“The Inquirer betrayed its commitment to its readers.”
Freedom of the press has been dealt a hard blow not by government or social media trolls but ironically by the management of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI). The Inquirer promises its readers, and I have been one since 1986, balanced views and fearless views. Alas, it betrayed this commitment when its management entered into a compromise deal with the complainant in a libel case.
The libel complaint was filed by Melo del Prado, a broadcaster of DZBB Radio-TV GMA Network, against five PDI reporters and editors in connection with the newspaper’s investigative reports on the P10-billion pork barrel scam. In exchange for dismissing the complaint, PDI management agreed to run an apology to Del Prado on the Inquirer front page, expunge from the PDI archives 10 pork barrel stories/sidebars related to his libel complaint (these stories have been widely praised and awarded), and pay him damages worth P1.5 million in advertising space.
However, three Respondents to the libel case—former PDI Executive Editor Jose Ma. D. Nolasco, former Inquirer News Editor Artemio T. Engracia Jr, and former Inquirer Reporter Nancy C. Carvajal refused to sign the Compromise. Nolasco, in a press statement where he discloses a letter he sent to PDI management, argues that a reading of Inquirer stories related to Del Prado’s complaint and the Supreme Court rulings on libel would show “it’s not our defense which is indefensible but Del Prado’s case which is unsustainable.”
I agree. Nolasco may not be a lawyer but he knows his constitutional law. For sure, he understands freedom of the press and the law on libel, and what is at stake in this case.
The landmark 1964 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan sets restrictions on the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. They must not only must prove the normal elements of defamation – publication of a false defamatory statement to a third part – they must also prove that the statement was made with “actual malice”, that is that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.
Actual malice is the onus that Del Prado must discharge to prove libel. On the other hand, the respondents must present proof in their defense that they strictly adhered to the stringent journalistic standards of investigation and verification. This they have shown as Nolasco explains in detail in his statement.
The recent case of Raffy Tulfo v. People is instructive. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the ponente, emphasized the importance of giving the press much latitude of discretion in reporting even at the expense of occasional inaccuracies. Thus, and I quote-
“The need to protect freedom of speech and of the press cannot be understated. These freedoms are the most pervasive and powerful vehicles of informing the government of the opinions, needs, and grievances of the public. It is through these guarantees that the people are kept abreast of government affairs. Without these rights, no vigilant press would flourish. And without a vigilant press, the government’s mistakes would go unnoticed, their abuses unexposed, and their wrongdoings uncorrected.
“In this regard, journalists and the media enjoy a wide latitude of discretion in investigating, gathering, and reporting news pertinent to public affairs. Public affairs encompass a wide array of matters, including information on public officials’ exercise of their official functions. Imbued with public interest, these officials are expected to execute their mandate in a manner consistent with law, morals, and public policy.
“Consistent with the right to deliver information on public matters, journalists and members of the press may at times write inaccurate articles. Nonetheless, liability should attach only if it is proven that the article was written and published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.”
One may be tempted to suggest that the Tulfo case is inapplicable considering that the subject of the supposed libellous commentary was an official of the Bureau of Customs which at first glance is not similar to Del Prado’s complaint, having been initiated by a private individual. Both cases, however, involve matters of public concern and interest. As such, there must be no distinction whether the complainant is a public or private individual as long as matters of public interest are involved.
I teach constitutional law in many law schools in the country. When I teach the Bill of Rights, including freedom of expression and the press, I tell my students that they must love, embrace, and defend these rights to keep enjoying them. PDI’s compromise deal with Del Prado is more dangerous in that we expected that great newspaper to draw the line. By not doing so, not only the reporters and editors of PDI are endangered but everyone in the profession can be targeted. And yes, press freedom itself is endangered
Thomas Jefferson once said, “Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” With this action by PDI management, some say it is akin to suicide, the press is less free. And no one is safe.
Website: tonylavina.com Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs