HERE IS the continuation of our counter-affidavit to the P20-million complaint of libel businessman Rene Romero filed against this writer and Punto!
TAKEN from that standpoint and in the whole context of Romero ululating, the passages Romero culled from the article and which formed the bases for his complaint are far from libelous, to wit:
“Indeed, what else is new with this Romero’s after-loss ululations? Making himself in effect the template of the miserable loser.
But let us indulge Romero’s whimpers, believer as we are in the Desiderata: that we have to listen to everyone, “even fools, for they too have their own stories to tell. “
“Miserable loser” is an opinion arrived at from the factual premises that introduced the article Romero ululating, to wit:
“SO, WHAT else is new?
When the provincial government won the Gawad Galing Pook 2008 for the spectacular increase in quarry collections, businessman Rene Romero had this to say: “Parang bumaba ang pagtingin ko sa Galing Pook…The quarry collection system did not deserve the award. It miserably failed to meet the criteria of sustainability, transferability and consistency.”
(Subsequent results in the quarry collection proved Romero miserably wrong. The high collection generated by the Panlilio administration was sustainable, transferable and consistent, what with even higher collections in the Pineda administration.)
When the Metro Angeles City Chamber of Commerce and Industry won the Most Outstanding Chamber Award 2010 over the Romero-led Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry, here is what he wrote the board of directors of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry: “Deeply dismayed over the result of the MOCA 2010 awarding last October 15 at the 36th Philippine Business Conference in Manila Hotel…
“For MOCA 2010, we shall respect the decision as rendered by the judges and awarded by PCCI albeit with reservations because we are still of the opinion that our chamber merits recognition as an outstanding chamber…”
When no award was given the business sector in the recent Most Outstanding Kapampangan Award last December 11, Romero had this to say, in Tuesday’s banner story of Sun-Star Pampanga yet: “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.”
“Miserable loser” too is an opinion derived from the argumentum ad hominems, argumentum ad misericordiam and non-sequiturs – all fallacies in logic – that Romero resorted to in questioning the MOKA results where he was nominated but failed to win. (Read:Sector: Why no biz awardee in Moka? )
With the dictionary meaning of “very uncomfortable or unhappy” for “miserable” and “one who loses” for “loser” there is nothing derogatory in the term “Miserable loser” even if appended to Romero, so long as taken in the context of what was discussed in the article.
The second passage is a simple quotation from the Desiderata that respects the right of everyone to be heard. The “fool” in the passage underscoring the universality of that right, not the least undermining the character of Romero.
X x x
“It is precisely those business persons who, for some reason or the other, were not nominated for the MOKA. Businesspersons who have no lost and losing suits in the National Labor Relations Commission, who paid their taxes rightly and timely, who were religious in the remittance of their workers’ social security contributions, who respected and upheld workers’ rights, especially that which pertains to security of tenure not the exigency of contractualization.
Not the leeches who suck the blood our of the workers, not the vultures whose corporate aeries and stately nests are built upon the bones of laborers. As much as Romero laments for the absence of any awardee in the category of business, so we mourn for the deprivation of the rights of the workers by award-seeking, honor-chasing exploitative businessmen. “
These are statements of general opinion, on errant businessmen in particular, with no allusion, much less direct imputation of any defect or wrongdoing on Romero and therefore are not actionable.
X x x
“That Romero had to vent his apparent frustration on the provincial government is the height of conceit, if not the nadir of folly.
Again, a clear expression of an opinion here that is a reaction to Romero’s harangue on “…the kind of governance we have which allows such people to influence something?”
“Feeling deprived of the MOKA anew, Romero unmasked himself. A spoiled brat who lost his second lollipop, resorting to bullying, so he could get the next one. Plain and simple.
The above falls under the ambit of American jurisprudence that states: “Opinions that don’t include or imply provably false facts cannot be the basis of a libel claim. Similarly, epithets, satire, parody and hyperbole that are incapable of being proven true or false are protected forms of expression.”
