Suing, being sued for libel: At times, public officials sue other public officials, sparing media. Journalists generally don’t sue back, or one another.
Suing, being sued for libel: At times, public officials sue other public officials, sparing media. Journalists generally don’t sue back, or one another.
September 2024
Complaints for ordinary or regular libel have reportedly decreased but the reduction is apparently made up with the growth in the number of cases for cyber-libel.
There’s the highly noticeable shift. Complainants prefer to sue under the Anti-cyber Crime Law, as the penalty is higher and, comparatively, it’s easier to secure evidence of the defamation, as digital footprints can be secured with the help of police or NBI and technology experts in the private sector.
All other elements of the crime of libel — aside from “the use of a computer system or any other similar means which may be used in the future” — remain the same.
But the penalty for cyber-libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is one degree higher than that for ordinary libel under the Revised Penal Code. A no-brainer for the aggrieved party who understandably wants to hit back, thus opting for cyber-libel.
The evidence is more accessible: it’s there in social media. There’s no hard copy, unlike defamation in print, but the “offensive” material can be retrieved or preserved early, especially when the “victim” keeps track of what’s being posted about him or her.
The articles here deal mostly with situations in many local cases of libel: journalists being sued but rarely suing back; politicians and other public figures suing their rivals but at times sparing the reporter and editor; and very infrequently, especially in Cebu, journalists suing other journalists.
They provide snapshots of the ways complainants seek relief in Cebu. The right of reply — quicker and easier to exercise with the digital platforms at hand — must have eased tension, scaled down anger. — Pachico A. Seares 
Four of six articles here were first published under Pachico A. Seares column “Media’s Public” in SunStar.
Journalists Maria Ressa and Ellen Tordesillas.
1. Journalists sued for libel don’t sue back as a rule. But they can.
PACHICO A. SEARES
First published in SunStar, June 14, 2019, “Media’s Public” column.
Adapted to CJJ September 2024.
Maria Ressa in February 2019 called the charge of libel against her “an act of intimidation to quash critical reporting.” She vowed she’d “hold the Government to account.” In May of the same year, Ellen Tordesillas was not sued but then president Rodrigo Duterte in an ambush interview by Palace reporters called her a “prostitute,” not “presstitute” or lumped with a group of journalists to make the slander less painful and mean.
Journalists usually don’t file countersuit for libel. A rarity was when a group of reporters, editors and media outlets struck back at Jose Miguel Arroyo with a class suit for P12.5 million damages.
RAPPLER CEO Maria Ressa on Feb. 18, 2019, a day after posting bail when she was charged with cyber libel, called the lawsuit an act of “naked intimidation to quash critical reporting” of President Duterte. She intoned, “As a journalist, I will hold the government to account.”
Last May 13, veteran journalist Ellen Tordesillas was called by President Duterte in an ambush interview a prostitute, “every inch a prostitute.” Not the flesh-peddler kind but the variety that traffics in commerce of journalism.
Tordesillas, a columnist of newspaper “Malaya” and trustee and writer of Vera Files (“a group that undertakes in-depth reporting”), has not been charged for allegedly plotting to oust Duterte. The “prostitute” label though is worse than an accusation of libel. And she is not slandered in a group libel, as when pro-Duterte blogger Mocha Uson in 2016 called journalists “press-titutes”; Tordesillas this time is singled out and called prostitute, every part of her no less.
Ressa has not sued, except answer the charge of libel filed against her by a private businessman, not the government. Defamed Tordesillas has not sued and is not likely to sue. Why are they — and other journalists in similar straits — not fighting back by filing their own complaints?
Reasons why
There are good reasons, including:
[1] The unwritten rule among journalists to engage in discourse, not in legal battle, with those who disagree with what they publish. They’re in communication; communicate, they must. Since subjects of the news have the right of reply, news media are bound to provide space or time in their outlets.
[2] Being sued is “part of the journalist’s territory,” a risk or hazard of the trade, which journalists acknowledge and those attacking media gleefully exploit. Why should Ressa complain, Palace communicators said, when her colleagues valiantly and patiently face their complainants in court?
