CAGAYAN de Oro City — The dismissal of cyberlibel and Data Privacy Act complaints against Cagayan de Oro broadcaster Menzie Montes may offer a useful reference for journalists covering government officials and matters of public concern, lawyer Atty. Tony La Viña said.
Montes faced the complaints following reports aired by RMN/iFM Cagayan de Oro concerning delayed tuition payments and allowances of city government scholars.
The complaints also involved the publication of screenshots of a Messenger exchange between Montes and a city official related to the issue.
The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaints after finding insufficient basis to establish a prima facie case.
The prosecutor’s resolution also noted that the communications involved concerns raised before a government office.
It further recognized that information relating to the functions of government employees and officials may fall under exemptions provided by the Data Privacy Act.
La Viña, who was part of Montes’ legal defense, said the resolution could provide guidance for journalists reporting on public officials and government functions.
“Grabe ang precedent kang Menzie nga ang public official cannot claim any kind of liability if the reporting is about public official,” La Viña said.
He said the outcome may help reinforce the protection of legitimate reporting and freedom of expression, particularly when journalism involves matters of public concern.
La Viña also said the resolution could be useful to journalists who face complaints arising from their work, particularly in Mindanao.
“It can be considered as protected speech,” he said.
However, La Viña said the outcome should be viewed as a reference rather than a blanket protection for all reporting involving public officials.
For journalists, the case underscores the importance of reporting matters of public concern carefully, accurately and within the bounds of applicable laws.
The dismissal applies to the complaints against Montes and does not by itself establish a binding legal precedent for other cases. Any similar complaint would still depend on its specific facts and the applicable law.
