OCP Manila rules ‘Atorni no case, tolongges na abogado, gunggong’ not libelous
OCP Manila
rules ‘Atorni no case, tolongges na abogado, gunggong’
are not libelous
are not libelous
Alab
ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) gives a grade of “excellent” to the Office of the City
Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila for ruling that the remarks “atorni no case, tolongges na
abogado, gunggong” not libelous for they were made to describe the performance
by a Customs official of his official functions.
In
its resolution in the case entitled "Atty. Rogel Gatchalian vs. Percy Lapid and
Erny Baluyot," the Office of the City Prosecutor ruled that Gatchalian as the acting
chief of the prosecution division of Run After Smugglers (RATS) of the Bureau of
Customs cannot compel the State to punish Lapid and Baluyot, the columnist and
editor of Police Files Tonite, because a public official is a public figure.
To
supports the ruling, the OCP of Manila cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in
Ayer Productions vs. Capulong, 160 SCRA 865, where it is stated:
“To
note, (the) complainant is a government official who occupies the position of
acting chief of the prosecution division and Chief of RATS (Run After the
Sumugglers) group of the Bureau of Customs.
As much, he comes within the meaning of a public figure or public
personage. He had sought publicity and
consented to it; his personalities and affairs had already become public, and
could no longer be regarded as his own private business, and that the press had
a privilege, under the Constitution, to inform the p ublic about those who have
become legitimate matters of public interest.”
Atty.
Gatchalian contended that the assault against him as written by Lapid in the column
“Kalampag” was no longer categorized as attack to him as a public official but
already to his person.
The
OCP of Manila stated that it was not automatic for Lapid and Baluyot to be held
liable for calling Atty. Gatchalian as “atorni no case, tolongges na abogado,
gunggong” because the subject matter of the attack is a public official
and the same remarks were made in connection with or related to how the lawyer
performed his official functions.
In
a column of Lapid, he called Gatchalian with such names after the lawyer
subpoenaed a Customs reporter for writing about irregularities in the bureau.
Lapid contended that it was an
assault to press freedom for Atty. Gatchalian to subpoena a reporter for
investigation when that journalist, Rex Borromeo, even helped the government and
the people by report what smuggling had happened.
Instead,
Lapid continued, Atty. Gatchalian should have started a case by his own and investigate
the persons involved as reported by Borromeo.
“How
will reporters continue reporting irregularities in the exercise of press
freedom if this act of Gatchalian of scaring journalists is allowed to happen
and to set a precedent for others to follow?” ALAM chairman Jerry S. Yap
stressed.
But
the OCP of Manila answered that those harsh remarks were done in relation to
what the commentator adjudged as a poor performance of official functions.
The
OCP continue citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Borjal vs CA, Jan. 14, 1999,
which states:
“The doctrine on fair comments says that if the subject matters of the
defamation are of public interest, comments fairly inferred from the facts
reasonably believed in as true at the time of writing are qualifiedly
privileged even those facts turned out false later. And when the discretable
imputation is directed against a public person in his capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable.”
The
OCP concluded:
“We
must always be reminded that being in public office is like entering a lion’s
den; subject of getting bitten by a lion. In legal sense, we voluntarily
surrender our right to privacy in matters of public interest and thus,
wide-open to worst and harsh criticisms and comments. Complainant who occupies
a high position in the Bureau of Customs in worst scenario is expected to
receive such defamatory imputations as regards the discharge of his functions.
However, no matter how harsh the imputations and accusations may be, he must
not be onion-skinned as his intelligence and conscience will dictate who and
what he really is.”
This kind of ruling shows that the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Manila is an institution that understands the depth
of what is press freedom, its indispensability to the society, and necessity to
check public officials.
“For their depth in its ruling on
issues involving press freedom, we give a grade of excellent to the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Manila, its head Chief Prosecutor Jhoseph Lopez, its
Assistant Prosecutor Swerte L. Ofrencio-Gonzales and its chief of its 10th
Division Sr. Asst. City Prosecutor Joselito D.R. Obejas,” Causing declared.
On the part of Yap, he is hoping
that all prosecution offices in the country should follow the example shown by
the OCP of Manila.
Comments