Adonis vs. The Philippines (victim represented by Counsel H. Harry L.

Roque)
All rights reserved to the Centre for Civil and Political Rights 1

Adonis vs. The Philippines

CCPR/C/103/D/1815/2008
Communication No. 1815 2008
(initial submission) 3 July 2008
(adoption of views) 26 October 2011

Facts
The author worked as a radio broadcaster in Davao city, Philippines. On 27 July 2001
the author broadcasted a piece of news, separately in two programs (one news
broadcasting and one news debate), on the illicit relationship between a congressman
and a married television personality. The author could not contact the involved
persons before this broadcast; therefore the broadcast did not disclose any names.
On 23 October 2001 the congressman filed two criminal complaints against the
author and the radio manager for defamation (art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code).
The court convicted the author of the charge under the second complaint (about the
news debate) and sentenced him to an imprisonment together with compensation.
While his case was pending, the author was transferred to another duty station,
where he subsequently fell into depression and stopped reporting to his new post. In
consequence his employer suspended payment to the lawyer who immediately
withdrew his service. His motion to withdraw was submitted to the court and granted
on 6 February 2006. The court also issued an arrest award against the author.
However according to the author, he was sent by his company to another city for
work when the case was still ongoing. The lawyer withdrew because the authors
company stopped paying for the service. Due to his withdrawal; the author missed
the opportunity to appeal the courts decision.
The author claims that the State party is in a violation of Art.19 3 for sanctioning
imprisonment under the charge of libel. It recalled the Committees jurisprudence
(No.1128 2002 Marques de Moras v. Angola para.6.8) where the Committee noted
that restrictions on freedom of opinion must be proportional to the protected value.
It is also alleged that the State party is in a violation of Art.14 3(d) for having not
notified the author of the withdrawal of the lawyer and the authors resulting inability
to appeal within the 10 day time limit; as well as for being convicted in absentia. At
last the State party is alleged in a violation of Art.14 3(c) as well, for his case has
been inactive for over 5 years.
The State party commented on the authors claim under Art.14, arguing that the
conviction issued in absence of the authors presence is consistent with the
Constitution, while emphasizing that the authors absence was not justifiable.
The author commented on the State partys argument, noting that the State party has
not contested any factual statements provided by him, which are sufficient to
constitute a violation of the Covenant.
Consideration of admissibility
The Committee considers that the authors claims under Art.14 3 and Art.19 are well
substantiated for the purpose of admissibility.
Consideration of merits
Art.14 3(d): The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that proceedings in absence of
the accused can only be permitted if s/he has been informed of the proceedings

Key words
Right to defence
Freedom of opinion
Relevant Provisions
Article 14 3(c)
Article 14 3(d)
Article 19 3
Violated Provisions
Article 14 3(d)
Article 19 3

Adonis vs. The Philippines (victim represented by Counsel H. Harry L. Roque)
All rights reserved to the Centre for Civil and Political Rights 2

sufficiently in advance and s/he declined to exercise his/her rights (General Comment
No.32). The State has not shown evidence that the Court sought to notify the author
of the lawyers withdrawal or appointed another counsel. In addition, the State has
not demonstrated that the author was given timely enough notice of the Courts
decision to allow him to file an appeal. Therefore the Committee considers that the
facts provided by the author disclosed a violation of Art.14 3(d) of the Covenant.

Art.19 3: The Committee recalls its general comment (General Comment No.34)
according to which defamation laws must be drafted with care to ensure that they
will not stifle freedom of expression. Basing on this interpretation, the Committee
considers that the imprisonment imposed on the author disclosed a violation of
Art.19 3 of the Covenant.
Conclusions
The Committee considers that the State party is in violation of Art.14 3(d) and Art.19
3 of the Covenant. The Committee did not address the authors claim based on Art.
143(c). Pursuant to the Art. 2 2, the State is under an obligation to provide the
author with an effective remedy including adequate compensation for the time
served in prison. The State is also under an obligation to review its libel legislation, to
ensure similar violations will not happen in the future. The Committee wishes to
receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken
to give effect to the Committees Views. The State party is requested to translate and
publish the Views as well.
Dissent/Concurrence
Individual opinion from Mr. Faban Omar Salvioli: In addition to the finding of the
Committee, the State party is also in violation of Art.2 2 of the Covenant. The
inappropriate imprisonment, which was found in violation of Art.19 3 is imposed
under the Philippine Criminal Code. Therefore the continued presence of the Code
should be adjusted by the State party; a failure to do so disclosed a violation of Art.2
2. Though the Article is of general nature, a failure to fulfill it still engages the
international responsibility of the State party. Regarding the requested reparation,
Mr. Salvioli is of the view that instead of requiring the review of the involved
legislation, the State is under an obligation to change the legislation to ensure its
compatibility with the Covenant.
Individual opinion from Mr.Rajsoomer Lallah: While Mr. Lallah showed his
understanding to Mr. Salviolis opinion on finding a violation of Art.2 2, however he
is in doubt about whether particular declaration on a violation of the article is
necessary. As explained by him, Article 2 is of general nature and in that sense, a
finding of violation on subsequent articles will simultaneously disclose a violation of
this article. According to him, instead of drafting in a manner derogating from the
Committees routine draft, it may be more proper to simply add a few words
mentioning Art.2 2 at the end of the Committees conclusion.