CHAPTER I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

A. Research Background At home, house rules are set. Inside an educational institution, general directions are laid down. In offices, company policies are implemented. Indeed, regulations and set of laws are everywhere. Whoever professional individual, may he be a lawyer, a doctor, an engineer, an accountant, a journalist and so on, conformity with moral standards is expected. In whatever profession, may it be in law, medicine, engineering, business, mass media and so on, compliance with the principles of professional conduct is needed. At wherever workplace, may it be in the court, hospital, construction site, bank, and so on, observance of the rules is required. Every professional men and women has to abide by certain rules and regulations. Practitioners of mass communication is no exception. The individuals working under this profession have to observe and follow the law and ethics of mass communication. These are not just standards of what is right and wrong nor based only on morality, as what most people think so. There is more to ethics than their misconceptions. These standards of conduct are highly essential and therefore strict adherence is recommended. These ethics drive the practitioners to instill self-discipline, professional attitude and sense of responsibility among

1

themselves as they are guided on how to deal with day-to-day situations involving ethical dilemmas. Here in the Philippines, there have been a lot of reported cases of libel suits. No matter how hard practitioners of mass communication try to keep up with moral responsibilities, others could not fight the urge to defy the odds. There are instances wherein some reporters and journalists abuse the privilege given to them through irresponsible reporting and writing. Thus, under Act No. 3815 or the Revised Penal Code, the offenders shall be subject to a minimum sentence of six months and one day imprisonment and a fine from P200 to P6,000. One of the most controversial libel suits was the libel case filed by Davao First District Representative Prospero Nograles in October 2001 against Alex Adonis, a radio commentator of dxMF Bombo Radyo (Booming Radio). The latter reported that Congressman Nograles was seen running naked in a hotel after they got caught by the husband of a woman she was having an affair with. Alex Adonis was convicted of libel by Judge Renato Fuentes (Regional Trial Court Branch 17) and sentenced to four years and six month imprisonment.1 During the 15th Congress of the Philippines, Senator Gregorio Honasan II reacted to the situation and introduced Senate Bill No. 3244, an Act to Decriminalize Libel and for Other Purposes. The bill seeks to decriminalize libel by
1

Journalist receives four and a half year prison sentence for article on congressman‘s alleged love affair, available at http://www.ifex.org/philippines/2007/04/02/journalist_receives_four_and_a/ (last accessed Aug. 21, 2012).

2

repealing Articles 353,2 354,3 355,4 3565 and 357,6 and Articles 360,7 3618 and 3629 of Chapter I, Title XIII, Book II of Act No. 3815 or the Revised Penal Code.
2

An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Law REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932).

REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 353. Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is 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. 3 Id. Art. 354. Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. 4 Id. Art. 355. Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party. 5 Id. Art. 356. Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration. 6 Id. Art. 357. Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned. 7 Id. Art. 360. Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the

3

In proposing Senate Bill 3244, Senator Gregorio Honasan II believed that criminalizing libel would abridge the constitutionally-protected right of freedom of expression.10 In view of the foregoing, this work aims to assess the constitutionality of decriminalizing libel in accordance to the right to privacy and right to dignity.

offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law. Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article. No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965). 8 Id. Art. 361. Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted. Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. 9 Id. Art. 362. Art. 362. Libelous remarks. — Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability. 10 PHIL. CONST. art. III, § 4: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

4

Proposed bills on decriminalizing libel laws have gained prominence as the government‘s response to the crime situation of the country involving mass media. Acknowledging these bills is a vital concern that must be fully addressed.

B. Research Questions The study assesses the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 3244, an Act to Decriminalize Libel and for Other Purposes, in line with the constitutional right to privacy and right to dignity. Specifically, the study seeks to answer the question: Whether or not Senate Bill No. 3244, an Act to Decriminalize Libel and for Other Purposes is constitutional.

C. Significance of the Study The study aims to examine the constitutionality of Senate Bill 3244 (An act to decriminalize libel and for other purposes). Furthermore, this study would be of interest to: Executive Bodies - This study can help the state gear up strict implementation of libel that will promote sense of responsibility from the people under mass media.

5

Legislative bodies – The study can serve as a feedback mechanism that will assist both Houses of Congress in formulating laws that will provide precise provisions regarding the punishment of libel. Judiciary – The study will aid the judiciary in decision-making with regard to libel and other related cases. Mass Media - The study will help them recognize their crucial role in providing information to the public that may threaten other social interests, especially that of the government. General Public – The study will guide the public as it widens their knowledge on the idea of libel and the sanctions imposed upon it. The Academe - It may also aid the Commercial Law Department to intensify teachings and seminars that will promote better understanding of constitutional rights to freedom of speech and right to privacy which are perceived by others as absolute rights. Future Batches of Legal Management Students - The study can serve as reference materials to students and researchers who will venture on similar study.

