Editorial  |   The lotus position  |   The canary in the coalmine  |   Zapped  |   The dark side of the sun  |   Who killed Deyda Hydara?  |   No quick fix  |   Caseload  |   Roque Solid

Roque solid
Rebel with a cause

Harry Roque may have missed his vocation - to be a "rebel in the mountains". Instead, he stayed down in the city and became one of the Philippines's leading criminal lawyers, currently seeking justice on behalf of the families of some of the 37 or more journalists who have been murdered in the country since 1992. He also teaches law at the University of the Philippines.

In this interview with Media Defence Quarterly, Roque talks of his "subversive" grandparents, his family's opposition to the Marcos regime, his successful case against a sitting president - and the importance of speakings nicely about judges.

Why did you become a lawyer?

It was almost as if I did not have to decide. I was raised by a spinster aunt who was one of the country's most feared and renowned public prosecutors. In her prime, she handled almost all of the sensational cases: the burning of a whole town, the case of the socialite whose body was found chopped up, the killing of the country's top couturier. She rejected all offers of police protection and instead opted to bring me along to her hearings as her "protection". She had to ask the court's permission for me to sleep in the back row of the courtroom. I guess sleeping through trials and having direct and cross-examinations for lullabies made it natural to opt for a career in criminal litigation.

Being around two grandfathers who were both lawyers and considered subversives during martial law also helped. Even as a child I felt it was wrong that my elders could only speak against the ills of the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos in secret meetings and in whispers.

What would you be if not a lawyer?

Probably a rebel in the mountains.

What was your most memorable experience as a lawyer?

Suing a sitting President and winning. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo alleged that there was a conspiracy between the left and the right to topple her regime. She declared a state of national emergency and called on the police to deal with "acts of terrorism", leading to the arrest of my colleague Professor Randy David and the military taking over the Daily Tribune premises. We filed a petition within hours of the declaration - actually, it was a redrafted petition for Habeas Corpus which we had prepared in case I was arrested - and got an order from the court in record time. The court found that the declaration was unconstitutional because only the President can define who a terrorist is and as such these powers could be misused to undermine protected freedoms. We later found out that the court decision prevented the implementation of undeclared martial law.

What was your worst experience as a lawyer?

Seeing the Philippine President pack the courts with her loyal supporters.

What are the main challenges of defending media freedom in your country?

It's the lack of awareness of why the Constitution places a premium on the freedom of expression. It's also the frustration you feel when judges appear to be clueless about the shifting nature of the burden to prove actual malice in libel cases, depending on whether the complainant is a public or a private figure.

Sometimes judges are the worst at taking criticism from the press. Philippine courts will preach that all other public officers must live through criticisms because, according to the court, "the cure to wounded feelings is the balm of a clear conscience". But where it is the court itself that has been criticised, judges have almost always declared the journalists to be in contempt of court.

What is the importance of belonging to international legal networks?

It makes you feel that you are not alone in the fight for the good and reinforces your resolve.