ERWIN TULFO Vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES and ATTY. CARLOS T. SO, G.R. No.
161032; and the accompanying case: SUSAN
CAMBRI, REY SALAO, JOCELYN BARLIZO, and PHILIP PICHAY
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and CARLOS SO, G.R. No. 161176, September 16, 2008
“x x x.
The press wields enormous power. Through its widespread
reach and the information it imparts, it can mold and shape thoughts and
opinions of the people. It can turn the tide of public opinion for or
against someone, it can build up heroes or create villains.
It is in the interest of society to have a free press, to
have liberal discussion and dissemination of ideas, and to encourage people to
engage in healthy debate. It is through this that society can progress and
develop.
Those who would publish under the aegis of freedom of the
press must also acknowledge the corollary duty to publish responsibly. To
show that they have exercised their freedom responsibly, they must go beyond
merely relying on unfounded rumors or shadowy anonymous sources. There
must be further investigation conducted, some shred of proof found to support
allegations of misconduct or even criminal activity. It is in fact too
easy for journalists to destroy the reputation and honor of public officials,
if they are not required to make the slightest effort to verify their
accusations. Journalists are supposed to be reporters of facts, not fiction,
and must be able to back up their stories with solid research. The power
of the press and the corresponding duty to exercise that power judiciously
cannot be understated.
But even with the need for a free press, the necessity that
it be free does not mean that it be totally unfettered. It is still
acknowledged that the freedom can be abused, and for the abuse of the freedom,
there must be a corresponding sanction. It falls on the press to wield
such enormous power responsibly. It may be a clich that the pen is mightier
than the sword, but in this particular case, the lesson to be learned is that
such a mighty weapon should not be wielded recklessly or thoughtlessly, but
always guided by conscience and careful thought.
A robust and independently free press is doubtless one of
the most effective checks on government power and abuses. Hence, it behooves
government functionaries to respect the value of openness and refrain from
concealing from media corruption and other anomalous practices occurring within
their backyard. On the other hand, public officials also deserve respect
and protection against false innuendoes and unfounded accusation of official
wrongdoing from an abusive press. As it were, the law and jurisprudence on
libel heavily tilt in favor of press freedom. The common but most unkind
perception is that government institutions and their officers and employees are
fair game to official and personal attacks and even ridicule. And the practice
on the ground is just as disconcerting. Reports and accusation of official
misconduct often times merit front page or primetime treatment, while defenses
set up, retraction issued, or acquittal rendered get no more, if ever,
perfunctory coverage. The unfairness needs no belaboring. The balm of clear
conscience is sometimes not enough.
Perhaps lost in the traditional press freedom versus
government impasse is the fact that a maliciously false imputation of
corruption and dishonesty against a public official, as here, leaves a
stigmatizing mark not only on the person but also the office to which he
belongs. In the ultimate analysis, public service also unduly suffers.
X x x.”
