Cebu Provincial Legal Officer Orvi Ortega intends to stop Bobby Nalzaro from attacking him on issues surrounding the failed temporary engagement of Black Pearl Security Agency (BPSA) in the Capitol – by filing a case against the popular broadcaster and newspaper columnist.
Instead of stepping back, Bobby stood his ground and challenged the public official to go ahead and present evidence to prove the mediaman is working in cahoots with politicians supposedly out to smear Ortega. Last Monday, Ortega revealed that forces with a political agenda and business groups interested in bagging the Capitol’s P37-million security service contract are funding the demolition job.
The controversy over the takeover of BPSA as security service provider of the Capitol broke out last month after the expiry of the security service contract previously held by Tactical Security Agency. This sparked a furor because the Capitol had not yet finished a public bidding when BPSA already deployed its blue guards.
Rumors were rife that the agency had the favor of certain Capitol officials, in particular, according to media commentaries, Ortega who chairs the Provincial Bids and Awards Committee or PBAC. The Capitol justified that move saying the security agency was volunteering its services but the explanation raised more questions than it offered answers.
Fortunately for Gov. Hilario “Junjun” Davide III, a mishap involving a Black Pearl guard in barangay Apas gave him the opportunity to cancel the temporary arrangement with the agency. As if to emphasize he has zero tolerance for corruption, Davide declared a failure of bidding and ordered PBAC to conduct a rebidding, this time with media and civil society groups in attendance.
Still, this did not calm the situation. It was reported that BPSA was able to insert itself in the Capitol through Ortega who was poised to make P1,000 per month per blue guard numbering more than 200. Insinuations that money changed hands were being raised because somebody acquired a brand new sports utility vehicle.
Unable to take it anymore, Ortega called a press conference last Monday to say that his family and friends are hurting over the “baseless and unfounded rumors.” He also announced that he would sue Bobby if he does not stop his attacks.
Ortega must have considered the odds that Bobby would keep quiet if he is threatened with a lawsuit because developments in the Capitol on the security service contract tend to sustain Bobby’s argument and refute Ortega’s position. The only thing that clutters the issue is that Governor Davide has fallen short of making the ultimate act of killing the bad thoughts of the public by firing Ortega. This would have been the logical thing to do because he failed to cover the governor’s back. Davide’s administration tripped on the temporary engagement with BPSA except that his image remains unsullied and he enjoys the trust of the people.
Reacting to Bobby’s challenge for him to resign, Ortega countered, “Who are you to ask me to resign?”
On this quip, I would like to contribute my two cents’ worth using inputs from an archaic libel case that remains relevant and original for its insightful rationalization of the role of the media in a democratic society. Come to think of it, this case would be familiar to Ortega as a textbook case on libel.
In 1922, a case was filed against Gregorio Perfecto, editor of La Nacion for reporting that employees of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry were being unjustly exploited by the foreman. The laborers were supposed to receive the daily wage of P2.50, but they discovered that the foreman, Jacinto Victoria kept P0.50 out of their daily earnings. The workers were unceremoniously discharged and the foreman sued the newspaper for libel.
Jacinto scored a win in the Court of First Instance (CFI) prompting Perfecto to elevate the case to the Supreme Court (SC). The High Tribunal reversed the CFI decision and fully absolved the defendant. To my mind, the case would have been easily forgotten because it involved another thieving public official, except that it had to evolve as a libel case. In the process, it highlighted the function of the press as a public watchdog, reinforcing the recognition of media’s role as the Fourth Estate.
May I quote the SC decision, often used by lawyers and opinion makers to point out why a free media is the lifeblood of a democratic society.
“The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience.
“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. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be borne for the common good. Rising superior to any official or set of officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary — to any or all the agencies of Government — public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy.
“The development of an informed public opinion in the Philippines can certainly not be brought about by the constant prosecution of those citizens who have the courage to denounce the maladministration of public affairs. The time of prosecuting officers could be better served, in bringing to stern account the many who profit by the vices of the country, than by prosecution which amounts to persecution of the few who are helping to make, what the country so much needs, an enlightened public opinion.”