The case of Dr. Romeo Quijano and SLAPP

Defending against intimidation lawsuits
The case of Dr. Romeo Quijano, and a proposed law to stop intimidation lawsuits in the Philippines
Source: Environmental Defender Law Center (US)

The Problem

Environmental defenders may find themselves named as defendants in defamation lawsuits in local courts. All too often, the goal of those who bring these lawsuits is to silence environmental defenders who publicly criticize projects or practices that harm both the environment and affected communities. This disfavored type of intimidation lawsuit is known in the U.S. as a “SLAPP suit” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

In effect, those who bring SLAPPs seek to transform public debates into lawsuits in order to prevent the airing of legitimate concerns on matters of great public interest. These suits violate the human rights of environmental defenders and those on whose behalf they speak. See Human Rights Violated by SLAPP defamation suits. The problem of SLAPP suits is not restricted to the U.S.: the Philippines in particular has seen a huge proliferation of these lawsuits in recent years.
Dr. Romeo Quijano

Romeo Quijano is a physician and professor of pharmacology and toxicology in the Philippines. He had heard that the people of Kamukhaan, a village adjoining a large banana plantation on the island of Mindanao, were suffering from unusually high rates of disease. When he studied the health effects on the villagers of what he believed to be the overuse of a number of pesticides, Dr. Quijano found dozens of families who appeared to be suffering from pesticide poisoning.

Dr. Quijano videotaped his interviews with the villagers. When he arrived home, he assigned his daughter a summer project of writing a story from the taped interviews. She wrote the article with her father’s help and it was published in the newspaper. The article described the harm to the environment, and detailed the unusually high number of people suffering from significant health problems, linking these problems to pesticide exposure.

The publication of the article resulted in a libel action being filed against Dr. Quijano and his daughter by the fruit company. Dr. Quijano and his local lawyer welcomed assistance from EDLC and American lawyers, who prepared an extensive legal brief for use in his case. The brief showed how international human rights law prohibits the use of defamation laws to penalize environmental defenders in the exercise of their rights of free speech, petition, and citizen participation, and how human rights bodies have decided cases to this effect.

The court’s decision

On December 10, 2007 (Human Rights Day), the judge in the Philippines ruled in favor of Dr. Quijano and his daughter, dismissing the case. The judge ruled that there was “no convincing proof [of]…any malicious intent of defendants against the plaintiff,” and ordered the company to pay the Quijanos a portion of their expenses. In the meantime, EDLC learned of nearly a dozen similar cases filed in the Philippines against environmental defenders.
SLAPPS come to the Philippines

While EDLC has noted the increased use of SLAPP suits against environmental defenders in a number of developing countries, nowhere are SLAPPs more on the rise than in the Philippines. A Philippine Congressional Representative observed that “SLAPP defendants have been sued for lawful actions such as initiating signature campaigns, circulating a petition, publishing articles in newsletters, organizing and speaking in public meetings, reporting violations of the law, or participating in peaceful demonstrations.” Local groups share these concerns, leading to an effort to combat the problem through proposed comprehensive national anti-SLAPP legislation
Winston & Strawn and the Philippine Anti-SLAPP Law

EDLC was asked by elected representatives and NGO opponents of SLAPP suits in the Philippines to obtain American legal assistance in the effort to enact national anti-SLAPP legislation. At EDLC’s request, a team of lawyers at Winston & Strawn agreed to help.

Because SLAPPs aim to deter citizens from participating in public affairs, judges and legislators alike have condemned their use, fearing the danger such litigation poses to a well-functioning democracy. SLAPPs are so strongly disfavored that at least twenty-four U.S. states have enacted legislation discouraging their use. Most state statutes establish a process for motions to dismiss or strike claims, and expedite the hearing of such motions and suspend or sharply limit discovery until a ruling is made on the motion. These statutes also typically require the award of attorney’s fees, litigation costs, damages, and sanctions to SLAPP victims.

The lawyers at Winston & Strawn reviewed the draft of the legislation, offered comments, and proposed additional provisions. They also prepared a report on the SLAPP experience in the U.S. and in other countries, as well as analyzing the SLAPP problem under international human rights law. The report was presented to the Philippine House of Representatives to show the severity of the problem and the need for the proposed legislation.

In the meantime, there has been significant progress on the issue by virtue of the Philippine Supreme Court’s adoption in April 2010 of new rules of procedure for environmental cases. For the first time, the rules provide substantial protections for anti-SLAPP victims. And if the proposed law is enacted, it will mark the first time a country has created national anti-SLAPP law. Whether successful or not, proponents of the law hope that it will spur similar legislative proposals in other countries to help environmental defenders “SLAPP back.”