This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1994 regarding interrogations of journalists by military authorities in the Philippines and a libel suit filed against two journalists. The Court ruled that while invitations from authorities could be interpreted as commands, the interrogations and libel suit had ended, making the case moot. However, the Court noted press freedom is an important right and libel suits cannot be used to harass journalists when reporting on matters of public concern involves fair commentary and no malice.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1994 regarding interrogations of journalists by military authorities in the Philippines and a libel suit filed against two journalists. The Court ruled that while invitations from authorities could be interpreted as commands, the interrogations and libel suit had ended, making the case moot. However, the Court noted press freedom is an important right and libel suits cannot be used to harass journalists when reporting on matters of public concern involves fair commentary and no malice.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1994 regarding interrogations of journalists by military authorities in the Philippines and a libel suit filed against two journalists. The Court ruled that while invitations from authorities could be interpreted as commands, the interrogations and libel suit had ended, making the case moot. However, the Court noted press freedom is an important right and libel suits cannot be used to harass journalists when reporting on matters of public concern involves fair commentary and no malice.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1994 regarding interrogations of journalists by military authorities in the Philippines and a libel suit filed against two journalists. The Court ruled that while invitations from authorities could be interpreted as commands, the interrogations and libel suit had ended, making the case moot. However, the Court noted press freedom is an important right and libel suits cannot be used to harass journalists when reporting on matters of public concern involves fair commentary and no malice.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 4
Babst v NIB GR. No L-62992, Sept., 25, 1994.
J. Plana Facts: Petitioners are columnists, feature article writers and reporters of various local publications. At different dates since July, 1980, some of them have allegedly been summoned by military authorities who have subjected them to sustained interrogation on various aspects of their works, and even their private lives. Aside from the interrogations, a criminal complaint for libel was filed by Brig. Gen. Artemio Tadiar, Jr. against petitioners Domini Torrevillas-Suarez, editor of the Panorama, and Ma. Ceres Doyo based on an article written by Doyo and published in the March 28, 1982 issue of the Panorama, on which the author had been interrogated by respondents. The complaint included an staggering P10 million claim for damages. Petitioners maintain that the respondents have no jurisdiction over the proceedings which are violative of the constitutional guarantee on free expression since they have the effect of imposing restrictive guidelines and norms on mass media. In their comment, respondents counter that no issue of jurisdiction exists since they do not pretend to exercise jurisdiction over the petitioners; that what respondents have sent to petitioners were neither subpoenas nor summonses, but mere invitations to dialogues which were completely voluntary, without any compulsion employed on petitioners. Relative to the libel case, respondents contend that petitioners have no cause of action against respondent Board since respondent General Tadiar is not a member of respondent Board and has filed the libel case in his personal capacity. Moreover, the proceedings were already terminated by the NIB. Issue: Was the issuance by respondent NIB to petitioners of letters of invitation, their subsequent interrogation, and the filing of the aforementioned libel suit unconstitutional? Held: No. Petition dismissed. Ratio: The assailed proceedings have come to an end. The acts sought to be prohibited (i.e., the issuance of letters of invitation petition and subsequent interrogations) have therefore been abated, thereby rendering the petition moot and academic as regards the aforesaid matters. Be that as it may, it is not Idle to note that ordinarily, an invitation to attend a hearing and answer some questions, which the person invited may heed or refuse
at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally objectionable. Under certain
circumstances, however, such an invitation can easily assume a different appearance. Thus, where the invitation comes from a powerful group composed predominantly of ranking military officers issued at a time when the country has just emerged from martial rule and when the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has not entirely been lifted and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can easily be taken, not as a strictly voluntary invitation which it purports to be, but as an authoritative command which one can only defy at his peril. Similarly, prohibition will not issue in respect of the libel charges now pending in court against two of the petitioners and similar suits that might be filed. Firstly, the writ of prohibition is directed against a tribunal, board or person acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion vis-a-vis certain proceedings pending before it. The libel cases adverted to are not pending before respondent NIB or any other respondent. Secondly, the issue of validity of the libel, charges by reason of their alleged collision with freedom of expression, is a matter that should be raised in the proper forum, i.e., before the court where the libel cases are pending or where they may be