HEREUNDER IS my counter-affidavit, (minus the attachments and indices) to the P20-million libel case filed by businessman Rene Romero against me, principally, and the whole of Punto!, generally which I submitted to the Office of the City Prosecutor on Monday, March 14.
On 21 December 2010, I was informed by colleagues in the media that I was the subject of a P20-million libel complaint filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in the City of San Fernando by one Renato Romero who identified himself as the President of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chairman of the Advocacy for the Development of Central Luzon and Private Sector Representative for Business of the Regional Development Council Region III.
From a copy of the complaint-affidavit, I gathered that the complaint stemmed from my article titled Romero ululating which appeared in my Zona Libre column in the December 17-18, 2010 issue of Punto! Central Luzon.
Romero in his complaint-affidavit claimed that:
“xxx without regard for truth, propriety and fairness, caused the writing and publication of a scurrilous, injurious, defamatory, and libelous article…with the intention attacking my virtue as a person, and to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm towards my profession and stature as a respected businessman in the Province of Pampanga and as the head of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the purpose of exposing my person to public ridicule, contempt and hatred not only in Pampanga but in the entire Philippines…”
If indeed, Romero found cause for libel in the article as published in Punto!, it is of great surprise to me that he did not initiate a similar action against Sun-Star Pampanga where the same article, likewise titled Romero ululating, was published en toto as Letter to the Editor, even at the earlier date of December 15, 2010.
This to me, in effect, is selective prosecution.
Of even graver import to the propriety of the complaint is the story Bizman happy on modification, amused over judge’s reaction on page 1 of the December 16, 2010 issue of Sun-Star Pampanga which reported:
xxx But Romero also revealed he was “amused” on the reaction of Caesar “Bong” Lacson, a member of the board of judges and a 2005 MOKA awardee.
Lacson on Wednesday wrote a letter to Sun-Star Pampanga and professed his stand regarding the issue raised by Romero.”
Taking the dictionary meaning of the word “amuse” – “1. To occupy in an agreeable, pleasing, or entertaining fashion. 2. To cause to laugh or smile by giving pleasure” – Romero by his own accord and his own word was even pleased and entertained by the article as it was published in Sun-Star Pampanga.
It comes then as rather un-amusing for Romero to say that the same article when it appeared in Punto! caused him:
“xxx sleepless nights, wounded feeling and social embarrassment…”
And “xxx recklessly tainted the good honor and reputation that I have for years carefully labored in building….”
Amused on one hand, dishonored and shamed on the other by the same story defies common sense and begs for uncommon reason to merit any justification. A certain incongruity, if not illogic, appears to obtain here.
The article Romero Ululating is actually a rejoinder to the banner headline story Sector: Why no biz awardee in MOKA? in the December 14, 2010 issue of Sun-Star Pampanga.
As it constituted personal opinion in reaction to a publicized issue, I deemed it likewise merited a space in my Zona Libre column in the December 17-18, 2010 issue of Punto!
Being a rejoinder, indeed a response to a previously published story, Romero ululating takes the nature of fair comment, generally defined thus:
“A form of qualified privilege applied to news media publications relating to discussion of matters that are of legitimate concern to the community as a whole because they materially affect the interests of all the community. A term used in the defense of libel actions, applying to statements made by a writer (e.g., in the news media) in an honest belief in their truth, relating to official acts, even though the statements are not true in fact. Fair comment must be based on facts truly stated, must not contain imputations of corrupt or dishonorable motives except as warranted by the facts, and must be an honest expression of the writer’s real opinion.”
Being a rejoinder, Romero ululating is an exercise of the right of anyone to respond to a public issue especially as it directly concerns him. Even with the Right of Reply Bill still un-enacted in Congress, this is an honored praxis in media.
