Gordon's bill distinguishes between political, private libel

Pending proposals in the Senate to decriminalize libel will not be on track soon after Sen. Richard Gordon filed a bill that would make it difficult for anybody to sue for "political libel" but would retain the classification of libel against private persons as a crime.

Gordon has adopted the compromise earlier suggested by former Supreme Court associate justice Vicente Mendoza.

Mendoza has suggested a middle ground to balance press freedom and the right to seek redress by making a distinction between "political libel" and "private libel."

The retired justice has proposed that in the case of political libel involving public figures' acts in the performance of their official duties, the libel law could be amended so that the burden of proving malice would lie with the complainant, and not with the journalist.

Mendoza said the law should be retained in case of private libel involving private persons.

As chairman of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments, Gordon is hearing five bills that either seek to abolish libel as a criminal offense or to remove a prison term as a penalty.

Based on Mendoza's proposal made at the hearing last Feb. 27, Gordon filed a bill that would amend Article 354 and 361 of the Revised Penal Code to make a distinction between political and private libel.

"This bill aims to strike a balance between two legitimate albeit clashing social interests of freedom of expression and the freedom or right of the individual to protect honor and person, by proposing that the act of political libel be differentiated from private libel," Gordon said.

He said "discussions of matters of public concern and criticisms of official conduct should be considered privileged, i.e., not presumed to be malicious even though they may be defamatory."

"In other words, the prosecution must show that the accused acted with malice in order to be proven guilty," Gordon added.

At the hearing on Monday, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile and Joker Arroyo expressed their reservations against the decriminalization of libel, saying the law has been lenient on the media.

The two served as counsel for media organizations; Enrile before martial law and Arroyo during and after martial law.

Enrile warned that civil suits for damages could even drive media organizations to bankruptcy.

Arroyo said unlike other crimes, the conviction rate for libel has been "practically nil."

Inquirer publisher Isagani Yambot said during the last 15 years, the Philippine Daily Inquirer has been slapped with 60 libel suits. Two cases ended in a conviction, but one of them was eventually overturned by the Court of Appeals. The other conviction is still on appeal.

"You should be glad our courts take a very lenient attitude towards libel cases," Arroyo said.

University of the Philippines lawyer Gwen De Vera said in the last five years, the Supreme Court handed down four convictions and seven acquittals in terms of libel cases.

"This suggests that courts have been favorable to the media," said Gordon.

Yambot said imprisonment was "too heavy" a penalty for libel and said they preferred civil suits.

"It's been shown in the past that libel can be used as a weapon by a public figure," he added, citing the string of libel cases filed by First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo in 2007.

Mendoza said the media's concern lay not in the sentencing and conviction, but in the indictment phase that would come with arrest warrants.

He said his proposal on political libel would make it harder for public officials to sue journalists since malice would no longer be automatically assumed.

"This will answer journalists' concern that it is currently easy to be charged with libel and to be charged in court," he said. By Dona Pazzibugan - Philippine Daily Inquirer