalists differ from those based in the provinces – while most Manila-based journalists have less worries due to the support of their media organizations, their provincial counterparts weren’t as lucky as such. Examples are Ms. Estremera who, for innumerable times in ten years experienced only one hearing for arraignment and around two presentation of witnesses, all others were postponements. Another is the unique case of provincialbased journalists from literature is Mr. Joaquin Briones who was convicted on six counts of libel in 2000, and is sentenced to serve 12 years and six months in prison. He was granted parole in 2005. Then already based in Manila, Briones’ experience led him to go back to Masbate to attend

the twice-weekly hearings on the cases, for which he also hired a private lawyer. But Briones says that he began to notice that whenever he showed up for the hearings, the complainants would allegedly have these postponed. And when he was unable to come, he says, the hearings pushed through — and an arrest warrant would automatically be issued against him because he was absent. (Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, 2013) When he was no longer able to afford a private lawyer, Briones turned to the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) for help. One of the complainants however, filed a motion that disqualified him from availing of PAO services. Frustrated, Briones says he decided to boycott the subsequent hearings. He later found out that he had already been convicted in five cases and that the period for appeal for these had already lapsed. Instead of running away, Briones went back to Masbate to serve his sentence. While there, Briones was able to attend the hearings for the rest of the cases, among which one resulted in yet another conviction. The remaining seven were dismissed. Briones says that at the time, no local journalist dared to write a report favorable to him for fear of reprisal from the complainants, who he described as “poderoso (powerful)” and included provincial directors and board members. He says his media colleagues were even wary of visiting him openly.

FAMILY ON TRIAL Impact of Libel on Journalists’ Families Upon receiving notice of libel case, the most affected people, aside from the journalists themselves, are their families. Because it’s new to their system, all of their families were fussed with the libel suit at first. Nonetheless, numerous complaints against their loved ones taught them how to handle things out. Estremera’s family, meanwhile, expressed sheer anger because a law-abiding citizen like Estremera was convicted as criminal while the “real criminals are out and free”. Since Vitug’s family is always concerned on her safety, she keeps them updated. “My family is always concerned for my safety but they have gotten used to the libel cases. I keep them informed. They know that I can take care of myself and I take precautionary measures.” Her family, on the other hand, knows that she can take care of herself and knows how to do her job as a journalist properly. They have still been supportive with Vitug in pursuing her profession. “We get used to it already. At first, I was a reporter for a newspaper way back in the 1980s, ah... It was very first time a libel suit. Everybody was scared but after that, ah... we get used it. I mean, if you get libel like this, you get libel there, here,

everywhere, it's like you're having it like a... breakfast, lunch, and dinner,” recounted Tulfo. Libel cases also instilled him to practice protective measure in writing. “The next time when you write or when you report, you have to put safeguards too so that you can avoid this libel,” he added. The same thing goes with Bondoc’s family. Bondoc laughs the case off and calls it “nuisance suit”. His family was then the most affected people with the libel cases and the death threats, especially her daughter when she was still young. Bondoc shared that they have to send her daughter, who was 13 years old at that time, to the States for three years to protect her. Punay, meanwhile, never mentioned the libel cases to his family because he considers those cases “not serious”. The libel suits for him are just harassments, unless there is a basis. Filipino journalists tend to vision libel as part of the job. It is their responsibility to inform the public about the country so some journalists tend to regard a libel charge against them as a badge of honor that one wears with pride, but other journalists disagree with this inkling. The journalist is counted among the “hard-hitting” and “feisty” members of the press who have taken on those in power. Public officials who sue journalists for libel are seen as simply trying to deflect the attack against them. This mind set leads to setting aside these threats and getting used to the suit.

