MANILA – A ruling by the Supreme Court (SC) has advised members of the media to be guided by ‘high degree’ of professionalism particularly in today’s digital age.
In a decision dated April 10 but made available to the public this week, the Court’s Third Division through Associate Justice Marvic Leonen affirmed the 2013 Court of Appeals (CA) decision in the libel case against journalist Raffy Tulfo, and officials of tabloid Abante Tonight led by its publisher Allan Macasaet.
The SC modified the CA ruling by increasing the moral and exemplary damages awarded to complainant Michael Guy from PHP1.21 million to PHP1.71 million.
“The protection afforded by the Constitution to the press is not carte blanche that allows journalists to abandon their responsibility for truth and transparency. It is incumbent upon them to exercise a high degree of professionalism in their work, regardless of the subject of their stories,” the SC declared.
Guy elevated the case before the SC after the appellate court deleted for lack of factual and legal basis the award of PHP5 million actual damages by the trial court in his favor.
Tulfo wrote that Guy, who was then being investigated by the Revenue Integrity Protection Service (RPIS) of the Department of Finance for tax fraud, went to former Department of Finance Secretary Juanita Amatong’s house to ask for help.
Amatong then purportedly called the head of the RIPS and directed that all the documents that the Revenue Integrity Protection Service had obtained on Guy’s case be surrendered to her.
“Its Code of Ethics espouses the practice that journalism should be accurate and fair, and mandates accountability and transparency in the profession,” the Court said.
“As such, journalists should observe high standards expected from their profession. They must take responsibility for the accuracy of their work, careful never to deliberately distort facts or context by verifying information before releasing it for public consumption,” it added.
The SC said the credibility of journalists is needed more than ever in light of “recklessness in social media.”
“This Court can only hope that respondents appreciate the privilege their fame has brought them and, in the future, become more circumspect in the exercise of their profession,” the Court said.