46. Partial decriminalization will not make us more free
Exempting journalists from criminal libel seems complicated and problematic
Some headway in the decades-long campaign for the decriminalization of libel and cyber libel: A senator who used to be in media says he intends to fulfill a campaign promise to file legislation for it.
One catch, though, decriminalization of libel will only be for “legitimate journalists” while “pretenders” and “extortionists” will still have to go to jail if found guilty of defamation.
The idea has appeal, especially for journalists who consider themselves legitimate — and therefore, not extortionists who use their programs to attack politicians for pay —and who have been themselves on the receiving end of slander and online abuse.
But exempting just one group of people from the threat of libel cases seems problematic and unfair, if not unconstitutional.
That would also raise the question of how to determine who the legitimate journalists are.
That determination cannot be based, for example, on whether one is employed corporate media newsroom because some colleagues who lost jobs during the pandemic or because of the loss of ABS-CBN’s franchise have put up their own outfits or now deliver news directly through their social media accounts.
That might also exclude alternative and not-for-profit media, who are already often othered in the journalism community as it is and who are often labeled by officials and agencies as “not really media” or as enemies of government.
That job cannot be given to a government-created accreditation body either unless we want to give up the ideal of self-regulation and are otherwise fine with the idea of that body having the power to revoke accreditation (and, by extension, our identity and self-worth).
Not even the National Press Club or National Union of Journalists of the Philippines can say who is or is not a journalist. At most, organizations can eject members who do not meet eligibility requirements.
I do not have an answer to Sen. Erwin Tulfo’s argument that keeping libel a crime would be a better way to hold people accountable than a civil suit and the potential loss of credibility for libel but do agree with this excerpt from a 2021 Supreme Court decision on a libel case:
"Civil actions for defamation are more consistent with our democratic values since they do not threaten the constitutional right to free speech, and avoid the unnecessary chilling effect on criticisms toward public officials."
In the meantime and in the face of a chance at a less than ideal decriminalization, a reminder that none of use are free until all of us are.
—
Altermidya has a fuller discussion of libel on its ALABAnalysis. I am also there. Sorry, everyone.
Also still on libel because it has been quite a week: Former Energy Secretary Cusi has been indicted for libel and he is using the same defenses that journalists he sued for libel in December 2021 over the same issue.
Meanwhile, lawmakers, who are also the president’s relatives, have proposed the creation of a P250-billion sovereign wealth fund with money sourced from, among others, the Government Service Insurance System and the Social Security System.
It's an ambitious program that, to my dumb head, seems like the government playing around with our pensions. More on that by Ian Cigaral here.The Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities has also concluded its Jaime Espina Klima Correspondents Fellowship, which is named after the late former NUJP chair and press freedom advocate.
They have compiled the fellows' stories on energy transition on this site.
(I was on the panel of judges, and also struggling to fill the very big shoes he left)