MANILA, Philippines — A division of the Supreme Court acquitted columnist Raffy Tulfo on libel charges that stemmed from a complaint filed by a former Bureau of Customs official over several columns the accused wrote in 1999.
The SC’s Third Division granted the Petition for Review filed by Tulfo, and Abante Tonight Publisher Allen Macasaet and Managing Editor Nicolas Quijano, on a Court of Appeals’ ruling that upheld their conviction.
“Wherefore, the Petitions are granted. The Court of Appeals’ March 17, 2009 Amended Decision… which affirmed the conviction of petitioners [Tulfo, Macasaet and Quijano Jr.]… is reversed and set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the crime charged,” the ruling, penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, read.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by lawyer Carlos So of the customs bureau. He assailed columns that Tulfo wrote in 1999 and 2000 on alleged extortion on brokers and shippers and a supposed illicit affair.
The SC, however, held that Tulfo “reported on the alleged illegal activities of Atty. So in the exercise of his public functions.”
“Our libel laws must not be broadly construed as to deter comments on public affairs and the conduct of public officials. Such comments are made in the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the press,” the ruling read.
“Public officers are accountable to the people, and must serve them ‘with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.’ Speech that guards abuses of those in public office should be encouraged. Petitioner Tulfo should be acquitted,” it added.
Columnists cannot be compelled to reveal sources
In resolving the petitions, the SC stressed that the prosecution must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice, or that the accused must have done so “with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
The high court noted that Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides two exemptions on defamatory imputation: A private communication and a fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks of any officer or act performed by a public officer in their official function.
In Tulfo’s case, the SC — contradicting the Court of Appeals’ findings — said the prosecution failed to prove that Tulfo acted with malice or with reckless disregard to determining truth or falsity of imputations.
The high court noted that the assailed columns included paragraphs stating that the “complainant was indicated as an extortionist, a corrupt public official, smuggler and having illegally acquired wealth.”
The SC noted that the statements incidate So’s alleged use of connections to stay in position and conceal his misconduct and held that the assailed articles fall within the purview of qualified privileged communications.
The prosecution must prove that Tulfo made the statements knowing that these were false or with reckless disregard on its veracity, but cross-examination did not show these.
The SC also noted that “it is not unusual that columnists have no personal knowledge on the material they report.” Columnists also cannot be compelled to reveal their sources, it added.
The high court also held that Tulfo not obtaining So’s side of story cannot amount to malice. “While substantiating facts does play an important role in reporting standards, a reporter may rely on a lone source’s information, even if such information only shows one side of story, for so long as the reporter ‘does not entertain a “a high degree of awareness of [its] probable falsity,”” the ruling read.
Press freedom
The SC division opened the ruling with statements on the freedom of speech and of the press and the need to protect them.
“Without these rights, no vigilant press would flourish. And without a vigilant press, the government’s mistake would go unnoticed, their abuses unexposed, and their wrongdoings uncorrected,” it added.
The SC however noted that these freedoms cannot be used as shield to advance malicious propagation of false information.
It stressed that the acquittal of Tulfo, his publisher and managing editor does not mean to that journalists have unbridled discretion on what they publish.
The court said journalists must follow the Philippine Press Institute’s Journalist’s Code of Ethics and the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
Journalists have been calling for the decriminalization of libel, arguing that the country’s defamation laws have been used to intimidate members of the press.
Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Henri Jean Paul Inting, Edgardo Delos Santos and Ricardo Rosario concurred with the ruling. The decision is dated January 11, 2021 but was only made public on Monday.