|
By William B. Depasupil, Reporter
THE Supreme Court’s new guidelines expressing
preference for imposing “fines,” rather than imprisonment for
those found guilty of libel, should not only cover journalists.
The directive, however, should not benefit those
already serving time in jail.
The two schools of thought were raised Friday by
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and lawyer Harry Roque following the
release of the High Court’s new guidelines on libel.
Earlier, the court released Administrative
Circular No. 08-2008 to all judges to remind them that in libel
cases, the preferable punishment to be administered is a fine,
rather than imprisonment.
Chief Justice Reynato Puno said a jail term for
those convicted of libel would remain in the law, and it is up to
Congress to decriminalize libel.
Libel is a criminal act punishable under Article
355 of the Revised Penal Code with a fine or imprisonment or both.
The minimum jail term is six months and one day, maximum six years.
The minimum fine is P200, maximum P6,000.
Gonzalez said the new policy should not be
exclusive to media.
“That would make media a very special group of
people, which is unconstitutional,” he said. “Everybody, not
only the media, should enjoy that kind of privilege.”
Supreme Court spokesman, Jose Midas Marquez,
clarified that the circular was not meant to decriminalize libel,
as only Congress has the authority to do so.
The circular, Marquez explained, only emphasized
the court’s preference for the imposition of fines, rather than
imprisonment, but the discretion on which penalty to impose remains
with the judges.
For his part, Roque said the issuance of the
circular was a laudable move in the right direction, but noted that
it is not retroactive.
In this case, Roque said there is need to bring
the case of journalists already behind bars before the United
Nations Human Rights Council, as in the case of former Bombo Radyo
broadcaster Alex Adonis.
Adonis was jailed following his conviction from
a libel complaint filed against him in 2001 by House Majority Floor
Leader Prospero Nograles.
“In Adonis’ case, he was charged a second
time, precisely to keep him in jail,” Roque told reporters.
Although his co-accused has been cleared, Adonis
was convicted after he failed to get a competent lawyer during his
trial.
Roque said a second libel complaint, filed by
the woman who was supposedly with Nograles, disqualified the newsman
from applying for probation.
“The problem with Congress’ promise to
decriminalize libel is that it is not moving,” he said.
“So in the case of Adonis, we plan to take our
case to the United Nations Human Rights Council, and eventually to
have the libel laws of the country be declared by the UN as a
violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,” the lawyer said.
Roque explained that once declared, they could
ask the Supreme Court to rule that jail terms for libel “are a
violation of the country’s treaty obligations.”
Meanwhile, the National Press Club president,
Roy Mabasa, said the High Court’s guidelines are a welcome
development for the mass communications industry.
“It is a laudable move on the part of the
Supreme Court. We hope that Congress would do its share in
decriminalizing libel,” Mabasa said.
Sen. Francis Escudero, chairman of the Senate
Committee on Justice, said he doubts that Chief Justice Puno could
urge judges to impose fines only and not a jail term on journalists
convicted of criminal libel.
-- With Efren L. Danao and Katrice R. Jalbuena
|