The results of the analysis, especially on the case of Ms. Estremera are in support with the analysis of Strasburger (1999) in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law that “Civil litigation often has profound psychological consequences for plaintiffs and defendants alike … the experience saps energy and distracts the litigant from the normal daily preoccupations that we call "life." Litigants, who commonly feel alone, isolated, and helpless, are challenged to confront and manage the emotional burden of the legal process. The distress of litigation can be expressed in multiple symptoms: sleeplessness. Anger, frustration, humiliation, headaches, difficulty concentrating, and loss of self-confidence, indecision, anxiety, despondency: the picture has much in common with the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).” IS THE PEN STILL MIGHTY? Impact of Libel on Journalists’ Professional lives Despite the libel cases filed against them, the respondents still pursued their profession as journalists, but became extra careful in writing their reports, except Estremera who asserted that she haven’t done anything wrong. Also, the media outfits that the respondents belong to have been supportive to them. When asked if she pursued writing after libel case and dreary litigation, a firm “Yes” is what

Estremera quickly responded. Tulfo and Bondoc pursued their profession as journalists after their libel cases. As for Vitug, the libel cases bothered her because she have to be away from her work to defend herself but it did not stop her from doing her job as a journalist and continued to write about powerful people as her beat. Punay, on the other hand, was traumatized when he received his first libel case and the suit was grueling for him because he says that he has been careful. But then, he overcame the dilemma and continued his relationship with writing. Estremera never changed her way of constructing her stories after the libel case because she insisted that she is innocent and should not be guilty of libel. Vitug learned her lessons and has been very careful with constructing her articles. She pronounced, â&#x20AC;&#x153;After my first libel case in the late 1980s, I've learned lessons. I have been very careful with facts, quotations, attribution to sources. As much as possible, I try not to use anonymous sources. If it's a quote, then I use the information as a quote. In other words, I've become more thoughtful about reporting.â&#x20AC;? For Tulfo, libel is a tool used by people to prevent the media from exposing misdeeds to the public. The libel cases against him edified carefulness in writing stories, still exposing anomalies. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Of course, you put safeguards. You

review it twice: Is this libelous? You try to be more careful. But the purpose is still there - you expose anomalies,” he said. Bondoc’s logic is if there is really a story of anomaly, then pursue by writing it the right way, without thinking about being sued with libel. For him, you will not be sued with libel unless you are practicing proper journalism. But still, he became extra careful, disregarded his writing style in the past where he made a mistake. The libel case of Punay made him extra careful in writing, since it served an awakening experience for him. His experiences on the libel case includes the basis on not getting the side of the complainant so he made sure that every time he writes his articles, especially the controversial stories, he gets the “two sides of the coin” to avoid libel. The media outfits of the respondents also reacted on their libel case. As Estremera recounted, “The Company has been shouldering all expenses. A motion for reconsideration has already been filed and has been dragging on since. It has been costing the company a lot. When first informed that I was convicted, the company president’s first reaction was: Why, what did you do?”

For Vitug, it is like a thorn is taken out of the throat of the media organization she works for when her libel cases are withdrawn or dismissed. “When cases are dropped or withdrawn, it's always a positive thing such as in the Velasco case,” said Vitug. Tulfo’s media organization asks him for an update on his suits and verifies if what the reliability of his stories. He assures that his articles are backed up with documents to support his case in court. It was a relief for Bondoc’s company when his case was dismissed in the court, since there is no basis and the side of the complainant was included in the article. Punay’s company, on the other hand, knows that the libel case was a form of harassment and nuisance against Punay so they supported him abundantly. They just reminded him to be more careful next time. The results were also in support of the sociolegal research by Pinchuk (2013), that “even though many libel lawsuits end in nothing or almost nothing, they still manage to create a negative effect and “chill” freedom of expression. From the very beginning, the defendant is required to hire costly legal representation. Many cases cast a heavy shadow on defendants for a long period of time. Sometimes, the plaintiff decides at the end of the day to withdraw the lawsuit; sometimes arduous litigation

ends in a ruling that accepts only a small part of the claims. In other cases, litigation which began with a claim for compensation of millions or hundreds of thousands of shekels ends with a small amount of compensation which is sometimes even only symbolic or negligible. Many of the lawsuits end with some kind of arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant in a manner that achieves the goal of silencing the defendant or other critics of the plaintiff.” Diokno (2008) also pointed out in an essay from the book Libel as Politics published by Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility that “the mere prospect of a criminal libel suit, even without actual prosecution and punishment, is itself abhorrent to individual human rights because of its inevitable chilling effect.” Another good example for these is the case of Mr. Joaquin Briones. Learning the possibility that he could again be thrown back behind bars due to a second libel case after serving almost 12 years. But he says he is confident he would be acquitted of the new charges, and even adds that he wants the cases be allowed to run their course – which is quite surprising given his past entanglements with the country’s libel laws. (Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, 2013)