“An unsolicited advice – not to Romero – but others dreaming of the MOKA and some such other awards of recognition. Don’t seek the award. Let it seek you.
Anyways, maybe, just maybe, it is high time to institute a parallel event to the MOKA. We shall call it MOTA – Most Outspoken Talunan Award. No need for any other nomination there. The choice is unanimous, hands down.
Miserable loser.
Again, there is neither allusion nor direct imputation on Romero in the above passages, the first one even explicitly excluded Romero. So where is defamation there?
We advance these arguments, even as we hold to “the well-settled and widely held principle that courts should look at a publication’s context, and not just the statements at issue in isolation, to determine if indeed the article is actionable for libel.”
I harbor no personal ill-will or hatred against Romero. As a matter of fact, my dealings with him have always been on a professional level.
The claims stated in Romero’s complaint –affidavit do not support an imputation of libel. The article Romero ululating is plain and simple fair comment, an exercise of the right of free speech, as held in Gonzales vs. Comelec, 27 SCRA 835, 856, 857:
“xxx At the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship and punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has the right to prevent.
“The vital need in a constitutional democracy for freedom of expression is undeniable whether as a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation by the people in social including political decision-making, and of maintaining the balance between stability and change. The trend as reflected in Philippine and American decisions is to recognize the broadest scope and assure the widest latitude to this constitutional guaranty. It represents a profound commitment to the principle that debate of public issue should be uninhibited, robust and wide open. It is not going too far, according to another American decision, to view the function of free speech as inviting dispute. ‘It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stir people to anger.
“Freedom of speech and of the press thus means something more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to official measures, to take refuge in existing climate of opinion on any matter of public consequence. So atrophied, the right becomes meaningless. The right belongs as well, if not more, for those who question, who do not conform, who differ. To paraphrase Justice Holmes, it is freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with us.”
LONG LIVE PRESS FREEDOM!
TAKEN from that standpoint and in the whole context of Romero ululating, the passages Romero culled from the article and which formed the bases for his complaint are far from libelous, to wit:
“Indeed, what else is new with this Romero’s after-loss ululations? Making himself in effect the template of the miserable loser.
But let us indulge Romero’s whimpers, believer as we are in the Desiderata: that we have to listen to everyone, “even fools, for they too have their own stories to tell. “
“Miserable loser” is an opinion arrived at from the factual premises that introduced the article Romero ululating, to wit:
“SO, WHAT else is new?
When the provincial government won the Gawad Galing Pook 2008 for the spectacular increase in quarry collections, businessman Rene Romero had this to say: “Parang bumaba ang pagtingin ko sa Galing Pook…The quarry collection system did not deserve the award. It miserably failed to meet the criteria of sustainability, transferability and consistency.”
(Subsequent results in the quarry collection proved Romero miserably wrong. The high collection generated by the Panlilio administration was sustainable, transferable and consistent, what with even higher collections in the Pineda administration.)
When the Metro Angeles City Chamber of Commerce and Industry won the Most Outstanding Chamber Award 2010 over the Romero-led Pampanga Chamber of Commerce and Industry, here is what he wrote the board of directors of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry: “Deeply dismayed over the result of the MOCA 2010 awarding last October 15 at the 36th Philippine Business Conference in Manila Hotel…
“For MOCA 2010, we shall respect the decision as rendered by the judges and awarded by PCCI albeit with reservations because we are still of the opinion that our chamber merits recognition as an outstanding chamber…”
When no award was given the business sector in the recent Most Outstanding Kapampangan Award last December 11, Romero had this to say, in Tuesday’s banner story of Sun-Star Pampanga yet: “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.”
