'Ulol' deconstructed
CASE FILED: December 21, 2010.
Case Dismissed: June 16, 2011
Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle Filed: July 2011
MR with MIRR Denied: December 29, 2011.
Such short shelf life attended the P20-million libel case initiated – and pursued – against this newspaper, principally against this writer by businessman Renato Romero, then “president of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry, chairman of the Advocacy for the Development of Central Luzon and the private sector representative for business of the Regional Development Council.”
Such short time but long enough to impress upon one and all the primacy of the freedom of expression, the majesty of the law, and the triumph of reason over absurdity.
With much fanfare befitting a banner story and a four-column photograph of him and his lawyer in Sun-Star Pampanga, Romero took to court, er, the city prosecutor’s office this writer along with editor Joey Aguilar, GM Atty. Gener Endona, and – of all people – marketing manager Ning Cordero over my piece Romero ululating in Punto’s December 16-18, 2010 issue.
Romero ululating actually first came out as a letter to the editor in Sun-Star Pampanga as a response to its December 14, 2010 banner “Sector: Why no biz awardee in MOKA?”
In that story, Romero did not merely question why there was no winner in the MOKA business category but lambasted certain member of the board of judges thus:
“xxxOne or two of these, pardon my terms, ‘termites’, would destroy what we and Capitol have started in terms of development. Wala bang qualified sa sector namin? Galit ba sila sa amin? Is this the kind of government we have which allows such people to influence something? Where has professionalism gone? Changed with personal conflicts?...”
“xxxThere are at least two in these committees whom we really don’t see eye to eye with. With what happened , we might reassess and evaluate our position towards the provincial government and slow down a bit…”
Three-time loser
Romero was nominated for the award – actually, his third – so said the MOKA secretariat, having been nominated first time in the term of Gov. Lito Lapid, a second time during Gov. Eddie Panlilio’s, and this last at Gov. Lilia Pineda’s watch. Under different sets of judges, three time nominee there. Three time loser too. (Struck out at three, is there no provision in the MOKA to perpetually disqualify triple losers, if only to salvage pride and honor? The losers’ as well as the MOKA’s?)
I was a member of the 2010 MOKA board of judges that Romero assailed. In the spirit of fair play, I responded with Romero ululating.
In his complaint, Romero branded the article as “baseless allegations…shameful, heinous and unequivocally malicious, while being entirely false, malicious, offensive and derogatory to my good name, character and reputation tending to besmirch and destroy my honor, character and reputation – all to my damage and prejudice.”
Readily concurring was Sun-Star Pampanga in its banner, thus:
The businessman said the article tainted his reputation. Romero is seeking P20 million for damages.
Noel Canlas, counsel for Romero, said his client intends to donate the P20 million to the Philippine Press Institute for its programs on promoting responsible journalism. Part of the money will also be donated to the Mother of Good Counsel Seminary.
"We respect press freedom but we all know that with this freedoms comes responsibility. We believe that our client deserves a chance to clear his name and this case is within the legal process of achieving that," Canlas said.
Poor Philippine Press Institute, poor Mother of Good Counsel Seminary – my alma mater – deprived of a grand donation of P20 million! Poor Canlas too, sharing the fate of his losing client.
DISMISSED!
“There was nothing defamatory in the questioned article of Lacson.”
With that, 1st Asst. City Prosecutor Nereo T. Dela Cruz recommended the dismissal of the libel case which was approved by Deputy Regional Prosecutor Giselle Marie S. Geronimo on June 16, 2011.
“A reading of the article in its entirety does not show any public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imagined, or any act of omission, condition status or circumstances tending to discredit or cause the dishonour of Romero.”
It furthered that Romero ululating: “is merely a reply to the statements of the complainant (Romero)” in the news story published in Sun-Star Pampanga, adding: “If the complainant has the right to comment on the actuations of the Board of Judges of MOKA, respondent Lacson’s right to reply should be respected as long as it sticks to the issue, nothing more, because he is one of the judges thereto.”
“Deemed privilege, a personal opinion in defense of himself against the attacks of Romero” the decision concluded that “The article “Romero Ululating” can be considered as part of the freedom of expression of its author Caesar Z. Lacson.”
Reconsideration, Inhibition
But Romero would not take the dismissal as the end of the libel affair.
In a story the day after the dismissal of the suit, Sun-Star Pampanga quoted Romero thus:
“After conferring with my lawyers yesterday, we have decided to file a motion for reconsideration on the libel case…
“We will pursue the case and prove not only to our colleagues but to everybody that our cause has merit.
