PhilReport is committed to robust public-interest journalism while operating within the legal environment governing media in the Philippines. This policy outlines how we assess, manage, and respond to libel and legal risk without compromising editorial independence.
This policy exists to protect the public interest, our journalists, and the integrity of our reporting—not to chill legitimate scrutiny of those in power.
1. Legal Context
PhilReport recognizes that Philippine media operates under a legal framework that includes criminal and civil liability for libel, including online publication.
We are mindful that:
- Libel remains a criminal offense under the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act
- Public officials frequently invoke libel complaints as a pressure tactic rather than a good-faith pursuit of redress
- Legal processes themselves may be used to intimidate, delay, or drain resources
Compliance with the law does not mean deference to power. Our obligation is to truth, accuracy, and public accountability.
2. Guiding Principle: Public Interest First
PhilReport publishes material that serves a legitimate public interest, including scrutiny of:
- Public officials and candidates for office
- Use and misuse of public funds
- Government procurement, infrastructure, and regulatory decisions
- Corporate conduct affecting public welfare
- National security, disaster risk, and public safety
Reporting on matters of public interest is not optional in a democracy. It is our core mandate.
3. Distinguishing Fact, Allegation, and Analysis
To manage libel risk responsibly, we require clear differentiation between:
- Verified facts supported by documents, records, or on-the-record testimony
- Allegations, which are attributed to identifiable sources (e.g., audit reports, sworn testimony, official complaints)
- Analysis and opinion, which are clearly labeled and grounded in disclosed facts
We do not present allegations as established facts, nor do we soften facts to avoid discomfort.
4. Attribution and Documentation Standards
High-risk stories require heightened evidentiary discipline.
Before publication, editors ensure that:
- Key factual claims are supported by documentary evidence or credible testimony
- Sources of allegations are clearly identified and described
- Documents cited are authentic, properly contextualized, and preserved
PhilReport maintains internal records of source materials for legally sensitive stories.
5. Right of Reply and Due Process
We make reasonable efforts to obtain comment from subjects of serious allegations.
However:
- Failure or refusal to respond does not bar publication
- The right of reply does not include editorial veto or indefinite delay
- Statements of denial are reported accurately but not uncritically
We recognize that invoking “due process” does not prohibit reporting on documented allegations, investigations, or systemic issues.
6. Use of Language and Framing
Editors pay close attention to wording in legally sensitive reporting.
We avoid:
- Declaring guilt before judicial determination
- Inflammatory or gratuitous language not supported by facts
- Speculative assertions presented as conclusions
We do not avoid precise language when facts justify it. Accuracy is not softened to reduce risk.
7. Anonymous Sources and Legal Exposure
Anonymous sources increase legal risk and are approved only under strict conditions.
When anonymity is granted:
- Editors know the source’s identity and basis of knowledge
- The information is corroborated or supported by documents where possible
- The reason for anonymity is explained to readers when appropriate
We do not rely on anonymous sources for personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations.
8. Editorial Review and Legal Consultation
For high-risk stories—particularly those involving named individuals, large sums of public funds, or ongoing investigations—PhilReport may conduct pre-publication legal review.
Legal consultation is advisory, not determinative.
Editors retain final authority over publication decisions.
9. Response to Legal Threats
PhilReport treats legal threats seriously but not reflexively.
- Demand letters, cease-and-desist notices, and threats of suit are reviewed by editors and counsel
- We do not remove or alter accurate reporting solely due to legal pressure
- Corrections are issued only when warranted by factual error
We do not negotiate truth away to avoid inconvenience.
10. Corrections, Clarifications, and Retractions
When factual errors are identified:
- Corrections are issued promptly and transparently
- Clarifications are added when context is missing or ambiguous
- Retractions are issued only in cases of material error undermining the core of a story
Legal pressure alone is not grounds for retraction.
11. Protection of Journalists and Contributors
PhilReport recognizes that legal risk is borne not just by institutions but by individual journalists.
We commit to:
- Standing by contributors acting in good faith and in accordance with editorial standards
- Not disavowing journalists under pressure for legitimate reporting
- Providing institutional support when work is challenged
We do not require contributors to self-censor beyond professional standards.
12. Chilling Effects and Strategic Lawsuits
PhilReport acknowledges the existence of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in the Philippine context.
We assess legal actions not only for their merits, but for their intent.
Where appropriate, we will:
- Publicly disclose attempts to intimidate or suppress reporting
- Seek remedies under applicable laws and jurisprudence
- Continue reporting on matters of public interest despite pressure
13. Accountability to Readers
Ultimately, our accountability is to the public.
We invite readers to:
- Question our reporting
- Point out errors
- Demand clarity and evidence
We believe transparency is the strongest defense against both error and intimidation.