The law on libel and freedom of expression

Whenever criticism against public officials is written and published, in the name of freedom of speech, many onion-skinned politicians react with suing for libel. Can libel prosper against the constitutional right of free expression? It depends.

Here are three Supreme Court decisions on libel. The first is Raffy Tulfo v. People of the Philippines, whereby the accused was acquitted by the Supreme Court on January 11, 2021. The second is Leo Lastimosa v. People, whereby our own Leo was also acquitted by the Supreme Court (SC) on December 5, 2022. The third was Erwin Tulfo v. People, where the accused wasn’t acquitted by the SC on September 16, 2008.

In the first case, Justice Marvic Leonen, former Law professor and UP Law dean lectured: "The need to protect freedom of speech and of the press cannot be understated. These freedoms are the most pervasive and powerful vehicles of informing the government of the opinions, needs, and grievances of the public. It is through these guarantees that the people are kept abreast of government affairs. Without these rights, no vigilant press would flourish. And without a vigilant press, the government's mistakes would go unnoticed, their abuses unexposed, and their wrongdoings uncorrected."

Leonen added: "In this regard, journalists and the media enjoy a wide latitude of discretion in investigating, gathering, and reporting news pertinent to public affairs. Public affairs encompass a wide array of matters, including information on public officials' exercise of their official functions. Imbued with public interest, these officials are expected to execute their mandate in a manner consistent with law, morals, and public policy." Therefore, public officials should understand that journalists have a duty to perform, and as long as there is no malice, nor deceit, nor bad faith, a charge of libel should not prosper.

Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, who penned the decision acquitting Leo, reminded all and sundry: "Libel is defined 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." "For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: a) it must be defamatory; b) it must be malicious; c) it must be given publicity and d) the victim must be identifiable." Absent any one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel."

The main reason why Leo was acquitted was the absence of the last element: "The last element — the element of identifiability of the victim — was, however, not established beyond reasonable doubt. The rule is that "[i]n order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. The element of identifiability is easily complied with when the writing in question explicitly names the subject or the person being defamed. In cases, however, where the person subject of the defamatory words was not named, a libel suit may only prosper "if by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent..."

In the third case, Justice Presbetiro Velasco Jr. said: "The freedom of the press is one of the cherished hallmarks of our democracy; but even as we strive to protect and respect the fourth estate, the freedom it enjoys must be balanced with responsibility. There is a fine line between freedom of expression and libel, and it falls on the courts to determine whether or not that line has been crossed." The penalty was only a fine of ?6,000. No imprisonment.

In another case, Argelyn Labargab v. People, promulgated on December 6, 2023, the SC, through Leonen said: "Statements against public officers do not constitute oral defamation when made in relation to their discharge of official duties, unless the prosecution establishes that they were uttered with actual malice" Malice isn’t presumed. It should be proven.

Leonen added: "Public officials, more especially an elected one, should not be onion skinned. Strict personal discipline is expected of an occupant of a public office because a public official is a property of the public. He is looked upon to set the example of how public officials should correctly conduct themselves even in the face of extreme provocation. He is always expected to act and serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain accountable for his conduct to the people".