Chilling effect

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

A bill has been introduced in the Lower House by ACT Teachers Party List Rep. Antonio Tinio and Kabataan Party-List Rep. Renee Louise Co decriminalizing libel.

The explanatory note says it all.

House Bill 441 began by highlighting Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, expression, or the press and Section 24 of Article II and Section 10 of Article XVI also of the Constitution, which provides for the people’s right to information and its importance to the nation.

The authors noted that, despite the present constitutional fiat, the law on libel, introduced by the Spanish Codigo Penal and subsequently reenacted through the American Revised Penal Code, remains in the country’s penal statutes under Articles 353 to 362 of the current Revised Penal Code.

Article 353 of the RPC defines libel as “a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”

Meanwhile, Article 354 provides that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if true, unless a good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, subject to certain exceptions.

Libel by means of writing, printing, radio, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from P40,000 to P1.2 million, or both, in addition to the civil action which the offended party may bring.

Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 increases the penalty for libel to one degree higher than that provided under the RPC if the libel was committed by, through and with the use of information and communication technologies.

The bill explained that our libel law was originally enacted to protect private citizens from unwarranted damage to reputation, but historically, it has been used as a repressive tool by the Spanish and American colonial government, as well as their Philippine descendants.

“Today, the law has been increasingly used by public officials and public figures as a tool to cow and muzzle an independent press, usually to shield themselves from critical reportage and even innocent comment on their acts and decisions. It has become the convenient and predominant way for those in power to harass and silence critical and opposing voices. With the passage of RA 10175, and its criminalization of cyberlibel, the threat to the people’s right to free expression and free press has even become more serious and real,” it said.

“Dangling libel law as a sword of Damocles has resulted in the prevalence of onion skins amongst government officials and public figures. It caused the gagging of media practitioners, the concealment of the truth from public knowledge, prior restraint and chilling effect, and the resulting incapacitation of the people from gaining a meaningful understanding of the various public issues that are of paramount concern,” it added.

The bill further quoted Supreme Court Justice Marvic Leonen, who earlier said that “libel law now is used not so much to prosecute but to deter speech. What is charged as criminal libel may contain precious protected speech. There is very little to support the majority view that the law will not continue to have this effect on speech. It is time that we now go further and declare libel as provided in the RPC and in the Cybercrime Protection Act as unconstitutional.”

Tinio and Co also stressed that a free press is an essential component of a democratic society, ferrets out graft and corruption wherever it may occur and exposes its perpetrators, reveals dishonest and inept administrations, contributes to the exchange of ideas and advances communication between the governed and those who govern. “In other words, a free press acts as the watchdog for the governed.”

They emphasized that decriminalizing libel is in accordance with the October 2011 declaration of the UN Human Rights Committee, which states that the Philippines’ RPC penalizing libel is incompatible with Article 19, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory.

The UNHRC asked the Philippine government to review its libel law.

The authors pointed out that decriminalizing libel does not mean that a person libeled can no longer seek redress, since there is still the remedy of filing an action for damages under the Civil Code.

“The repeal of the libel law, without derogating the rights of a person to enjoy privacy, dignity, good reputation and a peace of mind, will be a big step toward strengthening democracy in our land, when freedom of expression shall be enshrined not just in books but more so in practice,” they added.

Meanwhile, Sen. Erwin Tulfo has also filed Senate Bill 250 during the 20th Congress, decriminalizing libel and amending both the RPC and Cybercrime Prevention Act.

“Decriminalizing libel does not mean that people can say anything without consequences. False and malicious statements should still carry consequences. But instead of sending people to jail, violators should be held civilly liable. Libel should be treated as a civil matter, rather than a crime, ensuring justice without compromising free expression or disproportionately punishing speech. The bill seeks to decriminalize libel, not to weaken accountability but to promote fairness and protect free expression,” he explained.

Back in 2022, Sen. Risa Hontiveros filed a bill to decriminalize libel, saying “our libel laws have been weaponized to stifle very basic fundamental rights and have been used to constantly attack many of our freedoms, particularly the freedom of the press.”

In 2024, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada also filed a bill to decriminalize libel. He said previously filed measures seeking to amend the law on libel and strengthen press freedom have languished in the Senate legislative mill for two decades. He sought to replace the penalties of imprisonment with fines ranging from P10,000 to P30,000.

The Supreme Court, in the 2023 case of Labargan vs. People, emphasized that statements against public officers do not constitute oral defamation or slander when they concern their discharge of official duties, unless done maliciously. It said that the right to free speech empowers citizens to hold public officers accountable because public office is a public trust. “Being sensitive has no place in this line of service, more so when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public, that is, citizens will be afraid to criticize public officers. Libel refers to written defamation, while spoken or oral defamation is referred to as slander. There is also slander by deed, punishable under the RPC.’’

The Philippine government should take the lead in making it loud and clear to the world that the freedoms of speech and expression are hallmarks of our democracy by decriminalizing libel. The fight against graft and corruption can only be won if citizens and the media do their part and expose the wrongdoings of public officials without fear of jail time.

For comments, email at [email protected]