SC asked to declare criminal libel as unconstitutional

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) was asked yesterday to declare criminal libel as unconstitutional.

A group of journalists and lawyers led by UP law professor Harry Roque Jr. petitioned the SC to nullify Articles 353, 354, 355, 361 and 362 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defining libel as a criminal offense.

Roque’s group filed the petition after the issue on the legality of libel under the RPC was raised during oral arguments on the petitions questioning the legality of online libel under Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

They argued the libel law – even in its original form – violates constitutional freedom of expression.

Roque and the petitioners filed an amended petition last Dec. 28 seeking the same relief, but it only covered Article 355 of the RPC.

Taking cue from cases cited by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio in the first round of debates last Jan. 15, petitioners argued the high court had already handed down several rulings in the past declaring libel as unconstitutional.

In that hearing, Carpio had said the SC “already had several decisions which conflict with (Article) 354 of RPC provision on libel.”

The group also cited the ruling of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) involving the libel case against their member Alexander Adonis, which held that criminal libel in the RPC is incompatible with freedom of expression.

“In its view, the UNHRC declared that the imprisonment imposed on Mr. Adonis for libel under the Philippine Revised Penal Code is incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the international covenant on civil political rights, or freedom of expression,” they said.

“Further, the UNHRC expressed that the Philippines is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future, including by reviewing the relevant libel legislation,” they added.

Believing libel in the RPC is unconstitutional, petitioners said it follows that the online libel provision in Section 4 (c) of R.A. 10175 should also be declared void.

In the second round of oral arguments last Tuesday, justices of the high court hinted on agreeing with this stand. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen questioned Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza on why Congress based the libel provision in RA 10175 on the RPC when the SC already laid down jurisprudence amending the provisions in the 82-year-old criminal law.

The debate on the constitutionality of libel and other questioned provisions in RA 10175 ended last Tuesday.

Parties were given 20 days to submit memoranda before the high court issues a decision.