TRO on PCIJ blog expires

“This was the first restraining order issued on a blog in the Philippines…”

unless the supreme court rules with finality that the tro was illegal, it won’t be the last, nor will it stop there — we have podcasts and such that will be affected by a ruling on this.

of course, this puts pressure on bloggers and podcasters such as ourselves to practice, for lack of a better term, ethical and responsible blogging and podcasting.

sassy lawyer said in ( http://houseonahill.net/index.php/blog/permalink/on-the-tro-against-pc ij/P1/ ):

“Suffice to say that a personal background on Jonathan Tiongco did not have to mention his marital arrangements.”

i can’t really agree nor disagree with the sassy lawyer’s statement above. lawyers out there, opinions?

and:

he/she also said (sassy lawyer, i mean) on the same blog entry:

“I’d attack the issue squarely by saying that no privacy was invaded because the blog entry contained nothing that wasn’t already public knowledge at the time of publication. If that, in fact, is the case of course.”

wasn’t there a case in singapore that ruled that a couple of bloggers were being libelous or slanderous? i don’t know the case specifics nor do i know exactly what either the singaporean justice system or ours says about blogging vis-a-vis libel/slander (pardon me, i’m no lawyer), but i think the principle holds: we have to be responsible for the stuff we blog/podcast.

no credibility for journalist-bloggers/podcasters (the cybermedia?) otherwise, i believe.

still, i am also of the belief that the blogosphere, if not a large part of it) is simply Hyde Park corner gone digital. here in cyberspace we can vent our spleens to our hearts’ content.

hey bloggers, if you haven’t yet, take time to read any or all of these:

http://www.pcij.org/blog/?page_id=3
http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/000215.php

Jester,

In and of itself, the mention of Jonathan Tiongco’s marital status without in anyway specifiying the spouses’ name is neutral. After all, the information was derived from a dossier.

The issue is not so much privacy but the right of access to public information and its dissemination. And that is why it trumps the right to privacy of Mrs. Tiongco who until she filed her case, remained anonymously safe behind the description “Mrs. Tiongco”, not to mention the byzantine strategy employed by Mr. Tiongco to hale PCIJ repeatedly to court.

PCIJ must have gotten Mr. Tiongco’s goat to deserve his unswerving and unabashed attention.

Sheila,

Just wondering if you guys can post the Temporary Restraining Order issued by Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, someone must have an interest on what might be the possible grounds that we can throw against Judge Lee to cast such an irresponsible decision.

We are bloggers and definitely, those who would want to suppress us will blatantly use this again in the future, particularly our corrupt government leaders.

The argument of Judge Lee to safeguard and balance conflicting rights and interest of both parties is an outright violation of our freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. He also deserved to be questioned and some of us must initiate an administrative legal action against him if it will have any merits at all.

And I am more than willing that my name be included in it.

[...] The 20-day restraining order against PCIJ has expired, and has since reposted the controversial article regarding “Mike Defensor’s Witness”. [...]

dawin,

“In and of itself, the mention of Jonathan Tiongco’s marital status without in anyway specifiying the spouses’ name is neutral. After all, the information was derived from a dossier.”

so because the spouse’s/s’ names were not mentioned, the right of privacy of whichever mrs. tiongco that was was not violated? after which, there would be no way for the said mrs. tiongco to claim the right to privacy regarding this issue as she’s filed a case?

interesting.

thepublicthing,

good idea on asking the pcij folk to post the tro in this blog. word of caution, though, we as bloggers will need to be very circumspect in the handling of this issue. after all, though we can subscribe and follow the bloggers’ code of ethics, there may be some who won’t, and such will be the “exceptions that prove the rule”.

i’d fight on your side, at any rate.

jester,

I refer you to the context used by PCIJ in citing Mrs. Jonathan Tiongco. The dossier was on Mr. Tiongco and not on the missus. That was the blanket of respect accorded to the wife.

If someone described Garci as being married to Mrs. Garcillano who have two daughters abroad, where is the invasion of privacy to Mrs. Garcillano there? Is that not just a mere objective statement? The context as used by PCIJ in invoking “Mrs. Tiongco” was neither malicious nor scurrilous.

The odd thing in all this is: why only now and why only PCIJ? And please allow me to throw the question back to you: If we follow your premise, then does it mean that any spouse of a public figure can now claim invasion to her privacy even in the mere instance of being called Mrs. So and So without in any way mentioning their name?

And again, following your premise and applying evenhandedly, if PCIJ cast Mr. Jonathan Tiongco in a better light, do you think Mrs. Jonathan Tiongco would have objected to her being mentioned as the Mrs.?

Our constitutional rights are like rain. They fall on the just and the unjust.

Public officials cannot be granted the right to privacy.

points to consider:

(a) the case at bar is mainly the right to privacy of individuals.

“The PCIJ was served the temporary restraining order (TRO) today after the court granted the request of Tiongco’s wife, Rona, who said that the PCIJ blog post was an intrusion into “my PRIVATE life and happy 12-year marriage with my husband” and a “grave violation of my rights and those of my minor children.””

(b) does the question of balance between freedom of speech and right to privacy arose from this case?

pcij says freedom of speech is of vital importance here. on the other hand, would i be taking out of context what fr. bernas said on the playing of the hello, garci tapes: “Privacy concerns must give way when balanced against the interest in disseminating information of paramount public importance” http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.php?index=2&story_id=41611&col=75 ?

does involving the wife (or wives for that matter) and the children of paramount public importance? it is important to note that “mike defensor’s expert” is just the topic of the blog post and it was aptly titled as that. is tiongco’s family background really worth mentioning?

(c) tiongco is a public figure…but tiongco’s wife is not and neither are their children (the aggrieved party here).

yes, tiongco is a public figure and he has to accept the loss of his privacy http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=464#comment-15156 . how about his wife and their children? does it follow that they are public figures as well?

may the succeeding apply in this case? ( http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jul1998/127685.htm#_ edn88 – SC decision rejecting the national ID system)
“Zones of privacy are likewise recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code provides that “[e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons” and punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy of another.” (read article 26 below)

Article 26 of the Civil Code provides:
“Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.”

dawin.

wish i were competent enough to answer such questions… i’m an engineer, not a lawyer; i deal with physical laws, not enacted ones.

anyway, let me try, though:

“If someone described Garci as being married to Mrs. Garcillano who have two daughters abroad, where is the invasion of privacy to Mrs. Garcillano there? Is that not just a mere objective statement?” yes, to my mind it is objective. very telling argument, that.

“Our constitutional rights are like rain. They fall on the just and the unjust.” agreed. it is our responsibility also to protect the enjoyment of these rights by others, even by those we don’t happen to like much.

gangster_roger,

“Public officials cannot be granted the right to privacy.”

yeah, but mrs. tiongco’s raising her claim to pcij because she is not.

baycas,

“(b) does the question of balance between freedom of speech and right to privacy arise from this case?”

beats me. with the little of law i know, i can’t say. however, this much i am wary of: that one day the threat of tros and lawsuits by unscrupulous people, both in the public and private sector, will hound bloggers.

guys, thanks for the lessons on law.