Shield Law Does not Protect Radio Announcers on Libel

By Mortz C. Ortigoza

My radio announcer friend’s Harold Barcelona called me by phone telling me he and a radio tandem at DWPR in Dagupan City would be sued with libel by a government official.

“Ano ang sinabi ninyo at kakasuhan kayo?” I posed.

He answered that in his scathing passion he told the public that the official furnished the tiles of his house with those intended for a government building.

His tandem Sammy Lusalla joined him in opining about the alleged corruption of the government brass.

Photo credit: Techinasia

I told him if they have evidence to back up their accusation the case will be dismissed later by the judge of the Regional Trial Court. If they have none, they go to jail and serve the eight years’ jail time for cyber libel after their conviction.

The seasoned radio man Harold knew about the ordinary libel because when I exposed the members of the Provincial Board more than a decade’s ago as recipient of P40,000 a month each payola from the maintainer of the illegal numbers’ game jueteng he was the guy I asked with intrepidity to distribute my newspaper’s Northern Watch to the offices of the local legislature

“Pare, tutuluyan ka daw nila,” he said to me through phone about the livid deputados and their vice governor and their plan to charge me in court with written defamation.

I told Harold then that libel based on the Revised Penal Code did not threaten me.

“Six years below lang ang kulong niyan. Sa Probation Law natin pag Prision Correctional puweding e apply ng probation walang kulong walang record iyan pag na convict ako. E di ako ma ku-convict diyan kasi my source – with witnesses to back it up – was their fellow member”.

That case was eventually dismissed by the RTC Judge.

I told him that his and Sammy’s predicaments were more serious because if the complainant and his witness complained at their affidavit that they hear through the social media like Facebook the libelous remarks about the tiles – it would be Cyber Libel for them.

Proceeding from the definition of libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, Cyber Libel cyber is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, and committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

Since their program is a bloc time – where they promote the stocks of their patron politician and hit his opponents – they ask their benefactor to shoulder the acceptance fee of the private lawyer that runs to tens of thousands of pesos.

Not to mention each appearance at the prosecutor's office of their legal counsel to answer the complaint affidavit of the complainant and his witnesses and monthly hearing in the RTC that will bill them with few thousands of pesos.  

“Puwede rin kayo kumuha ng libre na abogado sa PAO (Public Attorney’s Office). Pero madaming kasong hinahawakan iyon baka matuluyan kayo makulong kayo sa kaso niyo dahil walang probation iyan,” I told him.

Harold and Sammy are one of the many media men in my province that faces Cyber Libel cases in this acrimonious nasty May 9, 2022 national and local election because of their “odium and opprobrium”.

(Click here to see who are those other reporters who brace for charges with this criminal offense)

 Whether they have done their craft in good faith that will entail dismissal later from the court, these brothers and sisters in the profession however should remember that they should be prudent on what they remark on air.

Radio announcer has limited protection than newspaper reporter. The latter can cite the Shield Law or Republic Act No. 1477 to avoid being sued or chalk up dismissal of the case from the court.

It says “Without prejudice to his liability under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State (Section 1)”.

Shield Law is the Philippines copycat – just like our Libel - of United States’ law.

(READ my blog on Shield Law here)

The lawyer of the newspaper reporter can just ask the prosecutor or the judge to dismiss the case because it is “privileged” due to the Shield Law.