REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH ___, _______

MARITESS VITUG, Concepcion Paez, GLENDA GLORIA, RICKY CARANDANG, r.e. Ortico, Jose Dalisay, Jr., Booma Cruz, JP Lopez, Regina Bengco, Amado Macasaet, Enrique Romualdez, Joy de los Reyes, Ma. Teresa Molina, Minnie Advincula, Ellen Tordesillas, Niñez Cacho-Olivares, Romulo Mariñas, Gina Capili-Inciong, Jake Martin, Marvin Estigoy, Gerry Baldo, Sherwin Olaes, Lito Tugadi, Jing Santos, Lito banayo, and WILLIAM ESPOSO, acting for themselves and in behalf of the philippine press,

plaintiffs,

CIVIL CASE NO. _________

-versus- For: Damages

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO,

Defendant.

x——————————————————-x

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by counsel, most respectfully state that:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs are all of legal age, Filipino citizens, and named as follows:

1. Marites Vitug, a resident of the City of Manila, is the editor-in-chief of Newsbreak Magazine;
2. Concepcion Paez, a resident of the City of Manila, is a contributing writer of Newsbreak Magazine;
3. Glenda Gloria, a resident of the City of Manila, is the associate editor of Newsbreak Magazine;
4. Ricky Carandang, a resident of the City of Manila, is a former business editor of Newsbreak Magazine;
5. R.E. Otico, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editorial consultant of Newsbreak Magazine;
6. Jose Dalisay, Jr., a resident of the City of Manila, is an editorial consultant of Newsbreak Magazine;
7. Booma Cruz, a resident of the City of Manila, is a contributing editor of Newsbreak Magazine;
8. JP Lopez, a resident of the City of Manila, is a reporter of Malaya Newspaper;
9. Regina Bengco, a resident of the City of Manila, is a reporter of Malaya Newspaper;
10. Amado Macasaet, a resident of the City of Manila, is the editor-in-chief of Malaya Newspaper;
11. Enrique Romualdez, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of Malaya Newspaper;
12. Joy de los Reyes, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of Malaya Newspaper;
13. Ma. Teresa Molina, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of Malaya Newspaper;
14. Minnie Advincula, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of Malaya Newspaper;
15. Ellen Tordesillas, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of Malaya Newspaper;
16. Niñez Cacho-Olivares, a resident of the City of Manila, is the editor-in-chief of the Daily Tribune;
17. Romulo Mariñas, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of the Daily Tribune;
18. Gina Capili-Inciong, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of the Daily Tribune;
19. Jake Martin, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of the Daily Tribune;
20. Marvin Estigoy, a resident of the City of Manila, is an editor of the Daily Tribune;
21. Gerry Baldo, a resident of the City of Manila, is a reporter of the Daily Tribune;
22. Sherwin Olaes, a resident of the City of Manila, is a reporter of the Daily Tribune;
23. Lito Tugadi, a resident of the City of Manila, is the circulation manager of the Daily Tribune;
24. Jing Santos, a resident of the City of Manila, is the subscription manager of the Daily Tribune;
25. Lito Banayo, a resident of the City of Manila, is a columnist for the Daily Tribune;
26. William Esposo, a resident of the City of Manila, is a columnist for the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

2. Plaintiffs are filing this case for themselves and as class suit representatives of the Philippine press because the controversy is of common interest to the Philippine press and the causes of action injure all of its members. It is impracticable to actually join each individual member of the Philippine press in this lawsuit and for said reason the Philippine press is joined herein as a class pursuant to Rule 3, Section 12 of the Revised Rules of Court in order to fully protect the interests of all its members.

3. All the Plaintiffs can be served with papers and processes pertinent to this case through undersigned counsel, the Law Offices of Roque & Butuyan with office address at 1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Center, 121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City.

4. Defendant Jose Miguel T. Arroyo is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and a resident of Malacañan Palace, Manila where he may be served with summons and all papers and processes pertinent to this case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. Plaintiffs are all active and practicing members of the Philippine press. They are advocates of, have vested interest in, and are imbued with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.

6. Defendant, on the other hand, is the spouse of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and, as such, holds the office of First Gentleman of the Republic of the Philippines. He is both a public figure and a public officer. His public life is a matter of public interest and is therefore open to fair comment and reporting. He is also a lawyer who is presumed to know the state of Philippine jurisprudence.

7. As a public figure and public officer, Defendant has become the subject of several publications made by the Plaintiffs on separate occasions.

8. All said publications constitute fair comment on the public life of Defendant. They were written pursuant to Plaintiffs’ constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.

