BY ASHZEL HACHERO

A MAKATI court yesterday junked for lack of evidence the P10 million class action suit filed by print and broadcast journalists who were arrested while covering last November's stand-off at the Peninsula Manila Hotel.

In a five-page decision, Judge Reynaldo Laigo said the order of the authorities for those inside the hotel, including the plaintiffs-journalists, to vacate the premises were "lawful" considering the "dangerous situation" at the time.

Laigo said the order by PNP-NCRPO Director Geary Barias "appeared to have been disobeyed" by the journalists who refused to leave the hotel.

He said the journalists could have been indicted for criminal offenses "but they were so lucky as none had been initiated against them."

It added: "Thus, the plaintiffs (Ellen Tordesillas, Charmaine Deogracias, Ashzel Hachero, James Galvez and Vergel Santos) having been handcuffed and brought to Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City for investigation, and released thereafter was justified, it being in accordance with the police procedure."

The Makati court also ruled that the pronouncements of the authorities after the November 29 incident was no attempt to curtail press freedom as alleged by the plaintiffs.

Thirty-six media practitioners and four media organizations, namely, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) and the Philippine Press Institute (PPI) filed charges against officials led by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez Sr. for "impinging on press freedom" and for their "continuing threats" against media practitioners.

Of the 36 journalists, five were actually arrested and "processed" at Camp Bagong Diwa, namely Tordesillas and Hachero of Malaya, Deogracias of Japanese broadcast agency NHK, Galvez of Manila Times and Leah Flor of the Philippine Cable Television.

The journalists have said they were arbitrarily arrested without probable cause while covering the standoff between the Magdalo group led by detained Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and government troops. They said they were not formally charged or informed of their rights by the authorities.

They also complained that after the incident, respondents Ronaldo Puno, Hermogenes Esperon, Raul Gonzalez, Avelino Razon, and Gilbert Teodoro continued to make "threats" or warnings" to arrest or charge media practitioners who "ignore or interfere" in the conduct of police or military operations.

They said such threats have a "chilling effect" on the exercise of their rights accorded under the Constitution.

Also included in the complaint were Barias, Southern Police District Director Luizo Ticman, PNP-Special Action Force Commander Leocadio Santiago Jr. and PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group Chief Asher Dolina.

Lawyer Harry Roque, the plaintiffs' counsel, said the ruling represented the "biggest blow to our cherished civil liberties to date."

Roque said the Supreme Court, in its decision on Chavez v. Gonzalez (G.R. No. 168338, Feb. 15, 2008) which dealt with the airing on radio of the "Hello Garci" tapes, found that Gonzalez violated freedom of the press in his statements which were similar to those he aired in the Manila Peninsula stand-off.

The lawyer said he could not understand why the lower court ruling differed with that of the SC in a very similar case.

"The Supreme Court found that such was unconstitutional. We do not see why Judge Laigo could not apply the same prohibition in the case of the Gonzalez advisory on the Manila Pen incident. Note the strong similarities: Both statements were worded legally, quoting provisions of law and legal action, both statements were issued to the owners of media establishments, and both were not explicitly worded in such a way that one could literally extrapolate prior restraint from the statements," he added.

Tordesillas said she was dismayed by the ruling but vowed to continue the fight. "Arbitrary detention of reporters as what happened in the Manila Pen was an assault not only on the journalist's basic human rights but more so to press freedom," she said.

She said the "decision undermines our ability to perform our duty of informing the public but also deprives the public of the right to know and be informed truthfully of government matters that affect them."