“Miserable loser” too is an opinion derived from the argumentum ad hominems, argumentum ad misericordiam and non-sequiturs – all fallacies in logic – that Romero resorted to in questioning the MOKA results where he was nominated but failed to win. (Read:Sector: Why no biz awardee in Moka? )
With the dictionary meaning of “very uncomfortable or unhappy” for “miserable” and “one who loses” for “loser” there is nothing derogatory in the term “Miserable loser” even if appended to Romero, so long as taken in the context of what was discussed in the article.
The second passage is a simple quotation from the Desiderata that respects the right of everyone to be heard. The “fool” in the passage underscoring the universality of that right, not the least undermining the character of Romero.
X x x
“It is precisely those business persons who, for some reason or the other, were not nominated for the MOKA. Businesspersons who have no lost and losing suits in the National Labor Relations Commission, who paid their taxes rightly and timely, who were religious in the remittance of their workers’ social security contributions, who respected and upheld workers’ rights, especially that which pertains to security of tenure not the exigency of contractualization.
Not the leeches who suck the blood our of the workers, not the vultures whose corporate aeries and stately nests are built upon the bones of laborers. As much as Romero laments for the absence of any awardee in the category of business, so we mourn for the deprivation of the rights of the workers by award-seeking, honor-chasing exploitative businessmen. “
These are statements of general opinion, on errant businessmen in particular, with no allusion, much less direct imputation of any defect or wrongdoing on Romero and therefore are not actionable.
X x x
“That Romero had to vent his apparent frustration on the provincial government is the height of conceit, if not the nadir of folly.
Again, a clear expression of an opinion here that is a reaction to Romero’s harangue on “…the kind of governance we have which allows such people to influence something?”
“Feeling deprived of the MOKA anew, Romero unmasked himself. A spoiled brat who lost his second lollipop, resorting to bullying, so he could get the next one. Plain and simple.
The above falls under the ambit of American jurisprudence that states: “Opinions that don’t include or imply provably false facts cannot be the basis of a libel claim. Similarly, epithets, satire, parody and hyperbole that are incapable of being proven true or false are protected forms of expression.”
“An unsolicited advice – not to Romero – but others dreaming of the MOKA and some such other awards of recognition. Don’t seek the award. Let it seek you.
Anyways, maybe, just maybe, it is high time to institute a parallel event to the MOKA. We shall call it MOTA – Most Outspoken Talunan Award. No need for any other nomination there. The choice is unanimous, hands down.
Miserable loser.
Again, there is neither allusion nor direct imputation on Romero in the above passages, the first one even explicitly excluded Romero. So where is defamation there?
We advance these arguments, even as we hold to “the well-settled and widely held principle that courts should look at a publication’s context, and not just the statements at issue in isolation, to determine if indeed the article is actionable for libel.”
I harbor no personal ill-will or hatred against Romero. As a matter of fact, my dealings with him have always been on a professional level.
The claims stated in Romero’s complaint –affidavit do not support an imputation of libel. The article Romero ululating is plain and simple fair comment, an exercise of the right of free speech, as held in Gonzales vs. Comelec, 27 SCRA 835, 856, 857:
“xxx At the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship and punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has the right to prevent.
“The vital need in a constitutional democracy for freedom of expression is undeniable whether as a means of assuring individual self-fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation by the people in social including political decision-making, and of maintaining the balance between stability and change. The trend as reflected in Philippine and American decisions is to recognize the broadest scope and assure the widest latitude to this constitutional guaranty. It represents a profound commitment to the principle that debate of public issue should be uninhibited, robust and wide open. It is not going too far, according to another American decision, to view the function of free speech as inviting dispute. ‘It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stir people to anger.
“Freedom of speech and of the press thus means something more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or economic arrangements, to lend support to official measures, to take refuge in existing climate of opinion on any matter of public consequence. So atrophied, the right becomes meaningless. The right belongs as well, if not more, for those who question, who do not conform, who differ. To paraphrase Justice Holmes, it is freedom for the thought that we hate, no less than for the thought that agrees with us.”
LONG LIVE PRESS FREEDOM!