9. Defendant, however, in clear abuse of right and in an obvious effort to obstruct, defeat, and/or violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, initiated a flurry of libel lawsuits against the Plaintiffs, obviously intending to stifle and/or chill the exercise of freedom of the press, thereby causing them grave injury and tremendous amounts of damage.

Plaintiffs Maritess Vitug, Concepcion Paez, Glenda Gloria, Ricky Carandang, R.E. Otico, Jose Dalisay, Jr., and Booma Cruz

10. Plaintiffs Maritess Vitug, Concepcion Paez, Glenda Gloria, Ricky Carandang, R.E. Otico, Jose Dalisay, Jr., and Booma Cruz are all journalists who work for Newsbreak Magazine.

11. On 7 June 2004, said Plaintiffs published an article in Newsbreak Magazine entitled “Will She Change?” criticizing President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s actions and policies in office and conveying fears that a growing belief in her husband’s character as First Gentleman might affect her image, to wit:

“The campaign fund issue is expected to be one of the controversies that would continue to hound Mrs. Arroyo as she embarks on a full term, together with her husband’s perceived crookedness and his influence in governance despite three years of exasperated denials from the President herself.

It’s not uncommon to hear people say that they believe the President is an honest hard worker and that the “problem” is her husband, whom they deeply suspect of pulling strings to expand his clout and fatten his bank account. The opposition tried several times to scorch Ms. Arroyo with allegations about him, but they failed each time.

Losing politicians being the bitterest creatures around, it would not be surprising to find them coming up with new twists in the Jose Pidal controversy involving Mr. Arroyo or making new revelations.

The opposition had even tried to link him to the grossly overpriced Diosdado Macapagal Avenue, the controversial road project that became the first big corruption issue against the Arroyo presidency, the issue that had eroded public confidence in an administration that had anchored itself on moral ascendancy.

For easy reference, a copy of the Article is attached hereto as Annex “A.”

12. The article is fair commentary on the presidency and how the public’s perception of the First Gentleman’s activities might affect it. Undeniably, the article touches only on Defendant’s public life, which is a matter of public interest. It is privileged communication and was published in accordance with Plaintiffs’ constitutional freedom of the press.

13. Likewise, on 8 December 2003, Plaintiffs Maritess Vitug, Glenda Gloria, Ricky Carandang, R.E. Otico, Jose Dalisay, Jr., and Booma Cruz published in Newsbreak Magazine an article entitled “More Properties?” reporting a tip they received from a foreign lawyer, that the first couple may have properties in California other than the apartment and commercial buildings in San Francisco registered in the name of LTA Realty, and the results of an investigation that they made pursuant to such tip, to wit:

“One real estate lawyer, who counts some prominent people among his clients, tipped off Newsbreak on “another real estate conduit” of the Arroyos in California, and indicated that at least five properties, outside San Francisco, are in the name of this alleged dummy.

“The closest link we’ve found so far is that the real estate broker, based in Van Nuys, is related to the first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo by marriage. He’s single. The two houses and lots in the photos are in the broker’s name, all right.

“What makes the acquisition of the properties suspicious is that they were given to the broker as gifts—yes, for free, he didn’t pay a single penny for them. This was according to research conducted by a government official who helped us verify the records of these properties. “You don’t just give away houses and lots in the US!” the government official, incredulous at his discovery, told us.”

For easy reference, a copy of the Article is attached hereto as Annex “B.”

14. The article is a report coupled with fair comment on Defendant’s public life. It is privileged communication and was again published in accordance with Plaintiffs’ constitutional freedom of the press.

15. Despite the nature of the articles written—both fair commentaries on matters of public interest—and despite the limitations observed by the journalists themselves, who touched only on the public life of a public figure, Defendant still filed libel cases against Plaintiffs Maritess Vitug, Glenda Gloria, Ricky Carandang, R.E. Otico, Jose Dalisay, Jr., and Booma Cruz for each of the articles stated above thereby impinging on their freedom and causing them damage.

Plaintiffs JP Lopez, Regina Bengco, Amado Macasaet, Enrique Romualdez,

Joy de los Reyes, Ma. Teresa Molina, Minnie Advincula, and Ellen Tordesillas

16. Plaintiffs JP Lopez, Regina Bengco, Amado Macasaet, Enrique Romualdez, Joy de los Reyes, Ma. Teresa Molina, Minnie Advincula, and Ellen Tordesillas are all journalists who work for Malaya Newspaper.

