Another Roberto Romulo libel suit vs STAR dismissed

After Makati City Third Assistant City Prosecutor Carlito Calpatura dismissed Presidential Adviser Roberto R. Romulo’s libel case against Philippine Star publisher and columnist Maximo V. Soliven, its editors, and executors last January on the basis of lack of jurisdiction due to wrong venue, Makati Assistant City Prosecutor Melquiades Mutiangpili dismissed Romulo’s libel case against respondents Maximo V. Soliven, Federico Pascual, Jose Manuel "Babe" Romualdez for lack of evidence and that of respondent Conrado Banal III for insufficiency of evidence in a resolution released yesterday by Makati Chief Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi.

In the case docketed as I.S. No. 04-1-17482-85, the Makati Prosecutor’s Office ruled that the circumstances under which the complainant was allegedly attacked, villified or defamed publicly as he claims to be, evidently will show that he was assailed on his character and actuations in dealing, in his capacity as a public officer. "We cannot support complainant’s contention that he is not a public officer because as correctly pointed out by respondent Pascual in his Rejoinder-Affidavit the duties and functions of the office under which complainant was appointed as Senior Adviser on International Competitiveness are spelled out under Executive Order No. 194 issued on April 14, 2003. Moreover, his appointment as co-chairman of the Information Technology and E-Commerce Commission, special envoy to the Middle East and Chief of the Public-Private Sector Task Force for the Reconstruction of Iraq clearly shows that he is a public officer discharging governmental or sovereign functions. Hence, we agree to the contention of the respondents that this office has no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation and to act on the complaint for the purpose of determining probable cause against respondents Soliven, Pascual, and Romualdez. Complainant being a public officer, finds application of a provision under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that where the crime of Libel is committed by a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila, the complaint should be filed in the City of Manila or in the province or city where the alleged libelous article was printed and first published."

This ruling is consistent with former solicitor general Francisco Chavez’s opinion. He stressed, "Romulo is a senior adviser on international competitiveness with portfolio on international finance, investment, trade, and information and communication technological strategy — the same areas where Romulo’s private corporations, corporate holdings and foundations have particular interests and advocacies that he would naturally want the government to adopt."

In September last year, Chavez filed a Complaint-Affidavit with Prayer for Full Disclosure and Divestment against Romulo at the Ombudsman. Chavez accused him of conflict of interest for holding several positions in government and in private companies. Romulo was in "culpable violation of the Constitution and other laws on public officials, in that he holds concurrently with his public offices various positions in private sector organizations and businesses." Chavez asked the Office of the Ombudsman to require Romulo to "fully disclose his assets, liabilities, net worth, and also his business interest and financial connections since he assumed office and to divest his positions in private enterprises, and of such shareholdings or interests acquired in violation of the prohibition against conflict of interest."

In support of Chavez’s contention, the Ombudsman ordered Romulo to file his counter-affidavit on a criminal case (for violation of Section 3 (d) of R.A. 3019 and Section 7 of RA 6713) filed by Chavez. The ruling stated that "no motion to dismiss or bill of particulars shall be entertained" because the Ombudsman found the Sept. 16, 2004 complaint-affidavit sufficient in form and substance. The order was issued by Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo last Jan. 5, 2005.