Libel law violates freedom of expression – UN rights panel

A United Nations body has declared that continued criminalization of libel as provided under the Philippine penal code violates the obligation of the country to respect freedom of expression as contained in its commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

According to the UN Committee on Human Rights, the criminalization of libel is “inconsistent” with Article 19 of the international covenant, which provides for the commitment of signatory states to respect the freedom of expression.

The pronouncement was made last week in response to a complaint filed by Davao- based broadcaster Alex Adonis who was jailed for more than two years after his conviction on libel charges in a complaint filed by former Speaker Prospero Nograles.

In his radio broadcast, Adonis read and dramatized a newspaper report that Nograles was seen running naked in a hotel when caught in bed by the husband of the woman with whom he was said to have spent the night with.

In a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Davao, he was sentenced to jail for five months and one day to four years, six days and one day.

After having served two years in prison, Adonis questioned the compatibility of libel with freedom of expression under Article 19 of the international covenant.

He also questioned his conviction because he was tried in absentia when his counsel on record at the Regional Trial Court withdrew from the case without informing him accordingly.

The UN panel ruled, “[T]he State party does not provide evidence showing that the court sought to notify the author of the withdrawal of his lawyer, and the decision is unclear whether another counsel was appointed to represent the author.”

In ruling that Philippine criminal libel law was inconsistent with freedom of expression, the UN Committee on Human Rights recalled its General Comment 34, which reads: “Defamations laws should not . . . stifle freedom of expression . . . Penal defamation laws should include defense of truth.”

“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,” the UN panel stated.

“This a very big win for the freedom of expression,” said lawyer Harry Roque, counsel for Adonis in the United Nations.

Roque added, “We expect the Philippine government under [President Benigno Aquino 3rd] to comply with the committee’s view and proceed to decri-minalize libel and to provide reparations to Adonis for time he spent in prison. No one should be imprisoned for expressing his or her views, full stop.”

The rights committee then ordered the Philippine government to “provide the author with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation for time served in prison, The State is also under obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future.”

Two committee members dissented but only with respect to the failure of the UN panel to expressly seek the decriminalization of libel.

Fabian Omar Salvioli, a dissenter, argued that pursuant to Article 2.2 of the ICCPR, the “State party undertakes to take all necessary steps, in accordance with constitutional processes, to give effect to right recognized in the convention.”

Hence, by not ordering the repeal of Philippine libel laws, “the committee has missed a clear opportunity expressly and unambiguously to indicate to the State party that it must change its criminal law.” –FRANK LLOYD TIONGSON REPORTER, Manila Times