LIFE AFTER LIBEL Impact of Libel on Journalists’ Societal lives Aside from their families and their companies, the respondents’ colleagues, friends and audiences also reacted on the libel case filed against them. The respondents also changed their views on the libel law after the litigation of their cases except for one. The libel case of Estremera came as a storm for her and for the people surrounding her. “Everyone was surprised, lawyers included,” she testified. Vitug’s peers and friends understand that libel is normal for society watchdogs like her. “There are usually no changes in the way my peers, friends deal with me after libel cases are filed. They understand that it comes with the territory.” Her readers, on the other hand, have been supportive and consider her libel suit a badge of honor for her. But she averts this idea. “We should strive to avoid libel cases by being extra careful. If we know that our stories are delicate and sensitive, we consult lawyers before publishing these,” countered Vitug. Tulfo deems that libel is like a trophy for a journalist. He highlighted that a media practitioner earns more respect when he is charged for libel. He also said that a libel assault crafts a veteran and seasoned journalist. He said, “You... you earn more respect. Libel is like, ah... it's like a trophy actually in

our parlance as a journalist. The more you get libel suits, meaning to say, the more you become seasoned.” In contrast, for Bondoc, libel is not a badge of honor but a proof of being an irresponsible journalist. Bondoc’s colleagues know that libel case is normal since he is an investigative journalist. Meanwhile, his readers are uninterested or unaware of his libel suits. Punay’s fellow media practitioners told him that he is already a “made journalist” for having a libel case, but just laughed off the case. Hence, they prompted him to be careful next time. They also count libel as a form of harassment. Estremera and Vitug’s views on libel stand firm - libel is a tool used to suppress freedom of expression and harass journalists, and it should be decriminalized. “My views remain the same. Libel should not be a crime. Through the years, it has been used by those in authority to gag freedom of expression.” Estremera declared. Vitug added, “About the current libel laws: it would help if libel is decriminalized so that it won’t be used as a tool to harass journalists.” Vitug, Tulfo, and Bondoc are all for the decriminalization of libel except for Punay.

Punay believes that it is just right to have a criminal libel law to stop some reckless journalists who are abusing freedom of speech. Although, according to Punay, he and his colleagues support the Right to Reply Bill. Tulfo ponders that libel should be decriminalized and be downgraded into a civil case because it is being used and abused by the government officials against journalists. He blurted out that Philippines is one of the remaining countries who still have libel considered as a criminal case. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Decriminalize the libel law because of its unconstitutionality,â&#x20AC;? exlaimed Bondoc.

CONCLUSION From the extensive analysis and interpretation of the information gathered from the study, the researchers conclude that: 1. The key informants are all veterans in the field of media. 2. Most libel cases pursued against Filipino Media Practitioners are usually filed by people with due political influence in the country. 3. The key informantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; awareness / familiarity on the Philippine Libel Law does not prevent for them not to have a libel case. 4. The long litigation process is very costly, however, media organizations employing the key informants support them with their immediate needs in relation to the case. Journalists based in Manila had a less hard time facing their libel complaints than those in the provinces. Most of the key informants got a death threat as part of their experience/s outside the courtroom. 5. The journalists and their families felt distressed as an initial reaction because the libel suit is new to their system but eventually, they got used to it. The journalists

with libel cases pursued their profession despite having been sued with libel and having been threatened on their safety. Their way and style of writing, however, were modified into a more careful and accurate reportage, making sure of getting both sides of the story. Colleagues of the journalists with libel cases were not surprised because they know that it is part of their job. However, most of the readers of these media practitioners are not aware of these libel cases. The journalists with resolved libel cases affirm that the libel law must be decriminalized because of its unwary nature and it merely suppresses the way media performs in a socalled â&#x20AC;&#x153;democraticâ&#x20AC;? and free society.