Among the recycled arguments, Romero took the title of the article Romero ululating as by itself defamatory. He said in his complaint: “His (Lacson’s) choice of words in his column are maliciously designed to sow intrigue and ridicule me in public. The starting four-letter word “ulul” either in Kapampangan or Tagalog is an invective, a cussy word as it means crazy. Connecting this with the last syllables”lating” is the verb “ululating.”
I did not need any lawyer to absolutely obliterate that statement. Thus this response:
This can only be supreme absurdity.
The choice of words in a story is the sole responsibility of the writer, manifest as it is of his or her own creativity. The level of comprehension or miscomprehension of the reader does not fall within the writer’s responsibility as he would not know who reads his articles. Lacson – the writer – therefore cannot be responsible on the understanding or misunderstanding of his words by Romero – the reader.
The article Romero ululating is written in the English language. (But for the Tagalog quotations of Romero cited in the Sun-Star Pampanga banner it responded to.) Necessarily so, all the words used in that article should be taken in their English context. To append the meaning of a similar word in another language or dialect is to perverse the context, indeed the very meaning of the word. The writer could not be held liable for such perversion, the act being that of the reader.
MOKA loser loses again
Dismissal of libel vs. Punto upheld
So screamed our banner of January 16-17, 2012.
Romero’s Motion for Consideration with Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle was even found violative of procedures, leading the Office of the City Prosecutor to declare: “Perusal of the filed motion reveals that the same is not verified by the complainant-movant himself. On this ground alone, the motion must fail.”
Lapse in procedure already causing monumental collapse in Romero’s case there.
Still – and the more telling blows – came: “Technicality aside, the motion fails just the same. The grounds relied upon by the complainant in the filed motion are mere rehash of the arguments set forth in his complaint-affidavit and reply-affidavit both filed during the preliminary investigation and which were already threshed out in the assailed resolution.”
Thus the Office of the City Prosecutor here “DENIED” Romero’s motion to reconsider the resolution dismissing his libel complaint against Punto.
Of course, Romero could find solace in having 1st Asst. City Prosecutor Nereo T. Dela Cruz who penned the earlier dismissal of the suit inhibited.
Said the resolution dated December 29, 2011 signed by OIC-Deputy Regional Prosecutor Giselle Marie S. Geronimo: “Although the motion for inhibition is not well-grounded, the same is nonetheless granted in order to forestall any suspicion of partiality.”
The resolution made an affirmation of the rightness of the earlier dismissal of the libel case. In effect, upholding the soundness of Punto’s arguments against the illogic, if not absurdities, of Romero’s .
Consider:
“In the instant case, the word “ululating” is definitely not derived from the Filipino word “ulol,”meaning crazy, but is a regular English word found in the dictionary and which does not impute any circumstance or condition to discredit complainant’s reputation.”
That is a virtual summation of my arguments over the meaning of “ululating.” Reason victorious over absurdity here.
“The same is true with the phrase ‘spoiled brat who lost his second lollipop.’ Whiles it may have offended the complainant, it is not the defamatory words within the contemplation of the law. The rest of the words and/or phrases alluded to by the complainant/movant (Romero), when read in its entirety, do not clearly refer to complainant (Romero) alone but to businessmen as a whole.”
In his complaint, Romero argued: “Lacson overeacted, as shown in his choice of words” referring to him (Romero) as “ululating miserable loser; a blank ledger expecting a payback of whatever support he gives the provincial government; a spoiled brat who lost his second lollipop; a leech, a fool, and honor-chasing exploitative businessman who suck out the bones of laborers.”;
While the resolution granted that “some of the words and/or phrases used in the subject article may have been unpleasant” to Romero, it however cited MVRS Publications, Inc. et al., v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003 thus: “It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action or defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.”
Freedom of speech supreme!
Absence of malice
Malice – a vital element in libel, as any journalist who has been sued knows.
Quoted the resolution: “Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel.” (Arturo Borjal, et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,1999).
“Such malice, the complainant (Romero) failed to establish in the instant case,” it concluded.
Finally, the resolution upheld our contention since Day One: that Romero ululating took the nature of a fair comment, citing Arturo Borjal, et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,1999,: “…fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable…If the comment is an expression of opinion based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.”
Ultimately: “As found in the disputed resolution, reading of the article in its entirety does not show any public or malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or circumstance tending to discredit or dishonour the person of the complainant (Romero).”
Sweet vindication there.
Some losers just don’t know when to quit. But of course: as quitters never win, so it follows that losers never quit? Absurd. Still, loser.