D. Scope of the Study Decriminalizing libel laws has been a growing issue in the Philippines at present time. Because of this, the study will focus on assessing the constitutionality 6

on repealing libel laws mainly through the proposed bill by the Senate, SB 3244, or the act to decriminalize libel. Section1 of said bill seeks to repeal Articles 353 to 357 and Articles 360 to 362 of Chapter I, Title XIII, Book II of Act No. 3815 or the Revised Penal Code. Senator Gregorio Honasan II believed that criminalizing libel laws abridges freedom of speech/freedom of expression. Nevertheless,

decriminalizing libel may also affect the right to privacy of people. Thus, this constitutional right to privacy and right to dignity shall be the scope of our study. As previously stated, libel can take different forms but this study will focus more on the activities not done through cyberspace; thus, excluding online libel.

7

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Conceptual Literature Libel is perceived as a crime against one‘s honor and a violation of human rights. Decriminalizing libel is an issue that needs to be addressed now as it stretches the capacity of every concerned individual affected by this serious topic. Though there have been a lot of proposed bills which seek to decriminalize libel, such bills remain pending in both houses of Congress as lawmakers find difficulties in tilting the balance between protecting freedom of speech and protecting one‘s privacy and reputation. In his law blog entitled ‗Decriminalizing Libel in the Philippines,‘ Atty. Fred Pamaos, a Supervising Lawyer at the UP College of Law Office of Legal Aid (OLA), stressed that practitioners of mass media would most likely push for the decriminalization of libel as it abridges freedom of speech while those who have been victims of libel will continue to fight for the strict implementation of libel laws. According to Atty. Pamaos, ―protecting one‘s honor and reputation is very important, so much so that civil liability is not enough.‖11

11

Fred Pamaos, Decriminalizing Libel in the Philippines, available at http://attyatwork.com/decriminalizinglibel-in-the-philippines/ (last accessed Sep. 6, 2012).

8

Another blog by Cebu Citizens Press Council entitled ‗A judge‘s view on decriminalizing libel‘ provides for the the usual arguments on libel concerning human rights.12 The said blog contains Court of Appeals Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles‘ speech delivered during the ―Forum on Decriminalizing Libel‖ held to celebrate World Press Freedom Day on May 4, 2012 at Theodore Buttenbruch Hall, University of San Carlos, Cebu City. Justice Ingles emphasizes on Justice Mendoza‘s in making a distinction between political and private libel to provide precise sanctions to be imposed in relation thereto. To him, ―political libel is meant any discreditable imputation that is directed against a public person in his public capacity.‖13 He also added that political libel ―refers to defamatory imputations made while discussing matters of public concern including criticisms of official conduct.‖14 It becomes political in nature when it reflects on how the institution is being run. While protecting freedom of speech is highly recognized by the state, right to privacy is also a vital human right that needs to be protected. Members of the Cebu Citizens Press Council believes that when libel laws are retained, it will act as a deterrence for those practitioners of mass media who might, in one way or another, abuse their privileges in disseminating malicious information to the public that may harm others‘ image and repute.

12

Gabriel T. Ingles, A judge‘s view on decriminalizing libel, http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/article/benefits-and-pitfalls-of-decriminalizing-libel/ Sep. 6, 2012). 13 Id. 14 Id.

available at (last accessed

9

However, as classified in Articles 353-364 of the Revised Penal Code,15 libel law in the Philippines is a ―crime against honor‖ and as also stated in Article 2, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution, ―the state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.‖ Thus, the freedom of expression and speech is not an absolute right given to each individual. It is subject to certain limitation that if one harms the reputation of another, he may be subject to sanctions or penalties. According to a journal by Robert C. Post of the Yale Law School, there are three concepts of reputation. These concepts are reputation as a property, as an honor and as a dignity.16 First is reputation as a property. According to him, this concept of reputation can be understood as a form of intangible property akin to goodwill.17 The concept of reputation as property explains why defamation law proscribes aspersion on an individual‘s character even in contexts that are not narrowly oriented toward business relationships. Next to reputation as a property is reputation as an honor. It is ―a form of reputation in which an individual personally identifies with the normative characteristics of a particular social role and in return personally receives from others the regard and estimation that society accords to
15 16

An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Law REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932). Robert C. Post, The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution, available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=fss_papers&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dimportance %2520of%2520libel%2520laws%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CDQQFjAC%2 6url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle %253D1216%2526context%253Dfss_papers%26ei%3Dp0JIUMSoNLGkiAe99oDgCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNFn ZzsSH7sKIroqnFv2NE-VZDuooA#search=%22importance%20libel%20laws%22 (last accessed Sep. 6, 2012). 17 Id.

