William Shakespeare tells us in “Othello” that, “the good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.”
Indeed, the importance of a person’s reputation cannot be gainsaid. Its value is both timeless and universal. Hence, laws seek to protect an individual’s “jewel of their souls” against the corrosive effects of baseless and malicious rumor.
Our democratic heritage supports the concept of a free marketplace of ideas and in so doing believes that, as a general rule, the antidote to bad speech is not suppression but more good speech. Thus, there is a strong presumption of validity for any criticism made particularly when it relates to matters of public interest. The exception relates to so-called “unprotected” expression such as libel which are “below the belt” projectiles that cause immediate damage, cannot be cured by more speech and are not given much importance because they do not further the cause of meaningful and civilized dialogue.
Libel is a crime against honor and defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code 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.” Libel is committed in writing, verbal libel is termed as slander and libel committed by performing a physical act is referred to as slander by deed.
Criminal libel has a chilling effect on free expression and freedom of the press. Conviction carries with it a penalty of imprisonment from one month and one day to six months and a fine ranging from P200 to P6,000. One of the criticisms against RA 10175 or the new Anti-Cybercrime law is that it not only penalizes libel across new platforms such as the internet, but in fact increases its penalty. However, an argument has been made that the law merely sought to equalize the scope and coverage of the penal provision such that it will include modern avenues for libelous content not otherwise covered under our current laws.
But as we review the provisions of our 80-year old geriatric penal code (no pun intended), I reckon that the debate should be less about equality of coverage and more about the continuing propriety of a criminal penalty. Indeed, any punishment should be commensurate to the prohibited act, and given the preferential place of freedom of expression in our society’s hierarchy of values, a criminal sentence no longer seems proper. Interestingly, during the annual Presidential Forum of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP), the President expressed agreement with the move to decriminalize libel since redress may still be had civilly through an action for damages. In addition, our legislators should also seriously look into providing a right to reply to any person criticized given media’s almost omnipotent power to say anything it wants.
The argument for decriminalization goes hand in hand with the declaration of the United Nations Human Rights Committee stating that the criminal sanction for libel in the Philippines is “excessive” and in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which the Philippines is a signatory to. That declaration was made in October of 2011 so you can just imagine what the UN Committee will be thinking after they find out about the passage of the Anti-Cybercrime law.
* * * *
Adulterating adultery: The move to decriminalize is not unique to libel cases. There is a similar direction in respect of adultery which has been decriminalized in countries such as China and several European countries, including Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Portugal, Greece and Sweden. In these countries, only the civil aspect of the penalty remains. But such is not yet the case in the Philippines. Instead, we share the company of Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan, and India in continuing to criminally punish those found guilty of adultery. Under the Hudood Ordinance in Pakistan, the penalty can range from imprisonment to death while in India it is the man who may be prosecuted for adultery and can be sentenced for up to 5 years imprisonment. In Saudi Arabia, the sanction for adultery is stoning to death. In the United States, the penalty can run the entire gamut from life imprisonment in Michigan to a mere $10 fine in Maryland. The Philippines currently falls somewhere in between these two extremes and yet perhaps it is time for us to follow the signs of the times and keep up with the zeitgeist of the 21st century.
* * * *
Doubly blessed: Speaking again of good names, the Philippines was doubly blessed this week “not once, but twice.” We not only have a new saint in Pedro Calungsod but a new cardinal as well in Luis Antonio “Chito” Tagle. Indeed, the fairly swift elevation of Cardinal Chito to the “red cap club” has increased his Papabile stature among astute Vatican observers. And with the dwindling number of practicing Catholics in Europe, it is about time that the Church looks elsewhere for St. Peter’s successor.
Your four centavos featured this “Crazy Prince” in its December 10, 2011 column. Cardinal Chito’s impeccable academic credentials are legendary. In spite of (or maybe because of) such credentials, he has continued with HIS (humility in simplicity) endearing ways. Only heaven knows whether he will eventually become the first Asian Pope. But regardless of what lies ahead, these qualities happen to be the same ones that secure a believer’s place in that eternal abode.
* * * *
“Build your reputation by helping other people build theirs.” – Anthony J. D’ Angelo
* * * *
E-mail: deanbautista@yahoo.com