In his defense  

Enchong Dee is in a pickle. The poor guy is facing a cyber-libel suit, but a passionate (as opposed to dispassionate) review of the facts of the case doesn’t bear out the existence of that crime. Meanwhile, he suffers the fate of a multitude of Filipinos whose lives are overshadowed by a pending criminal case, our not exactly speedy judicial system taking its sweet time to kick the ball along.

So where did it start?

The horror story began with a wedding --that of Congresswoman Claudine Diana Bautista, who represented the Dumper PTDA (Drivers United for Mass Progress and Equal Rights–Philippines Taxi Drivers Association) as a party-list member. She wed a businessman, apparently her beau of more than a decade.

Unlike some weddings where the newlyweds lived happily ever after, this one probably caused them some chagrin first. The lavishness (to some) of the affair was exposed, what with a gown by Michael Cinco that featured a spectacular train employing many seamstresses, and a venue in the private island of Balesin (Right now, I’m mentally calculating how much it would cost to send over on private planes a retinue, multiple guests, and the necessary accoutrements. And then I gave up).

Enchong, the politically and socially-conscious actor that he is, blasted off a tweet in response, to the effect that “The money for commuters and drivers went to her wedding. Let’s not prolong this conversation and don’t say otherwise.”

Well, the congresswoman does say otherwise. According to the Congresswoman, his tweet was “malicious” and “defamatory”, and an intrusion into her private life not meant to be shared with the public. That tweet insinuated that public funds were used to defray her wedding costs, and she maintains that was not the case.

This was the start of the billion-peso libel suit, notwithstanding that Dee later deleted the tweet, and apologized. The investigating fiscal, after conducting a preliminary inquiry, concludes that Dee’s tweet accused the congresswoman of malversation of public funds, “which peremptorily makes the complainant a soft target for heavy criticism and pillory, placing her thereby in a bad light due to such reckless and irresponsible tweet of the respondent” (This dense legalese really makes me want to reach for a bold red ballpen. That, or a knife).

How do we interpret Enchong’s tweet in such a way as to clear his name of responsibility for libel? Many possible ways. Dee doesn’t directly accuse the Congresswoman of stealing or pocketing funds. He doesn’t come right out to say she was corrupt. He doesn’t even explicitly contend that there were public funds involved. It could have been private funds he was referring to.

One could liberally interpret his words to mean that the congresswoman’s private money, which she used for her wedding should, perhaps, not have been spent for that purpose, but instead, donated to commuters and drivers. Wouldn’t that have been a more altruistic gesture?

Or his tweet could be read to say that, the complainant received a salary from the government as a congresswoman, and it would have been nice if, as representative of that sector, she didn’t pocket that salary anymore.

As a noble act, the congresswoman could have just refused the salary, and instead, devoted those funds to the constituents she represents. If she gave that cash to the taxi drivers she claims to represent, well, that’s a much better destination for that moolah, instead being used to defray her own personal expenses, including those necessitated by her wedding. Maybe that’s what Enchong meant!

As they say in criminal law, the law must always favor a construction that acquits rather than convicts. That’s in keeping with the constitutional presumption of innocence. And of course, we are talking about an elected public official, and this breed is always subject to intense public scrutiny. The laws on libel are relaxed around public figures, as we prize their accountability over their offended sensibilities. And as the Supreme Court always says, public officials shouldn’t have onion skins.

Not even if they are daughters of governors, who might be wont to pamper themselves liberally with expensive lotions to make their skins ultra-smooth. Might as well coat themselves with armor if they want to remain under the watchful eyes of the public.