Prison time for libel infringes human rights, UNHRC decides
Philippines broadcaster Alex Adonis (right) was jailed for more than five years.
He lost a case of libel in a complaint filed by former Speaker Prospero Nograles.
The UN Human Rights Committee has declared that jailing a writer for libel represents a violation of freedom of expression.
The view, issued in recent months but without fanfare, was in response to the imprisonment of a former radio journalist Alex Adonis in the Philippines in early 2007.
In the Philippines libel is a criminal offense, unlike in most other countries where it is a civil offence. This means offenders can be imprisoned together with being fined, the latter being the case in the UK.
The UNHRC declared that the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines criminal libel provision is ‘incompatible’ with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The declaration was hailed by campaigners as a triumph for free expression and press freedom.
Peter Noorlander, chief executive of the Media Legal Defence Initiative said: ‘I think it is a very significant decision. This is the first time an international tribunal has come out strongly against criminal libel, and ordered a country to review its laws.’
No person, more so – no journalist, should be imprisoned or fear imprisonment for the exercise of a cherished right. Professor Harry Roque, University of the Philippines
The MLDI said it would now push the European Court of Human Rights ‘to make an equivalent ruling’.
‘The European Court of Human Rights has never gone quite this far, but we will seek out an appropriate case and push that court to make an equivalent ruling’, Noorlander said. The Medial Legal Defence Initiative has not yet decided which case it intends to bring.
Convicted for libel
In early 2007, Adonis was jailed for over two years after a conviction for libel against the former Speaker of the Philippines House of Representatives, Prospero Nograles.
‘The UNHRC view is a big win for freedom of expression’, said Professor Harry Roque, the associate law professor at the University of the Philippines who acted as counsel for the journalist. ‘For the first time, the Committee declared that criminal libel is incompatible with freedom of expression’.
‘No person, more so – no journalist, should be imprisoned or fear imprisonment for the exercise of a cherished right. I hope the Philippines government and all other jurisdictions that have criminal libel laws will heed the view and take steps to do away with it’, Roque said.
In January 2008 Roque said that if the UN Committee declared criminal libel a violation of the ICCPR, it would be possible to ask the Philippines Supreme Court to rule that jail terms for libel are ‘a violation of the country’s treaty obligations.
Roque, however, does not seek to immediately take the case to the Supreme Court, and points to a 180-day period for the Philippines government to report to the UN committee what it has done to implement the view.
‘The view states that the government can either repeal the law, or you can have the Supreme Court declare the law illegal’, he says. ‘The task should be to comply with the view of the UN committee’.
UNHRC views are not binding legal judgments, but national and international tribunals increasingly quote its case law under the Optional Protocol. There is also an argument that these views qualify as decisions of a quasi-judicial body.
Adonis’ rights were violated when he was convicted in absentia and without evidence showing that the court sought to notify him of the withdrawal of his lawyer, the Committee found.
If our Parliament takes this step, it will be an example elsewhere and might also encourage the European Court of Human Rights to adopt a robust position in reviewing such laws and their operation.
Lord Anthony Lester QC
A move to stamp out criminal libel
Momentum is building for abolition of criminal libel around the world. In August last year, the Supreme Court of Bermuda came out strongly against the country’s criminal libel statute, and a case is currently pending in the Supreme Court of Uganda.
The UK abolished seditious libel and criminal defamation in January 2010 by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
In the main chamber debates of the Coroners and Justice Bill in the UK House of Lords, Lord Anthony Lester QC said: ‘If our Parliament takes this step, it will be an example elsewhere and might also encourage the European Court of Human Rights to adopt a robust position in reviewing such laws and their operation.’
The full decision can be read here.