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this study about the perceived impact of libel cases among selected media practitioners with resolved libel cases, it is clear that the key informants hold almost the same perceptions regarding their libel suits and libel per se. In this regard, it is recommended that journalists should be rightfully aware of Libel Law as stated in the Revised Penal Code because it is considered as an essential legal matter in the field of journalism. Inclusion of socio-legal applications of the libel per se in the Media Law and Ethics courses of communication schools would be a very practical and conducive step for institutions to educate budding journalists about the correct information on libel. It is important that before a journalism student becomes a professional journalist, he/she must be properly oriented about this. Likewise, journalists on the field should also be given sufficient seminars or reviews about libel â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a wider exposure on the scope of the matter. The government should also visit the possibility of creating a database on the outcome of libel cases. There are no clear empirical data / statistics that show their exact number/s, important for socio-legal research.

Additional researches could determine several issues that emerged in this study because this is relatively focused on impacts of libel to different aspects of a journalistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life, a new study could give emphasis specifically on the revision of the law or its decriminalization. It is important to conduct research concerning whether different journalists share same stands on libel as a criminal offense, or if it really suppresses the press, or how it automatically presumes malice on the articles published by them. Lastly, recommendation for further studies that came from the analysis and literature available was the apparent difference on the variables affecting the environment of Manila-based journos and those from the provinces. These was evidently present on how Estremera and other provincialbased journalists in the literatures available were struggling compared to their city-based counterparts. Also, other variables such as the relative distance of the center of power to those of the provinces are of notable consideration.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Suceed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look on Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kalaw, T. M. (1950). The "El Renacimiento" Libel Suit. Manila: Crown Printing. Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., & Liao, F. (2004). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008, 2005). Theories of Human Communication (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide. Research Triangle Park, NC: Family Health International. Nayyar, D. (2007). Modern Mass Communication Concepts and Processes. New Delhi: Oxford Press. Pangalangan, R. C., Diokno, J. I., Roque, H. L., Teodoro, L. V., & Carreon, D. K. (2008). Libel as Politics. Makati: Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. (n.d.). The PCIJ Blog - Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Retrieved from Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism: http://pcij.org/blog/ Reyes, L. P. (1986). Fundamentals of Libel Law. Manila: National Book Store. Salvilla, R. S., Pe単asales, F. A., & Sornito, F. E. (1991). Press Freedom and the Risk of Libel. Manila: Philippine Press Institute.

West

Group Publishing. (1997). West's Encyclopedia of American Law ed. 2.

Worcester vs. Ocampo (22 Phil 42), G.R. No. L-5932 (Supreme Court of the Philippines February 27, 1912).

AUTHORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S NOTE DR. ANGELINA E. BORICAN 483 Francisco Compound, Sta. Quiteria, Caloocan City (02) 3351765 / +639178010441 aeborican@pup.edu.ph / angieborican@yahoo.com ANGELO B. ALIX 133 Susano Road, San Agustin, Novaliches, Quezon City +639262999180 alixangelo@yahoo.com JOHN PAOLO J. BENCITO 1 Silvestre St., Azicate Homes, Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela City (02) 4405901 / +639271391526 johnpaolo.bencito@gmail.com RYAN KESTER MANSION 6 Duhat St., Western Bicutan, Taguig City +639066272095 kesamansion@gmail.com ROMELIE JANELLE MARANAN Blk. 16 Lot 23 Katarungan Village 2, Poblacion, Muntinlupa City

(02) 894 12 56 / +639069726345 romeliejanellemaranan@gmail.com ERWIN C. PEĂ&#x2018;ANO 120 Sitio Taguisan, Brgy. Bagong Nayon, Cogeo, Antipolo City, Rizal +639057327436 erwin.25mccartney@gmail.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The researchers would like to extend its deepest gratitude to all the people who supported them to the successful completion of this research work. The researchers would also like to thank the following who shared their personal insights and ideas in the completion of this study: To the Almighty Lord, for strengthening their weakened mind, body and soul, for without Him, this work is useless and nothing. The researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adviser, Dr. Angelina E. Borican, in giving the researchers the opportunity to do this study, for her ideas and opinions that she shared towards the accomplishment of the thesis. For helping the researchers gain the proper experience and knowledge they need for this endeavour; To our Panel of Evaluators for their unbiased criticism and recommendations, and for making them realize our shortcomings for the betterment of the results and the whole manuscript; To their parents and guardians, for the unwavering support and guidance they gave for the completion of this study; And lastly, to the respondents from different media outfits for sharing their time in answering the

instrument of this study despite of their hectic schedule. The completion of this study had been greatly dependent on them and their helpful experience in the field.