[3] Frivolous lawsuit to counter a libel complaint is difficult to prove as our libel law is so crafted as to stack the cards against the journalist. Malice is presumed unless the “victim” is a public person or figure, in which case a higher degree of proof is required. And actual injury on honor is not necessary: anything that “tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt” is punishable.
[4] Whom will a journalist sue if it is the President himself who defames? Duterte is exempt from a lawsuit until he steps down from office. Other public officials shield themselves with the presumed regularity of public function and acting without malice.
Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, then the First Gentleman, husband of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who was president from 2001 to 2010. He filed 10 libel cases against 46 journalists for a period of 36 months. Journalists counter-sued with a class suit, seeking P12.5 million damages.
Mass lawsuits
A lawsuit against a public official or public figure who sues a journalist is generally a “no-no” among news media workers. The class-action against then First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo, husband of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who ruled the country from 2001 to 2010, was a big exception.
Mike Arroyo had filed 10 libel cases against 46 journalists over a period of 36 months since 2003. News organizations saw that as “abuse of the right to sue” and amounted to obstructing or impairing the work of journalists.
Counter class action
And media struck back, not in their respective outlets but in court. On Dec. 28, 2006, journalists and news organizations filed a class civil action with the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Mike, seeking damages of P12.5 million, with the award, if the lawsuit succeeds, going to a press freedom fund. On Sept. 28, 2008, the Court of Appeals (CA) junked Arroyo’s petition to dismiss the case, ordering the RTC to continue hearing it. On May 28, 2010, the Supreme Court (SC) upheld the CA ruling in favor of the journalists.
No story about the case came out after that. Earlier, on May 27, 2007, or three years before the SC ruling, Mike Arroyo ordered his lawyers to drop his mass complaints against media. He cited World Press Freedom Day, suggesting it was his concession to the precept of free press and his “gesture for peace.” He must have also been prompted by intimations of his mortality, having just gone through a triple heart-bypass surgery when he withdrew the complaints.
However, the class action against Arroyo turned or would turn out, it was an exceptional case. It was not just the 46 journalists sued by Mike who counter-sued the public figure; media organizations and big personalities in print and broadcast joined the lawsuit. They cited “sleepless nights” and “chilling effect” on media practitioners. (Insomnia may be quantified but how do courts measure the chill?)
When journalist errs
Journalists don’t counter-sue except in exceptional cases, as in the Mike Arroyo case. That partly explains why public persons often use litigation to strike at news media.
Cost of defending the lawsuit is stiff, especially when venue of trial is far from the news group’s workplace, requiring resources that many community media outlets lack. And, for that and other reasons I listed earlier, media don’t sue back.
But one reason that media must acknowledge could happen and occasionally did happen is when the sued journalist indeed committed libel. By reckless or intentional behavior, the accused smeared the public official’s reputation and when hauled to court, he implored for press freedom even as he called the libel suit another “badge of honor” for him.
Councilor Pastor Alcover Jr. sued by then mayor Tomas Osmena; then senator Antonio Trillanes by Paolo Duterte and Manases Carpio (not in photos).
2. When politicians sue other public officials but spare the journalists
PACHICO A. SEARES
First published in SunStar, Jan. 18, 2019 under the column “Media’s Public.”
Adapted to CJJ September 2024
Councilor Jun Alcover’s “offensive” material against Tomas Osmeña was posted on Facebook. Paolo Duterte and Manases Carpio, Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio’s husband, didn’t include broadcaster Leo Lastimosa, who in 2017 interviewed Trillanes for ABS-CBN.
PUBLIC officials and other politicians have wide access to the public through the media. They are public property and open to accusation or complaint, which they can answer readily and extensively. That’s particularly true during election season when issues against one another fly thick and fast.
Yet they sue. The reason is that a lawsuit is a weapon, which can be used for their own purpose. Most likely not to resolve an issue or clear the air: litigation can drag for ages, beyond the election period. Rather, to express outrage, serve a propaganda purpose, to harass the rival, or a mix of all.
Alcover, Trillanes
Two cases of libel that landed in media last week:
[1] Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña filed a complaint for libel against City Councilor Pastor Alcover Jr., member of the opposition Partido Barug, for allegedly putting words into his mouth through a Facebook post on the Ateneo de Manila student bullying incident;
[2] Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV pleaded not guilty to four libel cases filed against him by presidential son Paolo Duterte, who’s running for Davao City vice mayor, and the president’s son-in-law Manases Carpio, accusing them during a 2017 interview of extorting money from the ride-hailing company Uber.
