MANILA, Philippines – Journalists who police rounded up after quelling an attempted military uprising at the Manila Peninsula Hotel in November 2007 have asked the Court of Appeals to reverse a trial court’s dismissal of the case they filed against security and government officials for violating their rights.

In a 76-page petition, the journalists also asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order against officials who had threatened to arrest journalists under similar circumstances.

The case stemmed from the arrest of journalists who opted to remain inside the Manila Peninsula Hotel, despite orders by police to leave, and cover its occupation by mutinous soldiers who wanted President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to step down.

The class suit, filed by 37 journalists and four media organizations in January 2008, was dismissed on June 20 by Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 56 Judge Reynaldo Laigo, who said the police action during the incident was justified and that the course of action taken by law enforcement officials “did not constitute sufficient cause of action for damages against the defendants that warrants further prosecution of the instant case.”

Among the officials charged were Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr., Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, then Philippine National Police chief Avelino Razon Jr., then National Capital Region Police Office director Geary Barias.

The journalists sued them for violating the constitutional guarantee to press freedom with the Peninsula arrests.

Harry Roque, the journalists’ lawyer, said the court erred when it dismissed the complaint.

”The questioned public pronouncements, including the DoJ [Department of Justice] advisory, constitute acts of prior restraint proscribed by the Constitution,” according to the motion. It was Gonzalez who, in a memorandum, said journalists could be arrested again should a situation similar to the Manila Peninsula occupation occur.

Roque noted that “Philippine jurisprudence on prior restraint clamped against free speech and a free speech has undergone a radical development under the Arroyo administration.”

”It is no surprise because since Mrs. Arroyo rose to power in 2001, many media groups both local and international have noted the deterioration of press freedom in the country,” he said.

The plaintiffs also did not violate any law when they stayed at the hotel to cover unfolding events, Roque said.

”What exactly did the journalists violate? When they were cuffed and hauled off to camp to be processed, they were not even informed of what the violation was. Defendants-Appellees admit to that. It was only later, after such official treatment of journalists drew much flak from many quarters, that authorities began to justify it by saying that the journalists were in the way of the police operation,” Roque said in the motion.

He also said that the “acts in question,” including the public pronouncements of the officials, are “threats” not only directed at the journalists who filed the case but the press or the media as a whole.

“Its chilling effect not only reaches journalists but the public in general. It is for this reason that Plaintiffs-Appellants argue that these pronouncements, and especially the advisory, should as well be struck down for over-breadth and vagueness,” according to the motion.

In their motion, the journalists also asked for P10 million pesos in actual, moral and exemplary damages.