17. On 19 May 2004, said Plaintiffs’ published in Malaya Newspaper an article entitled “Poe’s camp says Mike is chief “cheating operator,” conveying former Senator Francisco Tatad’s account of Defendant himself leading election “operatives” all over Mindanao in altering election returns, to wit:

“KNP senatorial candidate and former senator Francisco Tatad said president Arroyo’s operatives ‘are all over Mindanao, led by her famous husband’ Mr. Arroyo.

“He said those in the list of Arroyo’s operatives are national security adviser Norberto Gonzales and Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.

“Tatad said this information came from several witnesses and was not mere speculation.

“Uniformed policemen have been captured on camera…altering election returns in full view of outraged but helpless citizens. There is no attempt to hide their crime.’ Tatad said.”

For easy reference, a copy of the Article is attached hereto as Annex “C.”

18. The article is a straightforward report based on a former Senator’s own account of Defendant’s involvement in electoral fraud in Mindanao. It contains no embellishment by any of the Plaintiffs and faithfully transcribes Senator Tatad’s account. Moreover, it constitutes privileged communication and was published in accordance with Plaintiffs’ constitutional freedom of the press.

19. Despite the nature of the article—fair commentary on a matter of public interest—and despite the limitations observed by the journalists, who touched only on the public life of a public figure, Defendant still filed a libel case against Plaintiffs JP Lopez, Regina Bengco, Amado Macasaet, Enrique Romualdez, Joy de los Reyes, Ma. Teresa Molina, Minnie Advincula, and Ellen Tordesillas for the above article thereby impinging on their freedom and causing them damage.

Plaintiffs Niñez Cacho-Olivares, Romulo Mariñas, Gina Capiling-Inciong, Jake Martin, Marvin Estigoy, Gerry Baldo, Sherwin Olaes,

Lito Tugadi, and Jing Santos

20. Plaintiffs Niñez Cacho-Olivares, Romulo Mariñas, Gina Capiling-Inciong, Jake Martin, Marvin Estigoy, Gerry Baldo, Sherwin Olaes, Lito Tugadi, and Jing Santos are all journalists who work for the Daily Tribune.

21. On 14 May 2004, said Plaintiffs published an article in the Daily Tribune newspaper entitled “Gloria, Mike A., aides in Mindanao CoC buying spree” also reporting Defendant’s involvement in election fraud in Mindanao as told by former Senator Francisco Tatad and other witnesses, to wit:

“Reports reaching the KNP tally center said at least P5 million was being offered for every CoC.

“Poe is reportedly leading Mrs. Arroyo by large margins in most of Luzon and Mindanao, areas that account for some 35 million of the 43.4 million registered voters as stated by the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

“At the same time, Mrs. Arroyo was reported to have released P200 million to the military and P90 million to the Philippine national police for any post-election ‘contingency.’

“According to informants, this happened a day after a big crowd gathered in Makati to call for vigilance against electoral fraud. The KNP charged that Mrs. Arroyo has attempted to use members of the military and the police to take part in her special operations, but that many officers have declined.

“Those who have refused to cooperate have invariably been reassigned , with or without leave of the Comelec, which has deputized the peace officers to maintain peace and order during the elections, the KNP statement said.

“The First Gentleman was pointed to by the KNP as allegedly operating in Mindanao with Commission on elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. They were last seen in Dapitan, Zamboanga del Norte.”

For easy reference, a copy of the Article is attached hereto as Annex “D.”

22. The article is again a report based on witnesses’ accounts of Defendant’s involvement in electoral fraud in Mindanao. It contains no embellishment by any of the Plaintiffs. It is privileged communication and was published in accordance with Plaintiffs’ constitutional freedom of the press.

23. Despite the nature of the article—a report on a matter of public interest—and despite the limitations observed by the journalists, who touched only on the public life of a public figure, Defendant still filed a libel case against Plaintiffs Niñez Cacho-Olivares, Romulo Mariñas, Gina Capiling-Inciong, Jake Martin, Marvin Estigoy, Gerry Baldo, Sherwin Olaes, Lito Tugadi, and Jing Santos for the above article thereby impinging on their freedom and causing them damage.

Plaintiff Lito Banayo

24. Plaintiff Lito Banayo is another journalist who works for the Daily Tribune.

25. On 15 August 2003, said Plaintiff published an article in the Daily Tribune entitled “Mail and other Matters” recounting an untowardly incident that happened during one of Defendant’s trips to San Francisco as the First Gentleman, to wit:

“Around 9:30 p.m. of Aug. 12, our ‘spy’ heard someone call a supervisor to go to the security screening checkpoint because of a request from a Philippine Airlines escort. About to leave at the time was PR 105 from international Terminal A, bound for Manila.