Alcover must have said worse things about Tomas and yet the mayor picked an almost innocuous opinion, one among hundreds of views from the public, on the issue of the day at the time, a small boy bullying a co-student, bulkier and taller boy, in Manila.
The councilor posted the allegedly concocted quote on his Facebook wall. No journalist, newspaper or broadcast station was involved. Tomas couldn’t sue a SunStar or a Nalzaro, it was just Alcover, over an issue totally unrelated to the concerns of the city.
Lastimosa excluded
Paolo and Manases, identified to the most visible political family in the country, did not include in their complaint dyAB’s Leo Lastimosa, who did the radio interview with Trillanes in Cebu City.
Is this a new thing, sparing the media that reported or transmitted the statements that led to the libel suit? Maybe, the complainants just happened not to dislike the journalist or news outfit concerned. But the right to drag media into politicians’ legal battle is still there.
Faraway venue
So is the right of a complainant public official to pick a faraway venue. Trillanes lives and works in Manila and yet has to fly to Davao, along with his entourage of bodyguards and staff, to answer the libel complaint.
When a Cebu journalist is sued by, say, a congressman with office in Quezon City and residence in Zamboanga, he has to bear the expense and distress of facing the charge in either place, not in Cebu City, where the newspaper or broadcast station is located.
Public officials like Trillanes can afford the expense of travel — and getting a lawyer, which also costs more because of the distance. The complainant enjoys the advantage of home court and the pleasure of watching the distress of the persons he sues.
Disadvantage
Until the law is changed, it is often a lopsided battle for the journalist sued by a public official. Public officials don’t realize the extent of the disadvantage until they themselves are charged with libel by rival politicians.
That must have sunk into Trillanes and other public officials who sympathize with his plight of being hounded with lawsuits.
Tomas Osmeña (left) and Eduardo Gullas, with other politicians, apparently didn’t believe that libel laws take a holiday during the campaign season. Going to court might serve propaganda more than getting justice or expressing grievance.
3. Tomas Osmeña, Eddie Gullas: two who sued during election campaign
PACHICO A. SEARES
First published in SunStar, Nov. 15, 2015. Adapted to CJJ in September 2024.
In 2010 Osmeña sued his rival for a House seat, Jonathan Guardo. in 2015 Gullas sued the son of Johnny de los Reyes, his rival for Talisay City mayor. Both cases were filed in the midst of the election campaign.
CANDIDATES for public office don’t sue: they answer, argue or hit back, usually in the same media platform.
Protagonists are similarly situated and equipped on tools of communication. The campaign’s heat explains occasional harshness or untruth but any deliberate error or reckless mistake may be corrected by reply.
Besides, cases take so long to be resolved. And often, after elections, the complaint is abandoned or dumped. Usually, a complaint filed during the season is meant more to serve propaganda than grievance.
Politicians have legal right to sue but it would be untimely, even incongruous, if they escalate battle now to prosecutors and the courts. Why go there when there’s the public arena where the issue can be heard?
In the 2010 campaign, Tomas Osmeña charged his rival for Cebu City’s south district seat, Jonathan Guardo, with libel for saying publicly that Tomas tried to stop Guardo’s distribution of aid to fire victims in Calamba.
This week, Eduardo Gullas charged Clifford de los Reyes, son of his rival JVR in the Talisay City mayor’s race, with libel for an online remark that Eddiegul got “kickbacks” from the proposed sale of that city’s old public market.
Two similar situations, except that Tomas’s gripe seemed feeble (doesn’t every politician accuse the competition of sabotage?) compared to Eddiegul’s. Had Guardo not blinked, he could’ve won the lawsuit. But JVR’s son is making a serious charge he may not be prepared to support with truth and absence of malice.
No holiday
Libel laws don’t take a holiday during elections but they should be resorted to by candidates only in extremely serious assaults.
Eddiegul meantime can show to voters the utter falsehood of the accusation and not wait for the justice machinery to roll. And push the case to its end, whatever the election outcome.