Romero claimed the article at issue “xxx is neither privileged nor a fair and true report made in good faith…” and that ”xxx the whole scope and apparent object or motive of respondents…” is to present him as:
“xxx only sour-graping when the legitimate concern that is raised by the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce is the non-selection of a representative of the business sector as one of the winners in the last Most Outstanding Kapampangan Award 2010 (MOKA). But instead of clarifying the issue as one of the members of the board of judges of MOKA, respondent chose to hurl said scurrilous and defamatory invectives.”
One, nowhere in the story Sector: Why no biz awardee in Moka? was there ever any specific mention of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce as raising the concern of non-selection of winners in the MOKA. The story referred only to a generic “business sector” with Romero apparently arrogating unto himself the term.
Indeed, but for Romero there was no other named individual or entity that raised the issue.
Two, more than an innocent query as to why no one in the business sector won the MOKA 2010, Romero made the story as a platform to launch his own tirades against various personalities he conveniently – perhaps to avoid libel – did not name: to wit:
“xxxRene Romero, speaking for the business sector, alleged that the disqualification of the nominees from the business sector may have been the handy work of “influence peddlers” in the Capitol.
“xxx ‘The business sector is disappointed, sad and more so insulted by the results. It simply means that despite our efforts and support of the provincial government, parang sinampal kami at sinabing walang matinong negosyante sa probinsiya,’ said Romero…
“xxx He said the alleged ‘influence peddlers’ at the Capitol ‘will not be good and helpful to effective governance.
Romero even went to the extent of taking the provincial government to task, thus:
“xxxOne or two of these, pardon my term, ‘termites,’ would destroy what we and Capitol have started in terms of development. Wala bang qualified sa sector naming. Galit ba sila sa amin? Is this the kind of governance we have which allows such people to influence something? Where has professionalism gone? Charged with personal conflicts? You know, we are very sad about what happened. But we know the real story on this and how these influence peddlers are hell bent in trying to justify our sector nominees’ disqualification, which really are baseless and not true,” narrated Romero”
“xxx There 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,’ said Romero.”
It is these ululations of Romero that merited the rejoinder precisely titled Romero ululating, a response that precisely constitutes fair comment. Nowhere in the rejoinder that Romero was ever referred to as “sour-graping” no matter its apparent obviousness, he being a losing nominee to the MOKA. (To be continued)
On 21 December 2010, I was informed by colleagues in the media that I was the subject of a P20-million libel complaint filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in the City of San Fernando by one Renato Romero who identified himself as the President of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chairman of the Advocacy for the Development of Central Luzon and Private Sector Representative for Business of the Regional Development Council Region III.
From a copy of the complaint-affidavit, I gathered that the complaint stemmed from my article titled Romero ululating which appeared in my Zona Libre column in the December 17-18, 2010 issue of Punto! Central Luzon.
Romero in his complaint-affidavit claimed that:
“xxx without regard for truth, propriety and fairness, caused the writing and publication of a scurrilous, injurious, defamatory, and libelous article…with the intention attacking my virtue as a person, and to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm towards my profession and stature as a respected businessman in the Province of Pampanga and as the head of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the purpose of exposing my person to public ridicule, contempt and hatred not only in Pampanga but in the entire Philippines…”
If indeed, Romero found cause for libel in the article as published in Punto!, it is of great surprise to me that he did not initiate a similar action against Sun-Star Pampanga where the same article, likewise titled Romero ululating, was published en toto as Letter to the Editor, even at the earlier date of December 15, 2010.
This to me, in effect, is selective prosecution.
Of even graver import to the propriety of the complaint is the story Bizman happy on modification, amused over judge’s reaction on page 1 of the December 16, 2010 issue of Sun-Star Pampanga which reported:
xxx But Romero also revealed he was “amused” on the reaction of Caesar “Bong” Lacson, a member of the board of judges and a 2005 MOKA awardee.
Lacson on Wednesday wrote a letter to Sun-Star Pampanga and professed his stand regarding the issue raised by Romero.”
Taking the dictionary meaning of the word “amuse” – “1. To occupy in an agreeable, pleasing, or entertaining fashion. 2. To cause to laugh or smile by giving pleasure” – Romero by his own accord and his own word was even pleased and entertained by the article as it was published in Sun-Star Pampanga.