Case Dismissed: June 16, 2011
Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle Filed: July 2011
MR with MIRR Denied: December 29, 2011.
Such short shelf life attended the P20-million libel case initiated – and pursued – against this newspaper, principally against this writer by businessman Renato Romero, then “president of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry, chairman of the Advocacy for the Development of Central Luzon and the private sector representative for business of the Regional Development Council.”
Such short time but long enough to impress upon one and all the primacy of the freedom of expression, the majesty of the law, and the triumph of reason over absurdity.
With much fanfare befitting a banner story and a four-column photograph of him and his lawyer in Sun-Star Pampanga, Romero took to court, er, the city prosecutor’s office this writer along with editor Joey Aguilar, GM Atty. Gener Endona, and – of all people – marketing manager Ning Cordero over my piece Romero ululating in Punto’s December 16-18, 2010 issue.
Romero ululating actually first came out as a letter to the editor in Sun-Star Pampanga as a response to its December 14, 2010 banner “Sector: Why no biz awardee in MOKA?”
In that story, Romero did not merely question why there was no winner in the MOKA business category but lambasted certain member of the board of judges thus:
“xxxOne or two of these, pardon my terms, ‘termites’, would destroy what we and Capitol have started in terms of development. Wala bang qualified sa sector namin? Galit ba sila sa amin? Is this the kind of government we have which allows such people to influence something? Where has professionalism gone? Changed with personal conflicts?...”
“xxxThere are at least two in these committees whom we really don’t see eye to eye with. With what happened , we might reassess and evaluate our position towards the provincial government and slow down a bit…”
Three-time loser
Romero was nominated for the award – actually, his third – so said the MOKA secretariat, having been nominated first time in the term of Gov. Lito Lapid, a second time during Gov. Eddie Panlilio’s, and this last at Gov. Lilia Pineda’s watch. Under different sets of judges, three time nominee there. Three time loser too. (Struck out at three, is there no provision in the MOKA to perpetually disqualify triple losers, if only to salvage pride and honor? The losers’ as well as the MOKA’s?)
I was a member of the 2010 MOKA board of judges that Romero assailed. In the spirit of fair play, I responded with Romero ululating.
In his complaint, Romero branded the article as “baseless allegations…shameful, heinous and unequivocally malicious, while being entirely false, malicious, offensive and derogatory to my good name, character and reputation tending to besmirch and destroy my honor, character and reputation – all to my damage and prejudice.”
Readily concurring was Sun-Star Pampanga in its banner, thus:
The businessman said the article tainted his reputation. Romero is seeking P20 million for damages.
Noel Canlas, counsel for Romero, said his client intends to donate the P20 million to the Philippine Press Institute for its programs on promoting responsible journalism. Part of the money will also be donated to the Mother of Good Counsel Seminary.
"We respect press freedom but we all know that with this freedoms comes responsibility. We believe that our client deserves a chance to clear his name and this case is within the legal process of achieving that," Canlas said.
Poor Philippine Press Institute, poor Mother of Good Counsel Seminary – my alma mater – deprived of a grand donation of P20 million! Poor Canlas too, sharing the fate of his losing client.
DISMISSED!
“There was nothing defamatory in the questioned article of Lacson.”
With that, 1st Asst. City Prosecutor Nereo T. Dela Cruz recommended the dismissal of the libel case which was approved by Deputy Regional Prosecutor Giselle Marie S. Geronimo on June 16, 2011.
“A reading of the article in its entirety does not show any public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imagined, or any act of omission, condition status or circumstances tending to discredit or cause the dishonour of Romero.”
It furthered that Romero ululating: “is merely a reply to the statements of the complainant (Romero)” in the news story published in Sun-Star Pampanga, adding: “If the complainant has the right to comment on the actuations of the Board of Judges of MOKA, respondent Lacson’s right to reply should be respected as long as it sticks to the issue, nothing more, because he is one of the judges thereto.”
“Deemed privilege, a personal opinion in defense of himself against the attacks of Romero” the decision concluded that “The article “Romero Ululating” can be considered as part of the freedom of expression of its author Caesar Z. Lacson.”
Reconsideration, Inhibition
But Romero would not take the dismissal as the end of the libel affair.
In a story the day after the dismissal of the suit, Sun-Star Pampanga quoted Romero thus:
“After conferring with my lawyers yesterday, we have decided to file a motion for reconsideration on the libel case…
“We will pursue the case and prove not only to our colleagues but to everybody that our cause has merit.