TV entertainer-politician Richard Yap and businesswoman-politician Niña Mabatid tangled over public comments made by her about Yap’s alleged “unrecognized” son outside his marriage, an issue that neither the litigation nor the election resolved.
4. Richard Yap sued Niña Mabatid for cyber-libel: both were aspiring for the same House seat, with the ‘offensive’ posts made and complaint filed during campaign season
PACHICO A. SEARES
First published in SunStar Oct. 10, 2022, under the column “Explainer.”
Adapted to CJJ September 2024.
The Taguig City Regional Trial Court, where Richard Yap filed his complaint in September 2022, was wrong venue, the court decided in dismissing the case in March 2023. He sued in Taguig when the offense of cyber-libel was committed in Cebu.
The larger issue whether Prisca Niña Mabatid made defamatory statements on a falsehood was not litigated. No light was ever shed on it. Except for Yap’s repeated denials in public, the truth of Mabatid’s and the purported son’s claim was not sought by the court.
The case highlights complications arising from the law on cyber-libel regarding the issue of venue.
WHAT HAPPENED. Last Wednesday (October 5, 2022), former Cebu City councilor Prisca Niña Mabatid was released after surrendering and posting bail at the Negros Oriental Regional Trial Court. The arrest warrant was issued by Taguig City RTC Branch 271 five days earlier, on September 30.
The matter of venue drew interest: Cebu City-based Mabatid was sued for cyber-libel by entertainer-politician Richard Yap in Taguig City, which must be his actual residence, but she posted bail in Dumaguete City.
The complaint was filed on November 15, 2021, when the 2022 election campaign was heating up, in the race where both Mabatid and Yap were competing with Rachel Marguerite “Cutie” del Mar for the House seat vacated by the death of her father Representative Raul Del Mar. Cutie del Mar, who had served the city’s north district from 2010 to 2013, handily beat the challengers.
The cyber-libel case is between election losers, mired in a litigation obviously produced during the campaign season. Here are seven takeaways from the not-your-ordinary-libel case:
[1] VENUE IN CYBER-LIBEL. The major take-away, for the benefit of mainstream journalists and social media users alike, is the question of venue.
In ordinary libel, a private complainant like Richard Yap may file his complaint in one of two places: (a) where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense, or (b) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.
In cyber-libel however — which Yap and most of those who sue for libel these days prefer because of the one-degree-higher penalty — it’s “impossible” to ascertain where the article was first published and where the article was first accessed. For that reason, the Supreme Court in Winona Bonifacio et al vs. RTC of Makati City (GR #184800, May 5, 2010) said that “if it would allow cyber-libel to be filed where the article is first accessed, the author of the article may be sued anywhere in the Philippines.” Yap could say he accessed Mabatid’s Facebook post in Aparri and would sue there.
Thus, the SC has “effectively limited” the venue to the place where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. In Yap’s case though, in which he chose Taguig City as his actual residence when Mabatid allegedly libeled her, he in effect was also telling that Cebu City was not his actual residence when he ran for public office. But for election purposes, he picked Cebu as his actual residence when he ran for congressman in 2019 and 2022, which he both lost.
[2] HOW VENUE AFFECTS TRADIONAL MEDIA. The rule on venue on ordinary libel already oppresses mainstream journalists as the complainant has the option to use the site of trial that’s as far away from the place of publication as can be. A congressman, say, in Mindanao would pick Quezon City where to file his complaint against a journalist whose news outlet is based in Cebu. QC is the location of his office. Worse, if he’d pick Dipolog City, his place of residence, where to sue.
And that’s where venue is limited to, under the SC rule on cyber-libel: the actual residence of the complainant — or maybe if he’s a public official, the location of his office — which can be hundreds of kilometers from the place of publication.
[3] POSTING BAIL. The accused, in this case former councilor Mabatid, could post bail with Taguig City RTC, where the case is pending, or, in the absence of its judge, with another branch of the same court within the province or city.
Mabatid surrendered — and in effect was arrested — in Dumaguete City, then posted bail with that city’s RTC. She could’ve done so with any other available — metropolitan, municipal trial or municipal circuit — judge in that area or any other place of surrender/arrest. Mabatid could’ve picked Cebu for posting bail. Apparently, she was in Negros Oriental when she decided to surrender and go through the process of arrest.