It comes then as rather un-amusing for Romero to say that the same article when it appeared in Punto! caused him:
“xxx sleepless nights, wounded feeling and social embarrassment…”
And “xxx recklessly tainted the good honor and reputation that I have for years carefully labored in building….”
Amused on one hand, dishonored and shamed on the other by the same story defies common sense and begs for uncommon reason to merit any justification. A certain incongruity, if not illogic, appears to obtain here.
The article Romero Ululating is actually a rejoinder to the banner headline story Sector: Why no biz awardee in MOKA? in the December 14, 2010 issue of Sun-Star Pampanga.
As it constituted personal opinion in reaction to a publicized issue, I deemed it likewise merited a space in my Zona Libre column in the December 17-18, 2010 issue of Punto!
Being a rejoinder, indeed a response to a previously published story, Romero ululating takes the nature of fair comment, generally defined thus:
“A form of qualified privilege applied to news media publications relating to discussion of matters that are of legitimate concern to the community as a whole because they materially affect the interests of all the community. A term used in the defense of libel actions, applying to statements made by a writer (e.g., in the news media) in an honest belief in their truth, relating to official acts, even though the statements are not true in fact. Fair comment must be based on facts truly stated, must not contain imputations of corrupt or dishonorable motives except as warranted by the facts, and must be an honest expression of the writer’s real opinion.”
Being a rejoinder, Romero ululating is an exercise of the right of anyone to respond to a public issue especially as it directly concerns him. Even with the Right of Reply Bill still un-enacted in Congress, this is an honored praxis in media.
Romero claimed the article at issue “xxx is neither privileged nor a fair and true report made in good faith…” and that ”xxx the whole scope and apparent object or motive of respondents…” is to present him as:
“xxx only sour-graping when the legitimate concern that is raised by the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce is the non-selection of a representative of the business sector as one of the winners in the last Most Outstanding Kapampangan Award 2010 (MOKA). But instead of clarifying the issue as one of the members of the board of judges of MOKA, respondent chose to hurl said scurrilous and defamatory invectives.”
One, nowhere in the story Sector: Why no biz awardee in Moka? was there ever any specific mention of the Pampanga Chamber of Commerce as raising the concern of non-selection of winners in the MOKA. The story referred only to a generic “business sector” with Romero apparently arrogating unto himself the term.
Indeed, but for Romero there was no other named individual or entity that raised the issue.
Two, more than an innocent query as to why no one in the business sector won the MOKA 2010, Romero made the story as a platform to launch his own tirades against various personalities he conveniently – perhaps to avoid libel – did not name: to wit:
“xxxRene Romero, speaking for the business sector, alleged that the disqualification of the nominees from the business sector may have been the handy work of “influence peddlers” in the Capitol.
“xxx ‘The business sector is disappointed, sad and more so insulted by the results. It simply means that despite our efforts and support of the provincial government, parang sinampal kami at sinabing walang matinong negosyante sa probinsiya,’ said Romero…
“xxx He said the alleged ‘influence peddlers’ at the Capitol ‘will not be good and helpful to effective governance.
Romero even went to the extent of taking the provincial government to task, thus:
“xxxOne or two of these, pardon my term, ‘termites,’ would destroy what we and Capitol have started in terms of development. Wala bang qualified sa sector naming. Galit ba sila sa amin? Is this the kind of governance we have which allows such people to influence something? Where has professionalism gone? Charged with personal conflicts? You know, we are very sad about what happened. But we know the real story on this and how these influence peddlers are hell bent in trying to justify our sector nominees’ disqualification, which really are baseless and not true,” narrated Romero”
“xxx There 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,’ said Romero.”
It is these ululations of Romero that merited the rejoinder precisely titled Romero ululating, a response that precisely constitutes fair comment. Nowhere in the rejoinder that Romero was ever referred to as “sour-graping” no matter its apparent obviousness, he being a losing nominee to the MOKA. (To be continued)
