|
READ the Supreme Court’s Administrative Circular
No. 8 and be reassured. The memo does not say that judges should
only fine, not mete imprisonment, on persons convicted of libel. The
circular does not decriminalize the crime of libel.
A number of government officials,
including Sergio Apostol, the chief presidential legal counsel, say
that the SC circular is an attempt to amend the law on libel, a
prerogative of Congress. Others, like Justice Secretary Raul
Gonzalez, say the circular is tantamount to class legislation
because it tends to favor only journalists or the profession of
journalism.
The Court’s circular reiterates
what the Revised Penal Code provides for in cases involving libel.
What the memo does is to give the judges greater leeway in
sentencing, greater room for flexibility when handing down decisions
in libel cases.
Under Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, libel shall be punished by prison correccional in its
minimum and medium period or a fine ranging from P200 to P6,000, or
both, in addition to civil action which may be brought by the
offended party.
The administrative circular
released Friday, addressed to judges, stresses the high tribunal’s
preference for fines rather than imprisonment for those found guilty
of libel.
Jose Midas Marquez, the Supreme
Court spokesman, said the circular is not meant to decriminalize
libel. “The penalty of a prison term can still be imposed for
those found guilty of libel. It is up to the discretion of the judge
whether this penalty should be imposed,” he stressed.
He said the High Court decided to
write the circular after discovering that most libel cases filed
were committed with “honest intentions.” For example, a person
could be angry and provoked into saying something that is considered
libelous, he said.
Journalists, readers and legal
observers saw another reason for the circular: the increasing number
of libel complaints filed by government officials or relatives of
public officials against persons who they think have offended them
through writing, printing, or radio and TV commentary.
In the Philippines, a complaint
for defamation is to be preferred to an assassination order, given
the high number of killings involving print, radio and TV reporters
and commentators. You can fight a libel case in court, but a rubout
order is final.
It is for this reason that
several media organizations—the National Press Club, the National
Union of Journalists of the Philippines and the Kapisanan ng mga
Brodkaster—have welcomed the circular initiated by Chief Justice
Reynato Puno.
The media groups want to go
further by decriminalizing libel. The NPC has also asked the courts
to stop issuing warrants of arrests on journalists charged with
libel.
Says the court circular: “The
judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and
taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case,
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve
the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose
imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work
violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the
imperative of justice.”
The current libel law could use a
review. Sen. Loren Legarda wishes to decriminalize libel. But
dissenters say decriminalization would only embolden authors of
“blind items” and purveyors of gossip.
Responsible journalists said the
Supreme Court circular should all the more move media reporters and
opinion writers to be more circumspect and judicious in their job.
The Supreme Court circular and
any improvement in the libel law will help advance responsible
journalism and promote the public interest by removing the threat of
imprisonment in the day-to-day task of reporting and the search for
truth.
Alternatives to prison
CHIEF Justice Reynato Puno’s
latest innovation confirms the new reforming spirit in the Supreme
Court and the high tribunal’s continuing quest for improvements in
the criminal justice system.
For example, it is widely
known—and internationally noted—that the Philippine penal system
tends to promote punishment over rehabilitation, vengeance over
giving prisoners a second chance.
A naked proof is the overcrowding
in most municipal, city and provincial jails. Congestion also
darkens some facilities of the national penitentiary.
There are many reasons for
congestion. A chronic shortage of judges who could move trials
faster. A huge backlog of cases. Many prisoners qualify for release
but could not put up bail. And the proclivity of judges to throw
persons convicted behind bars.
We have many options to jail that
the system has not tried. Probation, community service and house
arrests are seldom considered. Reconciliation programs in modern
societies allow victims and offenders, under supervision, to discuss
terms of restitution.
Alternatives may include deferred
sentencing, drug and alcohol treatment and intensive supervision.
And, yes, fines.
The law and the courts should
make crime pay. But consideration must be given to first-time
offenders and those involved in nonviolent crime. Prison is not the
answer to every offense. This is the meaning of the Supreme Court
circular.
|