[4] THE COMPLAINT; NO LIBEL LAW HOLIDAY? Yap’s complaint dwelt on Mabatid’s posts (a) about the TV celebrity cum politico “using government funds” for his feeding programs (“example, that I used government rice for my ‘lugaw'”) and (b) about his having a child that he “didn’t support.”
Those two issues against Yap were raised during the campaign. Apparently, the assistant city prosecutor who recommended for indictment of Mabatid — and the city prosecutor who approved it — didn’t consider the election campaign as a pass for political rivals to hurl accusations against one another. They must think that libel laws don’t take a holiday during the election season and protection on reputation continues even with the need for full discussion of issues among seekers of elective public office.
JOSHUA PAOLO JENSON who said he was the “illegitimate son” of Richard Yap, surfaced in Cebu during the 2022 election season. [From CDN Digital Oct. 28, 2021]
[5] QUESTION OF MALICE AMONG POLITICOS. The prosecutors, in finding “probable cause” of cyber-libel, seem to disregard the expected results of political debate, or the exchange of charges and counter-charges between rivals for public office. Mabatid and Yap were running for congressman, how the heck could the public know about their strengths and virtues if they couldn’t raise sensitive, yet valid, issues?
How can Mabatid plead she had no ill-intent as she understandably would want to take down her rival in the race? There must have been malice in her heart and mind, as her rival Yap must have the same ill-will in his heart and mind. She may argue she was just airing valid issues and yet she cannot deny her passion to defeat Yap by publicly presenting accusations against him, which, the prosecutors now find, could be libelous.
[6] NOT IN THE CATEGORY OF JOURNALIST. Mabatid wouldn’t be in the same category of a journalist who’d write about Yap — his alleged use of government rice for a vote-getting promo of free “lugaw” or his alleged “unconcern” about the claim of a purported son — and invoke public interest as motive.
How absence of malice may be used by an elective office-seeker accused of libel is interesting territory for the courts to probe and define. Whether Mabatid can enjoy the mantle of “privileged communication,” which is granted to journalists under certain conditions, may provoke judicial inquiry.
[7] YAP’S RIGHT OF REPLY. Apparently, the prosecutors didn’t consider that Yap had the chance to answer the posts made by Mabatid. Archived stories should tell the prosecutors that the entertainer-politician answered fire with fire. Each had a platform and audience to state his or her position. It wasn’t a case of Mabatid thrashing Yap with his hands tied.
For example, on the October 2021 challenge of Mabatid for Yap to take a DNA test to prove he had no relation to the young man who claimed he was Richard’s son, the TV celebrity shot it down with a stinging reply that Niña was not the mother and her motive for nagging about the issue was questionable. The case was in court, Yap said, let the court decide.
Both Mabatid and Yap were in the middle of a political campaign, where sparks, even explosions, were inevitable.
CYBER-LIBEL CHANGED THINGS. It was hard to secure evidence of an offensive statement on radio. Broadcasters — such as, from left, the late Choy Torralba and Bobby Nalzaro, with Leo Lastimosa — were sued for libel more times than most of their colleagues but successfully defended the complaints. But then came the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and libel litigation has since radically changed for broadcasters.
5. While ordinary libel cases vs. radio commentators used to fail, as it was tough to secure evidence, that’s not true anymore in an age when complainant’s weapon of choice is cyber libel.
PACHICO A. SEARES
First published in SunStar March 14, 2015 under the column “Media’s Public.”
Adapted to CJJ and updated September 2024.
The article tells how it was then, when it was hard to nail an offending broadcaster. The Supreme Court, in a decision in the 2002 case of People vs. Torralba, even offered a tip on how to secure and strengthen evidence.
The problem used to be the gathering of the record or tape of the alleged libel, which the complainant often found difficult to obtain.
That has changed since cyber-libel was enacted as a crime and aggrieved person preferred it over ordinary libel because of higher penalty and relatively easier access to recorded defamation. Digital footprints, in addition to recording of the defamation, are there for the complainant, with police-NBI
expertise, to gather and prove the crime.
