Here is a libel case that may be one for the books, with it’s modus that is something that should forewarn journalists, as it can serve as a precedent that could disarm them and cripple press freedom.
For one, it is petty and flimsy and should have been rejected by the courts from the very start for lack of merits. Second, it dragged on for nine long years and dismissed only recently, indicating how preposterous are the slow wheels of justice. Third, despite the death of the main accused, seven years ago, with death supposedly the final arbiter in jurisprudence, the case was pursued, and passed on from court to court for a total of four courts. Last, it got somebody, the coaccused, jailed unfairly.
The libel case was filed on September 27, 2007, by Lysander Garcia vs. Sosimo Ma. Pablico, the main accused as writer and another person, the coaccused as editor of a souvenir program of the 30th anniversary celebration of the Philippine Agricultural Journalists Inc. (PAJ). In fact, it should have been dismissed right from the start,as it was filed 366 days after publication, or a day late in violation of the year long court prescription period.
Whimsy flimsy libel
Lysander Garcia, a former newsman, declared as Libel No. 1 in his complaint the statement “PAAW [Philippine Association of Agricultural Writers] was mostly a change in nomenclature and leadership as it simply adopted the Constitution and by-laws of AWAP [an earlier organization headed by newsman Zac Sarian, which stands for Agricultural Writers Association of the Philippines].”
He complained this statement is “defamatory, since it imputed to me the undesirable defects of laziness, an inability to be original and imaginative and a copycat mentality. This statement painted me as too lazy to draft my own Constitution, as being unable to be original and imaginative in drafting official documents for my group, and dependent on the writings of other people—all meant to discredit and dishonor me before readers of his article.”
Apparently, there is nothing explicitly said that Lysander is a “copycat, or is lazy and unimaginative.” There is no iota of malice, regardless on whether the facts are accurate. Second, organizational objectives and by-laws are openly adopted with the Securities and Exchange Commission even issuing pro-forma “express lane” forms. It is neither a creative literary work, where plagiarism, copyright and originality matter.
His perceived libelous statement No. 2 reads “However, in one PAAW meeting on September 3, 1976, a Saturday, the president was nowhere to be found again to convene the meeting. It was his third consecutive absence. As vice president, it was my duty to takeover. I declared that the meeting was the last for PAAW, at least with him as the president.”
Lysander again declared this as “defamatory since they imputed to me the discreditable traits of
irresponsibility, incompetence and untrustworthiness and publicly subjected me to dishonor, contempt and ridicule.” Again, there are no opinionated statements, no below-the-belt character assassination and no editorializing. It was a simple statement of fact, regardless whether they were right or wrong. Thus, the absence of malice. Lysander has his perceptions of reality, but facts show his two-year old fledgling PAAW got dissolved and replaced by PAJ, a 40-year-old organization, one of the oldest in the industry. Pablico’s version is presumed more accurate as it was the late Pablico, who coined the PAJ acronym.
Jailed without summons. Summons were delivered to wrong addresses, although Lysander, as a former newsman, had the capacity to research and supply the courts with the right addresses. Neither could summons be sent to the afterlife. Thus, the case prospered without the knowledge of the accused. On December 7, 2010, the tragic “Pearl Harbor” anniversary, the coaccused was arrested and jailed overnight.
As this libel had its roots in an old grudge 40 years ago, it seems Lysander “harbors” a deep grudge against writer Zosimo Pablico and has more malice to file libel, getting the coaccused jailed as the collateral damage. If there was an error in reporting, the usual remedy is a simple correction and apology, but because Lysander took 366 days, one day beyond the one-year prescription period to file cases, to prepare his libel complaint, it is he who has more malice for harboring an old grudge happening 40 years ago.
When courts are at a loss on laws
Unfortunately, the courts entertained Lysander’s case hook, line and sinker, and even injected highly opinionated judgments, not even mentioned in his complaint. Assistant City Prosecutor del Rosario’s report read “the accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with malicious intent of destroying the reputation of Lysander P. Garcia….”
This statement is total editorializing, judgmental and making conclusions that are unfair, malicious and even libelous. Even Lysander never used words like “conspired,” “confederated,” or “mutually helped each other, willfully, unlawfully…etc.” It made a prejudgment even before any preliminary investigation was done.
It also influenced Judge Elvira Panganiban, who declared on the death of Mr. Pablico, “even if we assume death with finality, but if the case is imbued with “some conspiracy,” the death of the main accused does not extinguish the liability of the coaccused.” If death does not render the case moot and academic being the final arbiter, is the “conspiracy” assumption already making a lopsided prejudgment?
She also stretched due process too much to entertain trivialities. When the coaccused’s counsel, lawyer Vic MIllora got absent in the May 6, 2011, hearing for undergoing a gall operation, Lysander demanded to subpoena his hospital records as proof of hospitalization. Surprisingly, Judge Panganiban asked the counsel if this was possible.
Lawyer Millora objected, claiming his gall operation has no relevance to the libel case, and yet, Lysander had the gall to demand it. There were three more judges and ridiculous legal twists and turns, including getting Lysander’s neighbor, Fely Lico, to testify in March 2014 on his good character, which again had no relevance to the case. Apparently, the courts had a loss on laws.
Burden of proof shifts back in libel
Unlike most crimes, wherein an accused defends his innocence through alibis, witnesses and evidence; in libel, the burden of proof shifts back to the accuser who has to rove malice.
Lysander had nothing personal about the coaccused, but just wanted to pursue the case to prove his point. But it got into his head with the temerity to declare in September 2012 that he deserves P500,000 in damages.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 issued January 25, 2008, ruled on libel that only fines be imposed, and imprisonments be scrapped in violation of the universal principles on human rights and constitutional rights on free press and free speech.
And yet, the coaccused got jailed and released on a reduced bail from P10,000 to P5,000 upon appeal. Without bail, he could be jailed for a maximum of 15 days, without a sentence. And if the libel case is ever proven, the minimum penalty is only P200.
As a former newsman, the coaccused could have raised hell in media, but opted to be silent and play opossum the entire time and just document the preposterous process, which is rightfully called due process, but negatively called “slow wheels of justice.” You could just imagine, how bitter justice could be for the underprivileged, who are helpless, subservient and ignorant about their rights.
The coaccused, jailed unfairly, is yours truly. He believes that libel must not only be decriminalized, but totally scrapped as in developed countries as it violates constitutional and universal rights on free press and free speech. With the Internet, and open mud-slinging in social media by netizens as citizen journalists, there is no place now for libel. The consequences of keeping libel will only label us as undemocratic, and could cripple creative thinking.
E-mail: mikealunan@yahoo.com
1 comment
I don;t agree that libel should be abolished. Some press people do not know where freedom of speech ends and the right to privacy, respect and dignity for another begins. Although, in the case above, the accuser seemed just to get somebody, I don’t think his ego or pride was even hurt. And certainly, there was no implied malice in the “libelous” statement. Probably he wanted to prove that his organization was better than the previous one. I strongly agree with you taht in the SEC, one can copy Articles of Incorporation, etc. supplied by the SEC itself if the registrant has not prepared one. Maybe, the accuser thought that writing and submitting an AI always requires creativity and talent, which he has none.