“The escort told the supervisor, who is Vietnamese-American, to provide special treatment to the VIP with him. The VIP, who happens to be quite a big guy, told the supervisor he does not want to be subjected to secondary screening. Following procedures, the supervisor said he cannot give any special treatment to anybody and if he does not want to be subjected to secondary screening, he should remove his shoes, his coat and other items including his belt.

“The big guy took of everything but his shoes. But the alert surveyor of the security personnel watching the monitor, who happened to be Filipino-American, reminded the screener that the shoes need to be taken off. So the big guy had no choice. He answered back grudgingly in a very loud voice that could be heard even 20 feet away,” OK! OK! I will take off my shoes.”

For easy reference, a copy of the Article is attached hereto as Annex “E.”

26. The article is obviously a report of public interest as it centers on national image and airport protocol, both of which were affected by Defendant’s actuations. It is privileged communication and was published in accordance with Plaintiffs’ constitutional freedom of the press.

27. Despite the nature of the article—a report on a matter of public interest—and despite the limitations observed by the journalists, who touched only on the public life of a public figure, Defendant still filed a libel case against Plaintiff Lito Banayo for the above article thereby impinging on their freedom and causing him damage.

Plaintiff William Esposo

28. Plaintiff William Esposo is a journalist who works for the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

29. On 5 July 2004, said Plaintiff published in INQ7,net, the collaborative on-line news website of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and GMA Network 7, an article entitled “How do you solve a problem like Mike Arroyo?” criticizing Defendant’s actuations as the First Gentleman and scholarly expressing the risk that his image poses on the presidency, to wit:

“Rehabilitating highly controversial First Gentleman Mike Arroyo’s battered image may well be the 2004-2010 Macapagal-Arroyo administration’s first major blunder. This contrasts with the well-conceived tactic that stashed Mike Arroyo away and muted him well before the campaign period started.

“Presidential Spokesman Toting Bunye had asserted that since Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo no longer faces another election and therefore no more threat of political mudslinging, the coast is clear for Mike Arroyo to re-surface. But a man like Mike Arroyo is a human lightning rod—everything he is and does is so grossly conspicuous that anyone who takes aim very likely makes a hit.

(xxx)

“Going back to Mike Arroyo, when I was still adviser for then senator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 1996 to 1997—this was during her aborted run for the 1998 presidency—I had advised the arroyo couple that Mike had to be wary of the Imelda Syndrome. The Imelda Syndrome marks every presidential spouse as the prime suspect for abuse and wrongdoing in the tradition started by Imelda Marcos, regardless of whether or not there is basis. When I agreed to advise Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for her 1998 bid for the presidency, I was among many others who believed that she was the one who could thwart the chances of a dreaded Estrada presidency. However, I was surprised at the negative feedback from friends when they learned that I took on that advisory role. Much of the negative feedback centered more on Mike Arroyo rather that the candidate herself. The negative feedback focused a lot on the very type of issues hounding Mike Arroyo these days. Unfortunately, the nation’s experience of three years or so of the Macapagal-Arroyo had only succeeded in reinforcing Mike arroyo’s Imelda Syndrome. Whether or not he deserves it, Mike Arroyo has indeed become the single biggest liability of the Macapagal-Arroyo Administration. It has gotten so bad that whenever there is smoke people would say there is Mike. During the elections long count, how many times have we heard of Mike Arroyo sightings in Mindanao allegedly orchestrating cheating operations? How many corruption scandals dragged the name of Mike arroyo despite the absence of a clear direct link?

For easy reference, a copy of the Article is attached hereto as Annex “F.”

30. Very clearly, the article constitutes fair commentary on a matter of public interest. It even falls within the category of constructive criticism of the administration, and cannot be considered libelous.

31. Yet again, despite the nature of the article—fair commentary on a matter of public interest—and despite the limitations observed by the journalist, who touched only on the public life of a public figure, Defendant still filed a libel case against Plaintiff William Esposo for the above article thereby impinging on his freedom and causing him damage.

32. These are just some of the members of Philippine press who have been sued by Defendant for making fair commentaries and reports on his public life. There are many others. In fact, since 2003, Defendant has filed a flurry of libel cases against 43 journalists, and is claiming for an amount of at least P141,000,000.00 in damages, all for fair comments made by them on matters of public interest. And from all indications, he will continue filing cases against members of the press who publish criticisms against him, no matter how valid they may be.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

33. As can be seen, the articles that Defendant complains of all constitute fair comment on matters of public interest, namely the public life of a public figure. They are proper exercises of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press and are hardly actionable.

