To the people who idolize Raffy Tulfo, see him as a human alternative to our justice system, a one-man all-in-one court of all levels, one that cooks decisions as fast and as easily as clueless husbands would whip out a steaming hot cup of instant noodles, you might not like what you are going to read. But try to think first before you get mad.
On March 24, 2004, which was before the internet boom made vlogging a high-earning career for guys like Tulfo, he wrote in his tabloid column “Shoot to Kill” an article against a foreign exchange dealer named Michael Guy. “Idol” Raffy harped in the vernacular that Guy had asked protection from then Finance Secretary Juanita Amatong to stop the department from investigating him for tax fraud.
That particular column compelled Guy to file a multimillion-peso libel suit against Tulfo and the tabloid Abante Tonite. During the trial at the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, the defense was able to force Tulfo to admit that he merely relied on secondhand information fed to him by a “reliable source.” At the same time, he also admitted to have not performed due diligence to determine if the information was true.
The trial court found Tulfo and the executives of his newspaper guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel. They were ordered to pay Guy the amount of P5,000,000 in actual damages, P5,000,000 in moral damages, and attorney’s fees amounting to P211,200.
An appeal by Tulfo et al. failed to secure a reversal, but somehow the Appellate Court reduced the moral damages to P500,000 and imposed exemplary damages of P500,000 while retaining the attorney’s fees.
Guy, upset with the decision of the Appellate Court, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Tulfo et al., however, no longer contested their conviction before the high court, leaving the Supreme Court to decide only the civil aspect, or the amount of damages Guy deserved to be paid. The defendants’ only participation in the Supreme Court proceedings was to file a comment when ordered, arguing that the Court of Appeals ruling on the damages must stand since Guy failed to prove actual damages.
In 2019, the Supreme Court handed its final decision: It retained the Court of Appeals’ award of moral damages and attorney’s fees, but increased the exemplary damages to P1,000,000.
This should be the end of the story. Today, Tulfo is eyeing a seat in the Philippine Senate as an independent candidate in the May 2022 elections. He is on fire, if surveys can be trusted; the polls have placed him as a frontrunner, although recently the lead was reportedly snatched by the multibillionaire real estate turned state construction czar Mark Villar.
If this country still believes in the rule of law, the libel conviction against him should automatically disqualify Tulfo from the race for the Senate. The decision on that case is all over the internet. Just ask Google—Michael Guy v. Raffy Tulfo et al. (G.R. No. 213023, April 10, 2019).
Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 or the Omnibus Election Code provides as ground for disqualification under Section 12 the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Libel is a crime of moral turpitude. All debate about that has been put to rest insofar as Supreme Court rulings on the subject are concerned. In the case of Ty-Delgado v. HRET and Philip Pichay (G.R. No. 219603, Jan. 26, 2016), the respondent, already a sitting congressman of Surigao, was removed from office based on a past conviction for the same crime of libel.
One dramatic sidebar that should be mentioned here is that the disqualification case of Pichay is closely intertwined with the criminal case for libel entitled Tulfo v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 161032, Sept. 16, 2008).
That familiar name again. However, this is not Raffy Tulfo but his younger brother Erwin. The case arose from a series of articles that Erwin wrote against a Bureau of Customs lawyer. Erwin, too, was convicted, earning his stripes in the battlefield of libel suits the Tulfos have become famous for.
If this were a battle of popularity, the libel conviction of “idol” Raffy wouldn’t stand a chance. His cult following will choose to exonerate their man in a heartbeat, the same way people picked Barabbas to be freed. But this is a republic of laws, and we have a covenant to the rule of law. We have a promise to keep to our children that we will give them leaders who are decent, upright, and beyond reproach. Or—do we?
* * *
Adel B. Abillar is a practicing lawyer and a journalist, a loving husband to Arlene, and the coolest Tatay to Ulan, Sining, Alon, and Laya. He can be reached at atty.adel@gmail.com