In 2014, although there were extensive stories on the pork barrel (aka Priority Development Assistance Fund) in newspapers and broadcast, none came close to being as explosive as the Philippine Daily Inquirer on ‘pork’ payoffs of newsmen, that led to the filing of libel against it by GMA/dzBB broadcaster Melo del Prado.
Del Prado sued for libel the PDI—then steered by Joey Nolasco as managing editor, Artemio Engracia Jr. as news editor and Abel Ulanday as associate editor and reporters Nancy Carvajal and Christine Avendano— for his damaged reputation.
A source said the stories were a significant part of the Inquirer investigative report on how Janet Lim Napoles conspired with state agencies and hundreds of lawmakers in pocketing billions of pesos in kickbacks by channeling their pork barrel funds to fictitious projects of fake NGOs.
The Supreme Court took note of Inquirer’s outstanding series that prompted an expansive probe by the National Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit. Their findings led to the trial and conviction of Napoles and certain officials for plunder, malversation, bribery and graft and corruption.
Awards galore
The pork barrel stories won for the Inquirer a slew of journalism awards and citations-- (the following year the libel was filed) -- such as Carvajal being named Journalist of the Year in 2015 Awards for Editorial Excellence of the Society of Publishers in Asia (Sopa), the most prestigious journalism award in the Asia-Pacific region. Sopa cited her reports as a “courageous and excellent work in exposing official corruption in a country where journalists face death and physical attack.”
Carvajal was also named Journalist of the Year by the Metrobank Foundation Inc. and Probe Media Foundation that same year.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility also named her Most Outstanding Journalist of 2013, “for providing information the citizenry needs to hold government officials and other individuals accountable through her investigative series on PDAF.”
Del Prado’s complaint
Del Prado found himself drawn into the PDAF maelstrom when the Inquirer reported alleged payoffs to media personalities, which the state-run National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor) had supposedly sourced from the pork funds of legislators, the source narrated.
The Inquirer duly reported his side in the Aug. 26, 2014, story, “Radio anchor sues Inquirer for libel over ‘pork’ stories.”
“There was no mention whatsoever of my receiving payoffs in the guise of advertising, nor that I was a beneficiary of the illegally disbursed [PDAF] in both affidavits submitted by the two Nabcor officials to the Office of the Ombudsman,” Del Prado said in his libel suit.
He claimed the P245,535 that Nabcor had paid him in three checks was for legitimate advertising of the Barangay Bagsakan project.
Proof of actual malice absent
It was not enough for Del Prado to disprove the allegations of corruption as the Supreme Court had often ruled in numerous cases that a public figure, like him, must present incontrovertible evidence of actual malice on the part of the accused.
Thus, he must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Inquirer journalists knew their stories were false or they recklessly disregarded the truth in publishing them.
As the Supreme Court made clear in Guingguing vs Court of Appeals, the press should not be held to account for honest mistakes.
“There must be some room for misstatement of fact and misjudgment . . . Mere error, inaccuracy or even falsity alone does not prove actual malice.” He tried hard to prove malice, but the Inquirer had stringent guidelines on verification and accorded him fair and equal treatment by consistently airing his side.
Instead of feeling triumphant about the awards and fighting the libel case in court, the Inquirer management heeded its law firm’s advice to strike a deal with Del Prado.
“We do not have evidence to support our defense,” Raul Palabrica, the Inquirer board chair, declared and directed the five accused to sign the compromise agreement, threatening to leave them in the lurch if they did not.
Nolasco did not sign the compromise agreement, Carvajal and Engracia withdrew their signatures but retained the Inquirer lawyer as defense counsel while Ulanday and Avendano stood by the Inquirer management. Engracia, Carvajal and Nolasco strongly felt that the agreement demeans the Inquirer brand, discredits excellent journalism, and diminishes press freedom.
Compromise agreement
Judging from the overwhelming evidence at hand, the three saw the terms of the compromise agreement unwarranted, unreasonable and unprincipled because first, there was no justification for a front- page apology to Del Prado, his family, GMA network and media colleagues since he lacked proof of actual malice.
Based on Inquirer’s longstanding practice, a front-page apology is warranted only if there is a gross lapse of judgment on the part of the editorial staff.
Also, there was no valid reason to pay damages to Del Prado given the high court ruling in Villanueva vs Philippine Daily Inquirer:
“Damages could not simply arise from an inaccurate or false statement without irrefutable proof of actual malice as element of the assailed publication.”
Third, the trio believed that as steward of the Inquirer brand, the management shirked its responsibility of preserving the integrity of the Inquirer archives by purging from its record 10 news articles, including “Timeline — Pork Barrel Scam, An Inquirer Special Report,” and “Timeline: Napoles and the Pork Barrel Scam.”
To think that what the Inquirer management consigned to the garbage bin were news articles on graft and greed integral to the newspaper’s biggest scoop.
Final court hearing
Disregarding objections to the deal, the Inquirer lawyer went ahead and notified the Quezon City Regional Trial Court on June 29 that the newspaper management had fully complied with Del Prado’s three demands.
In the same hearing, Del Prado’s lawyer informed Judge Louie Brian R. Sze of QC RTC Branch 87 that the broadcaster had issued an affidavit of desistance dropping his libel complaint against all the accused.
What the Inquirer lawyer presented in court, however, was a copy of the compromise agreement that showed most of the accused had endorsed the deal. Accurate, but not true because four of the five accused affixed their signatures to the document in February 2021.
But the court was not informed that a month later, Engracia and Carvajal told the Inquirer board chair in writing they were withdrawing their signatures and opposing the compromise.
Left with just the minority support of Ulanday and Avendano, the Inquirer lawyer still balked at submitting an updated copy of the settlement to set the record straight. Carvajal expressed misgivings about the Inquirer lawyer’s misrepresentation.
“As our defense lawyer, isn’t he ethically and morally bound to represent us in court — and not the interest of the PDI management which is not even a respondent in the case?” Carvajal asked.
Because of the court record, Judge Sze on Aug. 9 approved the Inquirer-Del Prado compromise and granted the joint motion of the two sides for the permanent dismissal of the case. The public prosecutor interposed no objection.
The judge stamp his seal on the Inquirer management’s unprecedented surrender in a major libel case, ending eight years of litigation and concluding a sad chapter in the history of the newspaper that carries the slogan “Balanced news, fearless views."
On Aug. 10, a manifestation expounding on the legal arguments against the broadcaster’s lawsuit was filed by Nolasco and entered into the court record for posterity as his last word on the controversy.
For the three their message was clear: Fearless journalists who won’t be silenced are alive and well, and they will fight for what is true and right in defense of press freedom.
As to PDI it has lost its reason to claim fearless journalism.