34. It bears much emphasis that Defendant, apart from being a public figure and a public officer, is also a lawyer who is presumed to be knowledgeable of the state of Philippine jurisprudence, particularly the doctrines of fair comment and privileged communication.

35. Yet, despite Defendant’s knowledge that as a public figure he is open to fair comment and reporting on his public life, Defendant continues to harass Plaintiffs with a barrage of malicious libel suits, regardless of the limitations that Plaintiffs obviously observed in writing their articles.

36. Defendant clearly ignores the time honored principle of fair comment which means that fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged communication and are not necessarily actionable (Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999).

37. Defendant likewise disregards the Supreme Court’s admonition against public officers’ oppression of the press through emotional suits, to wit:

“(A) public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity of the individual be exalted. The public officer may suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience” (U.S. vs. Bustos, et al., 37 Phil. 731).

38. It is therefore clear that Defendant is abusing his right to litigate by filing libel suits against Plaintiffs, for virtually every criticism made against him, regardless of prevailing principles and jurisprudence on fair comment, privileged communication, and public interest.

39. It is even evident that Defendant cleverly intends to silence his critics in the press by causing a chilling effect upon the Philippine press at large who may think twice about publishing any criticism against Defendant who has already damaged many writers and publishers by instituting libel cases against them. This too is an abuse of Defendant’s right to litigate.

40. Defendant’s acts are manifestly unjust and have caused, and will continue to cause, damage to Plaintiffs as professionals and collectively as an institution. He is therefore liable for damages for abuse of right in accordance with Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

41. Plaintiffs replead the foregoing.

42. In addition, Plaintiffs all enjoy the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press. This includes the freedom to write for the press and to maintain a periodical publication, which is what they exercise when writing and publishing fair commentaries on matters of public interest.

43. Defendant’s act of indiscriminately filing libel suits against Plaintiffs, and other members of the Philippine press, has resulted in a chilling effect on writers, editors, and publishers at large, many of whom have been silenced and are now too afraid to make any criticism upon Defendant, no matter how meritorious it may be, for fear of repercussions in the form of a baseless, but nevertheless damaging, libel suit. For, although they may successfully defend themselves against Defendants charges by the end of the proceedings, they would have already suffered the damages of a malicious and oppressive prosecution, and would have already been subject to the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial (Salonga vs. Cruz-Paño G.R. No. L-59524 February 18, 1985).

44. Hence, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs’ constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press. His acts have caused, and will continue to cause, damage to Plaintiffs as professionals and collectively as an institution. Defendant is therefore liable to Plaintiffs for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code for violating their freedom to write for the press and to maintain a periodical publication.

DAMAGES

45. Defendant’s acts has caused each of the Defendants damages amounting to at least ___________, which is only a rough approximation amount they are entitled to for the suppression of their constitutional rights.

46. Defendant’s actions have also caused each of the Plaintiffs undue anxiety and sleepless nights for which he should be liable to pay them moral damages equivalent to at least ____________.

47. Defendant should also be made to pay Plaintiffs exemplary damages equivalent to ___________ each so that such anti-social acts as Defendant has been guilty of will not be repeated by others.

48. Finally, Defendant should be made liable to pay each of the Plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the amount of _______________ as it appears that he will not stop harassing the members of media until and unless such a suit as this one is brought against him.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed for that, after trial on the merits, this Honorable Court issue an Order finding Defendant liable to each of the Plaintiff’s for the following amounts:

1. Actual damages in the amount of ___________;
2. Moral damages in the amount of ___________;
3. Exemplary damages in the amount of _________;
4. Attorney’s fees in the amount of _________; and
5. Legal interest.

Most respectfully submitted.

Makati City. 24 October 2006.

ROQUE & BUTUYAN LAW OFFICES

Unit 1904 Antel 2000 Corporate Center

121 Valero St., Salcedo Village

Makati City

H. Harry L. Roque, Jr.

PTR No. 4189667, January 11, 2006, Makati

IBP No. 499912, lifetime, Makati

Roll No. 36976

JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN

PTR No. 4189664, January 11, 2006, Makati

IBP No. 500459, lifetime, Makati

Roll No. 36911

ALFREDO C. LIGON III

PTR NO. 4189665; 1/11/06; Makati

IBP NO. 670994; 1/11/06; Makati

Roll No. 47533