filed. Finally, the right to seek redress when libeled is a personal and individual privilege of the aggrieved party, and no one among the respondent officials has the authority to restrain any of his subordinates who has been libeled from vindicating his right by instituting a libel suit. Brig. Gen. Tadiar has filed the libel case against petitioners Suarez and Doyo in his personal capacity. CJ Fernando concurring True to the tradition that cases on freedom of expression furnish the opportunity for moving utterances, they stress in language both lofty and persuasive, the exacting responsibility of the judiciary in preserving unimpaired press freedom. U.S. v Bustos- The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the absences of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation: the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not to be too thin skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as an individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be born for the common good
Times v Sullivan- libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional
limitations. The test to be followed, according to the language of the New York Times decision, was set forth thus in the Lopez opinion: "For liability to arise then without offending press freedom, there is this test to meet: 'The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice" that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' Press freedom is a preferred right. It is entitled to the fullest protection that the law affords. A person who deems himself aggrieved by defamatory statements is of course entitled to seek redress in the courts. While there is an undeniable public interest in assuring that a man's reputation be safeguarded from calumny and unjust accusation, on matters of public concern, he cannot be shielded from the scrutiny of the press and the expression thereafter of whatever failings it might uncover on matters of public concern. Care is to be taken, however, that in its publication there is avoidance of affirming what is not true or disregarding in a manner deemed reckless to take the necessary steps of ascertaining its truth or falsity. Teehankee dissenting Petitioners are entitled to such a definite ruling. In the words of the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro in Aquino, Jr. v. Enrile, "the fact that a final determination of a question involved in an action is needed will be useful as a guide for the conduct of public officers or tribunals is a sufficient reason for retaining an action which would or should otherwise be dismissed. Gonzales v COMELEC- Freedom of speech and the press thus means something more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to official measures, to take refuge in the existing climate of opinion on any matter of public consequence. So atrophied, the right becomes meaningless. Batalia- (P)ress freedom is the concern of judges, fiscals, other government officials, writers, and the rest of society, including the possible complainants in libel suits. In the absence of the will on the part of such people to preserve press freedom, the Supreme Court will be of little utility." In a recent editorial, the Times-Journal decries that "libel suits are being used to harass journalists. "The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. A public officer must not to be too thin-
skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as an individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be born for the common good." Ultimately, the core issue is whether or not the article on Bataan is constitutionally protected as fair comment on matters of public interest involving military conduct and operations and therefore not actionable as libel, so long as there is no personal ill will, self-seeking motive or actual malice or abuse of press freedom, "the newspapers should be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to courageously and effectively perform their important role in our democracy. " J. Abad Santos dissenting: The Constitution states that "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, " (Art. IV, Sec. 9.) In the instant case the persons who compose Special Committee No. 2 of the National Intelligence Board have abridged the freedom to speak and the freedom to publish by intimidation and veiled threats addressed to some members of the press who by their writings have been critical of the government. Their actions are the more odious and had chilling effects because they were cloaked by a mantle of pseudo legality. The letter of respondent Estrada to Ms. Babst uses the word "law" twice a law which vests authority in him and which also authorizes his committee to proceed if Ms. Babst should fail to appear. I have asked and searched but I have yet to discover the law respondent Estrada had in mind. The letter uses the word "requested" but in context the request was a thinly veiled command to appear before the Special Committee for failure to do so is to be considered as a waiver (of what?) and the committee will have to proceed in accordance with law (again what law?). The interrogations were not only offensive to the guarantees of free speech and free press, they also violated the right to privacy the right to withhold information which are nobody's business. For freedom to speak and to publish to be meaningful, "Not much reflection is needed to show that these freedoms would be nullified if a person were allowed to express his views only on the pain of being held accountable. That would be to stifle the expression of opinions which are repugnant or contrary to the current political, economic, or moral views. The right to dissent becomes non-existent. To expose the party availing himself of freedom of speech or of the press to run the risk of punishment is to make a mockery of our commitment to the free mind."
