UN body tells PHL:  Reform your libel laws

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has declared criminal libel laws in the Philippines “incompatible with the freedom of expression protected under international human rights law,” and that the nation “should take appropriate actions to reform its libel laws to conform with international standards.”   The Center for International Law (CenterLaw) executive director Romel Regalado Bagares informed GMA News Online on Friday that his office just received the UNHRC’s “view” regarding a “communication” CenterLaw had filed in mid-2008 on behalf of Davao radio commentator Alex Adonis. Adonis was convicted of libel and imprisoned in 2007 for reading on air a tabloid article about a politician's alleged extramarital encounter.   The UNHRC is a treaty monitoring body created by the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and has power to declare whether a State party to the Convention has breached its obligations.   A “communication” is a petition filed before the UNHRC while a “view” is the ruling of that international law body.   ‘Big win for freedom of expression’   On his blog, University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque Jr. – counsel for Adonis in the UN – pointed out that “The Adonis View” is the first view of the UNHRC that criminal libel infringes on freedom of expression.   “This a very big win for freedom of expression,” Roque remarked. “We expect the Philippine government under PNoy to comply with the Committee’s view and proceed to decriminalize libel and to provide reparations to Adonis for time he spent in prison. No one should be imprisoned for expressing his or her views.”   The UNHRC ruled that Adonis rights were violated, citing its General Comment No. 34 which reads: “Defamations laws should not… stifle freedom of expression. …Penal defamation laws should include defense of truth.  …[As for] comments about public figures, consideration should be given to avoiding penalties or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defense. State parties should consider the decriminalization of libel.”   ‘Burlesque king scandal’    Bombo Radyo broadcaster Adonis was convicted of the crime of libel for reading from a tabloid article – during his commentaries on his radio program – alleging that then House of Representatives Speaker Rep. Prospero Nograles had been caught with his pants down while running away from the husband of his alleged mistress inside a Manila hotel.   Adonis was sentenced to serve up to four years and six days. He spent two years in the Davao Penal Colony despite having been granted parole in December 2007 and posting bail in May 2008 for a second libel case filed by the woman implicated to have been with Nograles in the same hotel incident. He finally got to walk out of prison by the end of 2008, after relenting in October of that year to Nograles’ demand that he issue a public apology in return for the his freedom.   Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code states that libel “is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.”   The UNHRC view stated that the Revised Penal Code provisions penalizing libel is “incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights”, or freedom of expression. This View was adopted October 26 last year during the 103rd session of the UN Body.   Legislation to decriminalize libel   In July 2010, Bayan Muna party-list Representatives Teddy Casiño and Neri Colmenares had filed House Bill (HB) 1009 seeking to amend the law and decriminalize libel by making it merely a civil offense. The bill seeks to repeal Articles 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 360, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code.   Casiño explained that even if libel is decriminalized, an offended party may still file for civil damages based on Articles 19 and 26 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. A media practitioner may be held civilly liable for damages by violating Article 19 of the Civil Code which enjoins media persons to act with justice and to observe honesty and good faith when exercising their rights and performing their duties. While Article 26 of the Civil Code reminds the media of their duty to respect the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind of others, or else they could be held civilly liable for damages. - HS, GMA news