TWO separate pending libel complaints against Cebu radio broadcasters highlight the problem of public officials in suing a broadcaster:
- A complaint against broadcaster Bobby Nalzaro, filed by former mayor and former congressman Tomas Osmeña, but not for what Nalzaro said on radio or TV but for a column he wrote for Sun. Star and Sun.Star Online;
- A complaint against a radio block-time commentator, filed by former mayor now Provincial Board Member Thaddeus Ouano for criticisms made on radio.
What may seem the tough part is gathering evidence on the “offensive” material. Unlike print media which leaves evidence in writing through hard copy, broadcast media, which is “written in the wind,” does not.
NTC help, SC ruling
Broadcast outlets are required by National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to record news and public affairs programs on tape, now digital disc.
But the hitches are: the radio or TV station may alter or erase content or give the complainant a run-around or refuse to supply the recording, preferring to pay the fine so as not to produce evidence against itself.
There’s a way shown by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Torralba vs. People of the Philippines (promulgated May 2, 2002): the complainant can have the broadcast recorded and authenticated as evidence of the libel. (In the Torralba case, the SC dumped the recording as “unauthentic and spurious” since no witness was presented in lower court to validate it.) Despite, the clear instruction from the Torralba case, few have bothered to heed the advice.
Osmeña’s complaint against Nalzaro rests on Bobby’s newspaper column, not on what he said on radio about the same subject. In an earlier complaint against another radio commentator, Leo Lastimosa, then governor Gwen Garcia also picked Lastimosa’s column in The Freeman, not from the trove of evidence in his broadcasts, using the radio talk only to show “a pattern” of vilification against her.
News sources apparently don’t take the time to record utterances of broadcast commentators. A major default because broadcasters are often uninhibited and more virulent on radio than in print and
Getting evidence
RTC Judge Raphael Yrastorza Sr., citing Lastimosa for indirect contempt for comments made after he was convicted of libel last Aug. 29, 2013, couldn’t give specifics. Apparently, aides or friends just told him about what Leo said on air but couldn’t show ready evidence when pressed by Leo’s lawyer for a “a bill of particulars.” (Yrastorza last December dismissed the citation against Lastimosa and this writer, citing the popular but irrelevant excuse of “spirit of the Christmas season.”)
Ouano, on the other hand, had no choice but to use broadcast evidence against the radio commentator as the respondent, not a print journalist, limited his assault to the use of the microphone. Ted tapped witnesses who heard the “offensive” comments and, surprise, was able to secure from NTC a recording.
The instructive point being: The complainant needs to have evidence against the broadcaster, which NTC can help provide or he himself can produce and present in court.
Cases dumped
As noted here in an earlier article on libel, most libel complaints are doomed when (a) target of criticism is a public official or a public figure; (b) subject concerns public interest; (c) material is not defama- tory; or (d) there’s no malice.
For any of those reasons, prosecutors and courts reject the complaint, upholding free and fair criticism, despite occasional mistakes of the broadcaster. Convictions in the lower court, where the accuser often holds sway because of political clout, are thrown out on appeal or in the Department of Justice.
It’s the attacks on private life of the public official or public figure that can send the commentator to jail. How would alleged sharing of a bath with a maid or bedding with a daughter-in-law relate to public weal, even if couched in recognizable innuendo?
Chances of success
The two pending libel complaints in Cebu demonstrate how one can fail and the other can succeed.
Osmeña is a public figure who’s actively involved in local affairs of governance and subject of the commentary is a matter of public interest. Nalzaro’s opinion that Tomas’s horde of administrative complaints could be “fabricated” relates to a matter of public concern. Could a journalist be charged with libel by writing that Tomas “built” or “made up” the charges against a treasurer? We’ll know soon enough.
Compare that with the radio commentary against Ouano, a public official. But it’s not about his performance in office but his alleged sexual dalliances. In deciding malice, the judge has to be convinced that the alleged misbehavior in the privacy of bathroom and bedroom had anything to do with Ted’s conduct in public office.
Leaving out managers
And one thing where genuinely aggrieved persons can lessen what they deplore as pollution in the air: include the station manager or program chief in the lawsuit against an “erring” broadcaster.
Under KBP rules or code of standards of non-KBP stations, the broadcast company through its manager and program director supervises content. Even a blocktimer can be made to follow broadcast rules through station officials. Suing the broadcast officials will prod them to crack the whip on an erring radio commentator.
