Freedom of Expression

Panama

1.      The Rapporteur continues to view with concern the use of defamation and libel suits by some public officials in Panama.  The filing of such charges is intended to silence criticisms made by some journalists and media outlets about how government officials and personalities perform their public duties.  According to the information received, as of the date of this report a total of 90 criminal suits against journalists for defamation and libel were pending before the Panamanian courts.  Such suits affect one out of every three journalists in Panama, and 70 percent of them are initiated by public officials.[1] In turn, the government of Panama informed the Rapporteur’s office that there were actually 145 ongoing suits for defamation and libel; the government also explained that 37 of them involved 28 journalists and in the remainder the charges were filed against private citizens.[2]

2.      Of these 145 cases, five were initiated by the attorney general, José Antonio Sossa Rodríguez.[3] In addition, the Rapporteur also notes with concern reports alleging the existence of a smear campaign, led by Attorney General Sossa, against those journalists who criticize public officials.[4] The attorney general has called the decriminalization of defamation and libel “totally absurd,” alleging that the idea “is an invention of the Rapporteur’s office.”[5]

3.      The decriminalization of defamation and libel has its basis in the jurisprudence of the inter-American human rights system.  The Commission has stated that public figures must be exposed to criticism because of the importance of free debate on matters of public concern.[6] A public figure is entitled to protect himself from intentional attacks on his honor or reputation “through civil actions and by implementing laws that guarantee the right of reply.”[7] The enforcement of criminal defamation and libel laws to protect the reputation and honor of public figures constitutes a violation of Article 13 of the American Convention, in that the punishment is disproportionate in comparison with the importance of open debate.[8]

4.      Enforcement of defamation and libel laws has been and continues to be one of the chief concerns of the Rapporteur’s office.  During the Commission’s visit to Panama in June 2001, the Rapporteur and other members of the Commission held a meeting with Attorney General Sossa at which that concern was voiced.

5.      The Rapporteur believes that the State of Panama has not shown the political will to repeal its laws criminalizing statements that are offensive to public officials. During 2000, the Panamanian State informed the Rapporteur’s office of its plans to amend its legislation and repeal those provisions, which are also known as desacato contempt laws.  However, as of the date of this report, Panama had made no progress or changes in this regard.  Instead, as reported by numerous independent journalists, threats against free expression in the form of lawsuits filed by public officials against journalists have increased significantly.

           Detentions

6.      On December 5, 2001, Evelia Aparicio de Esquivel, the mayor of David, ordered the arrest of journalist Luis Gaitán Villareal for a period of 48 hours on the grounds that he had been disrespectful toward her.  Gaitán is the editor of the Informe Especial TV program, the editor of the www.chirinet.com web magazine, and a correspondent for the daily El Siglo.  The journalist had made allegations regarding corruption in the local government, the illegal use of traveling expenses, the misplacement of municipal funds in David, and other irregularities.  The mayor accused him of referring to her with insulting words.  His arrest was based on Article 386 of the Judicial Code, which allows certain state representatives to order a person placed in prison for disrespecting their office, without first requiring a trial.  The journalist was arrested on December 6 and released a few hours later by the sixth judge of the Chiriquí judicial circuit, who admitted an appeal on the grounds of insufficient evidence.[9]

           Judicial Actions

7.      On May 16, 2001, proceedings for crimes against honor were initiated against Miguel Antonio Bernal Villalez, an independent journalist.  Bernal Villalez was accused by the former director general of police for reporting the decapitation of four prisoners who had attempted to escape from the penitentiary on Coiba island.  He was accused of having affected “the honor and dignity of a public institution, namely the National Police.” If found guilty, the journalist could be sent to prison for 18 months and be disqualified from holding public office for two years.  Bernal Villalez filed an application for the proceedings to be declared null and void; this was rejected in July and is currently on appeal.[10]

8.      On May 23, 2001, Marcelino Rodríguez of the daily El Siglo was convicted of the crime of defamation and libel.  The suit was filed by Administration Attorney Alma Montenegro de Fletcher because of a series of articles he had published naming her as the owner of a house acquired under dubious circumstances.  After verifying that his information was incorrect, the journalist retracted his story and published a clarifying note. In spite of this, he was sentenced to 16 months in prison, commutable to a fine of $1,000 and disqualification from holding public office for the same period.[11]

9.      On September 20, 2001, Ubaldo Davis and Herbert Rattry of the satirical weekly La Cáscara News were arrested for publishing humorous material alluding to the private life of President Mireya Moscoso and other public officials.  The next day, Joel Díaz, another journalist on the weekly, was also arrested.  The three journalists were released on September 21, but as of the date of this report they were still facing criminal charges.  President Moscoso and one of the officials filed suit against the three journalists for “defamation and libel” and for “attacking the juridical security of the state.” The first charge is punishable by a prison term of up to two years, while the second charge carries a punishment of up to 20 years in prison.  Another two journalists from the publication, Delmiro Quiroga and Ramón Boutrich, were detained for a few hours and interrogated about the case, but no charges were filed against them.  At the same time as these events were taking place, the National Media Directorate placed a ban on publication of the weekly on the grounds that it had not complied with the formalities required by law for registering a new newspaper.[12]

           Prior Censorship

10.  On September 8, 2001, Radio Soberana Civilista, belonging to the radio broadcaster Alonso Pinzón, suddenly ceased transmissions as Pinzón and his collaborators were harshly criticizing the government and denouncing instances of corruption and attempted fraud in the Arnulfista Party’s internal elections.  The transmission breakdown occurred when the journalist was giving details about maneuvers that government officials had allegedly planned to ensure Mireya Moscoso’s reelection as president of the Arnulfista Party.  After the interruption, the station engineer went to inspect the transmitters and saw that the doors had been forced and the electricity had been cut off.  In addition, the radio station received a notice demanding payment of arrears, in spite of the fact that it had entered into a payment agreement with the Elektra Noreste electric company a year earlier.[13]

Positive Actions

11.  On January 22, 2002, the nation’s executive promulgated the Law on Transparency in the Public Administration, which provides for habeas data action.  This new legislation empowers all individuals to request the information about them held by the state.  It also provides that officials who refuse to hand over such information shall be subject to punishments including fines and dismissals.[14] Chapter V of the law defines the types of information that are restricted and confidential.  The scope of such restrictions within this context must not be set on a discretionary basis by the state; they should instead be expressly established by law, intended to protect a legitimate goal and necessary for a democratic society.  As the Rapporteur has stated before, access to information held by the state is a vital tool in building transparent public administrations. The Rapporteur welcomes the initiatives taken by the Panamanian State in introducing legislation to provide access to public information.

1889 F St. N.W. Washington, DC, U.S.A. 20006 / E-mail: cidhoea@oas.org / Phone: (202) 370-9000 / Fax: (202) 458-3650