Panama

Panama’s new Penal Code, which went into effect on May 22, amended laws on several of the defamation-related offenses (known as “crimes against honor”) that had constituted a menace to journalists trying to work freely. Several pending criminal cases against journalists will have to be reclassified, as charges in cases involving high-ranking government officials have been decriminalized. In addition to its favorable amendments decriminalizing certain defamation-related offenses, the new Penal Code also includes new provisions that may cause trouble for journalists. There are indications that executive branch officials intend to shield themselves from investigative journalists by hiding behind new restrictions on the right to publish documents. On July 5, Judge Marítimo Calixto Malcolm, who pressed defamation charges against a well-known columnist, filed a motion asking the court to find that the new provision decriminalizing criticism against public officials is unconstitutional. The Court has not yet ruled on this motion. On July 1, the 3rd Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that it was reversing the pardon that outgoing President Mireya Moscoso had granted on August 26, 2004, to certain high-profile prisoners (including Luis Posada Carriles, noted anti-Fidel Castro activist). The Supreme Court unanimously held that the executive branch had overstepped its authority by granting a pardon not only to Mr. Posada Carriles and his codefendants, but also to 62 journalists who had been convicted of defamation-related crimes. While the pardons were granted more for political rather than for legal reasons, the Court’s decision — coming five years after the pardons and just after the new Penal Code went into effect — casts the formerly pardoned journalists into a legal limbo. The attorney general has said that each defendant’s status will have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This uncertainty was further highlighted on July 14, when an independent attorney filed a motion against the Court’s decision, claiming that the justices overstepped their constitutional authority in their July 1 decision. Several cases have cast a legal shadow over journalism in Panama, and have revealed a certain degree of hostility toward journalists. Based on a publication on the maintenance records of an aircraft that was involved in an accident, La Prensa newspaper published a document suggesting that the aircraft had a history of mechanical problems. The government responded by declaring the document false and launching an investigation into the alleged doctoring of the published document. The newspaper gave questionnaires to the authorities. But not only did these questionnaires go unanswered, but the government responded by placing press releases in the print media giving only its side of the story. In another recent case, the weekly El Periódico published a documented story including the income tax return of a noted construction and hotel magnate. Claiming his reputation had been harmed and seeking damages, the magnate filed a civil lawsuit. Surprisingly, the judge in the case granted an injunction in a record time of three days, ordering the seizure of the company’s assets and a portion of the journalists’ wages. There have been no indications that the published information was false. During the primary election campaign, the electoral court ordered the temporary withdrawal of television ads in which a candidate quoted an opponent’s public statements. Considering that this happened very early in the election process, there was a significant outcry from civic groups concerned about access to information, as the measure entailed the censorship of the dissemination of facts. After the party completed its primary election process, the court lifted the measure. The censorship measure was circumvented through online alternative media outlets and cell-phone text messaging. Restrictions barring print media outlets from participating in radio or television companies are still in place, under Law 24 of 1999, which reorganized the legal framework governing radio and television. Article 1 of the law claims it seeks to promote and protect investment, freedom of competition, and quality among frequency permit holders. However, it bars print media outlets from owning, managing, or operating radio or television stations. It expressly states that no radio or television station “may be controlled directly or indirectly by a newspaper with nationwide circulation.”