This isn’t about press freedom. It’s about following the law, under which everyone — print, broadcast and online journalists — is held accountable.
Florence Baesa and a fellow broadcaster in Dumaguete City were allegedly libeled for their attack on radio against a public official. The alleged libeler: another broadcaster named Joene Cahilog (above right), aka Rex Santos Candos, who defended the public official.
6. 2 Dumaguete City broadcasters sued radio block-timer, a rare instance of media workers going to court to seek redress for libel against a colleague in the industry
PACHICO A. SEARES
First published in SunStar March 11, 2020 under the column “Media’s Public.”
Adapted to to CJJ September 2024
Formerly Cebu-based — as DYRC reporter, news editor and news director for 11 years — Florence Baesa, with a fellow broadcaster Rex Pepino in Dumaguete City, in 2014 sued a radio block-timer. one Joene Cahilog aka Rex Santos. The judge blamed “bitterness and anger of the accused” for Cahilog’s “virulent” defamation against his media co-workers.
In March 2020, Baesa, manager of DYMD Energy FM, and her colleague won in their libel suit against Cahilog/Santos who was ordered to pay P50,000 or serve jail time in case of failure to pay.
MEDIA workers rarely sue one another, especially among those who do actual journalism, such as gathering, writing and commenting on the news.
They hurl criticisms at one another, especially in broadcast, more openly and heatedly during the election season when radio commentators take sides in the political battle.
That happens when some politicians hire radio blocktimers to defend them and attack their enemies. The hiring is supposed to be secret and under wraps. The propaganda is more effective if it comes from an “independent” media forum and the expense doesn’t have to be reported to Comelec.
But the employment is soon exposed and the commentator’s employer/contractor is identified and labeled by the program’s content. Whom is the radioman attacking and defending? Recall the radio war in Mandaue City during the last elections when both camps used radio blocktimers to throw dirt at their rivals.
Battle of propaganda
At times the intensity of the battle of propaganda through radio commentaries reach critical level: (a) when it’s the commentators who swap verbal abuse or (b) when they go to court.
Which was what happened in Dumaguete City.
Two broadcasters, Florence Baesa and Rex Pepino, charged in 2014 blocktimer Joene Cahilog a.k.a. Rex Santos with libel.
The Dumaguete Regional Trial Court last week found Cahilog/Santos guilty of libel, sentencing him to pay a fine of P50,000 to each complainant or face imprisonment if he cannot pay.
‘Deep-seated anger’
That wasn’t the first time, Baesa sued Cahilog for libel and Cahilog was found guilty. Earlier, in December 2015, the Dumaguete RTC slapped Cahilog with a two-year jail term and awarded Baesa with P20,000 damages.
Apparently, there is bad blood between Cahilog and Baesa, who had spent more than a decade as a radio reporter of dyRC in Cebu before she moved to Manila, then to Negros, also working in broadcast media. Baesa is now manager of Energy FM in Dumaguete.
Self-defense rejected
Rejecting Cahilog’s defense to Baesa’s 2015 libel case, Judge Arlene Cathering A. Dato said, “Apparently deep-seated feeling of anger, bitterness and resentment motivated the accused to utter the said defamatory imputations… such retaliation or vindictiveness cannot be the basis of self-defense in libel.”
Cahilog could answer Baesa, said the judge, but it must be a fair answer. In journalism school, the principle of proportionate defense is taught.
In the recent conviction, RTC Judge Leoncio Bancoro also noted the bad faith of Cahilog as reflected in his remarks.
In both libel cases, the virulence in language was evident, “as if the radio commentator wanted to wound and kill with his words.”
In sum, the same elements that convict a journalist when the parties are not media practitioners.
Competing with news
Some say that “real” journalists don’t tear at each other in public, much more engage in court battle. That assumes that radio blocktimers are not “real” journalists, which is debatable, as they use the same platform and devices of communication. Until a clear line is drawn, which is unlikely, between blocktimers and “regular” media, commentators of whatever stripe are listened to and wield influence on public opinion.
The conduct of people talking to the microphone comes under scrutiny, more so when the mic holders compete for attention with the news they comment on. And that is when they slash and hack at one another and seek redress in court.