Among the recycled arguments, Romero took the title of the article Romero ululating as by itself defamatory. He said in his complaint: “His (Lacson’s) choice of words in his column are maliciously designed to sow intrigue and ridicule me in public. The starting four-letter word “ulul” either in Kapampangan or Tagalog is an invective, a cussy word as it means crazy. Connecting this with the last syllables”lating” is the verb “ululating.”
I did not need any lawyer to absolutely obliterate that statement. Thus this response:
This can only be supreme absurdity.
The choice of words in a story is the sole responsibility of the writer, manifest as it is of his or her own creativity. The level of comprehension or miscomprehension of the reader does not fall within the writer’s responsibility as he would not know who reads his articles. Lacson – the writer – therefore cannot be responsible on the understanding or misunderstanding of his words by Romero – the reader.
The article Romero ululating is written in the English language. (But for the Tagalog quotations of Romero cited in the Sun-Star Pampanga banner it responded to.) Necessarily so, all the words used in that article should be taken in their English context. To append the meaning of a similar word in another language or dialect is to perverse the context, indeed the very meaning of the word. The writer could not be held liable for such perversion, the act being that of the reader.
MOKA loser loses again
Dismissal of libel vs. Punto upheld
So screamed our banner of January 16-17, 2012.
Romero’s Motion for Consideration with Motion to Inhibit and Re-Raffle was even found violative of procedures, leading the Office of the City Prosecutor to declare: “Perusal of the filed motion reveals that the same is not verified by the complainant-movant himself. On this ground alone, the motion must fail.”
Lapse in procedure already causing monumental collapse in Romero’s case there.
Still – and the more telling blows – came: “Technicality aside, the motion fails just the same. The grounds relied upon by the complainant in the filed motion are mere rehash of the arguments set forth in his complaint-affidavit and reply-affidavit both filed during the preliminary investigation and which were already threshed out in the assailed resolution.”
Thus the Office of the City Prosecutor here “DENIED” Romero’s motion to reconsider the resolution dismissing his libel complaint against Punto.
Of course, Romero could find solace in having 1st Asst. City Prosecutor Nereo T. Dela Cruz who penned the earlier dismissal of the suit inhibited.
Said the resolution dated December 29, 2011 signed by OIC-Deputy Regional Prosecutor Giselle Marie S. Geronimo: “Although the motion for inhibition is not well-grounded, the same is nonetheless granted in order to forestall any suspicion of partiality.”
The resolution made an affirmation of the rightness of the earlier dismissal of the libel case. In effect, upholding the soundness of Punto’s arguments against the illogic, if not absurdities, of Romero’s .
Consider:
“In the instant case, the word “ululating” is definitely not derived from the Filipino word “ulol,”meaning crazy, but is a regular English word found in the dictionary and which does not impute any circumstance or condition to discredit complainant’s reputation.”
That is a virtual summation of my arguments over the meaning of “ululating.” Reason victorious over absurdity here.
“The same is true with the phrase ‘spoiled brat who lost his second lollipop.’ Whiles it may have offended the complainant, it is not the defamatory words within the contemplation of the law. The rest of the words and/or phrases alluded to by the complainant/movant (Romero), when read in its entirety, do not clearly refer to complainant (Romero) alone but to businessmen as a whole.”
In his complaint, Romero argued: “Lacson overeacted, as shown in his choice of words” referring to him (Romero) as “ululating miserable loser; a blank ledger expecting a payback of whatever support he gives the provincial government; a spoiled brat who lost his second lollipop; a leech, a fool, and honor-chasing exploitative businessman who suck out the bones of laborers.”;
While the resolution granted that “some of the words and/or phrases used in the subject article may have been unpleasant” to Romero, it however cited MVRS Publications, Inc. et al., v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003 thus: “It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action or defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself.”
Freedom of speech supreme!
Absence of malice
Malice – a vital element in libel, as any journalist who has been sued knows.
Quoted the resolution: “Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel.” (Arturo Borjal, et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,1999).
“Such malice, the complainant (Romero) failed to establish in the instant case,” it concluded.
Finally, the resolution upheld our contention since Day One: that Romero ululating took the nature of a fair comment, citing Arturo Borjal, et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14,1999,: “…fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable…If the comment is an expression of opinion based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.”
Ultimately: “As found in the disputed resolution, reading of the article in its entirety does not show any public or malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or circumstance tending to discredit or dishonour the person of the complainant (Romero).”
Sweet vindication there.
Some losers just don’t know when to quit. But of course: as quitters never win, so it follows that losers never quit? Absurd. Still, loser.
posted by A.Caesar Z. Lacson at 3:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home