Media Defence Logo


Focus On: The Philippines

ournalists in the Philippines risk being murdered for pursuing stories about corruption and their killers are rarely brought to justice.

Here, Joel Butuyan and Harry Roque, co-chairs of MLDI’s local partner, the Center for International Law, a leading advocacy and litigation organisation in the region, describe the twin scourges as the biggest threat to freedom of speech in their country.

Focus On: The Philippines

“The conviction rate for murderers of journalists is just 1 per cent, which means that assassins get away with it. They often enjoy protection from powerful people, and policemen lack the resources to go after them.”

The Philippines has a vibrant media scene. A wide variety of views are aired by newspapers, radio and television stations, tending to reflect the political and economic interests of their owners. The government owns and controls some broadcasters, but most print and online outlets are in private hands. In general, though, the press have a critical approach to politics and big business. When there’s a crime or corruption case, people are more likely to turn to the media than politicians for comment.

But the high public trust rating does not come easy. While the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and there are few legal restrictions on the media, journalists wanting to dig beneath the headlines encounter a range of obstacles and dangers, the biggest of which is they risk their lives if they probe too much.

Reporters are routinely threatened and often murdered for doing their job. Three years ago, the Philippines was described as the most dangerous place in the world for journalists, more so than Iraq, Afghanistan and other war-torn countries.

The main reason this problem persists is impunity – the criminal justice system doesn’t work and there’s no political will for reform.  The conviction rate for murderers of journalists is just 1 per cent, which means that assassins get away with it. They often enjoy protection from powerful people, and policemen lack the resources to go after them.

It’s mostly provincial journalists who are murdered, typically when they accuse local politicians of corruption. Reporters working for big city broadsheets are not as vulnerable because there’s more of a public outcry when they are targeted.

We are involved in representing the families whose relatives were killed in the bloodiest single incident in the history of the Philippine media, the killing of 58 people, including 32 journalists, near the town of Ampatuan in 2009. The trial of the alleged perpetrators has been slow because of our antiquated court system and defence lawyers holding up proceedings by filing motions and insisting on long cross-examinations of witnesses.

The second biggest threat to the media is criminal defamation. It’s frequently used to deter city-based journalists from investigating corruption in the provinces. Such cases are a drain on their time and finances, as they often have to travel long distances to defend themselves in a court on another island, where they may also feel exposed and vulnerable.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee last year ruled that criminal libel violated the right to freedom of expression, after we lodged a complaint about a journalist who had been imprisoned for the offence.

It was an important breakthrough, especially since the government has been attempting to extend criminal defamation to the web with the Cybercrime Prevention Act, provoking a public outcry.

In 2012, we went to the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the move, invoking the UNHRC judgement. The court subsequently issued a restraining order preventing the government from implementing the law, which has since been indefinitely suspended, and its libel provision dropped.

So for now, at least, the Internet is free of restrictions – and in great demand. This has been a very positive development for journalism. Reporters often cite posts on social media sites in their reports and, because the information has been widely circulated, they can claim a public interest defence if they are sued for libel.

But other curbs on press freedom, namely national security curbs on journalists’ accessing government information, remain in place. There were plans last year to finally enact a Freedom of Information bill. President Benigno Aquino said he would make it a priority in order to improve transparency and accountability.

But he backtracked, evidently concerned that left-wing organisations might misuse public documents. Now, however, there are renewed demands for it to become law, amid mounting protests over a major scandal involving the misuse of government funds by politicians.

Recent Case Studies

Digital Rights Advocates: Interview with Zambian Lawyer Michelle Mwiinga

Welcome to the Digital Rights Advocates Blog Series, where we hear from lawyers litigating digital rights in sub-Saharan Africa. Digital rights have become indispensable for people around the world to exercise and enjoy their fundamental rights. Independent media is increasingly moving online – from established newspapers and television channels to bloggers and human rights activists […]


Partners: How Human Rights Platform Has Used Strategic Litigation to Defend Press Freedom in Ukraine

Since 2017, Media Defence has worked in partnership with the Human Rights Platform (HRP), to provide legal defence to journalists and independent media in Ukraine and conduct strategic litigation on press freedom and freedom of expression. During the grant period, threats and attacks against journalists in Ukraine remained high. In particular, HRP noted an increase […]


Partners: Hanifi Baris of TOHAV on Defending Press Freedom in Turkey

Welcome to the latest instalment of our ‘Partners’ blog series. In this series, we interview some of our partners from around the world about their crucial and fascinating work in freedom of expression. This time, our Legal and Grants Officer Emmanuel Vargas spoke to lawyer Hanifi Baris of TOHAV (Toplum ve Hukuk Araştırmaları Vakfı/Foundation for […]