MANILA, Philippines — Statements against public officers concerning the discharge of their official duties are not considered oral defamation or slander – unless done maliciously, according to the Supreme Court.
The SC emphasized this in a ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen where the high court’s Second Division acquitted a resident of Barangay Muntay, Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte of grave oral defamation.
Argelyn Labargan was convicted of grave oral defamation over her statements against Aileen Macabangon by the Court of Appeals, which was reversed by the SC.
In acquitting Labargan, the SC ruled that offensive remarks against public officers do not constitute defamation if they relate to their discharge of official duties, unless actual malice is proved.
It said if a defamatory allegation is malicious, or made with knowledge that it is false, the person who made the remarks has the burden of proving there was no malice.
However, when it comes to defamation against public officers in relation to their duties, the prosecution has the burden to prove there was actual malice in the defamatory remarks.
“Recognizing that free speech empowers the citizens in exacting accountability from public officers, conviction for defamation involving statements related to their discharge of official duties entails proof that they were made with actual malice. Actual malice cannot be presumed,” the ruling read.
Based on court records, Labargan was charged with grave oral defamation after yelling offensive remarks against Macabangon, a barangay kagawad of Muntay town who served as the mediator in a dispute between Labargan and a neighbor.
Macabangon was passing by Labargan’s house one day when she heard Labargan yell from their terrace claiming that the barangay officer was dull, uneducated, ignorant, and biased towards her opponent.
In ruling in favor of Labargan, the SC said her statements against Macabangon were criticisms of her competence as a barangay kagawad, specifically her supposed bias against Labargan in the barangay conciliation proceeding.
Since Labargan’s statements relate to Macabangon’s duties, the prosecution must prove actual malice on the part of Labargan, which it failed to do. While the SC acknowledged that Labargan’s statements against Macabangon may be offensive, they are not actionable by themselves.
“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,” the high tribunal said.