10

that role.‖18 Effort or labor does not create this kind of honor to an individual. He earns it by virtue of his societal status. Lastly, reputation as a dignity is respect that arises from full membership in the society. ―Dignity is not like property, for dignity is not the result of individual achievement and its value cannot be measured in the marketplace. It is instead essential and intrinsic in every human being.‖ 19 One of the most notable advocates for decriminalizing libel is Berteni Cataluña Causing. He believes that the libel laws abridge the freedom of speech and expression. Causing explored four elements of libel abbreviated as DIMP: (1) D-efamation, for Causing, is anything that is against one‘s honor that places such person in public contempt; (2) I– dentification means that the person subjected to defamation can be identified; (3) M– alice is reffered to defaming a person deliberately or on purpose; (4) P- ublication is required in order for a defamation to be considered libel.20 Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code provides for a list of kinds of defamatory imputations: (a) imputation of a crime; (b) imputation of a vice, as in alcoholic or womanizer;
18 19

Id. Id. 20 Berteni Cataluña Causing, Chapter II Definition of Libel, available at http://totocausing.com/my-books/mybookschapter-ii-definition-of-libel/ (last accessed Aug. 18, 2012).

11

(c) imputation of a defect, such as a defect in hearing and certain other physical defects; (d) imputation of an act that tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or that blackens the memory of one who is dead; (e) imputation of an omission that tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or that blackens the memory of one who is dead; (f) imputation of a condition that tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or that blackens the memory of one who is dead; (g) imputation of a status that tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or that blackens the memory of one who is dead; and (h) imputation of a circumstance that tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or that blackens the memory of one who is dead.

Causing stressed that the kinds of defamatory imputation falling under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code are so broad that it punishes almost every kind of crime against honor. Another advocate for libel decriminalization is Lawyer Joel Butayan, who was one of the two founders of the Center for International Law (CenterLaw). Butuyan, together with the CenterLaw, fights for the application of international

12

laws such as those on human rights ―as automatic and self-executory parts of Philippine law.‖21 While there are advocates for the decriminalization of libel here in the Philippines, there are some countries that push for the criminalization of libel which was previously removed. Deputy Dmitry Vyatkin of Russia, proposed a bill that would bring back the criminal liability for defamation, which would also cover libel.22 ―It has become clear that citizens‘ right to good name and privacy is not protected. Experience has shown that administrative responsibility for this is not enough. No fines do not stop any individuals or companies to participate in the information wars,‖ says Vyatkin. Though criminalizing libel is a way to stop individuals from participating in defamation activities, filing civil cases against these libelants is also one of the solutions that must be considered. Imprisonment is not always the key of correcting one‘s misconduct. In cases of libel, it is possible to demand payment in proportion for the moral damages caused by the libelant to the other party. Christopher Warren, President of the International Federation of Journalists, says that criminal defamation is an affront to free speech. ―It has enormous personal impact on the accused journalist and silences him or her most effectively.

21

Continue Fight for Libel Decriminalization, Media Urged, available at http://www.philpressinstitute.com/2012/04/24/continue-fight-for-libel-decriminalization-media-urged/ (last accessed Aug. 20, 2012). 22 Criminal Liability for Defamation, available at http://russiansnews.blogspot.com/2012/07/criminal-liability-fordefamation.html (last accessed Aug. 20, 2012).

13

If found guilty and given a custodial sentence, it deprives the journalist of their liberty, their income, their career. It puts a burden on their family and, by definition, brands the journalist a criminal,‖23 he added. Thus, journalists cannot fully fulfill their duties and exercise their liberty until these laws criminalizing libel are not repealed. According to the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC), use of criminal penalties for defamation is a key indicator of nations that largely reject the right to freedom of expression.24 UNHRC says that any democratic state, such as the Philippines, cannot retain such laws. The problem with criminal defamation is that ―laws that punish defamation exist to compensate for the harm to a person‘s reputation. That harm cannot be compensated by sending journalists to jail and criminal sanctions are an inappropriate response to the damage inflicted. The ability to impose a custodial sentence has a chilling effect on the media and gives governments, business and political leaders a tool with which to threaten the media. It also encourages self-censorship by journalists and editors.

23

Christopher Warren, Decriminalising Defamation, available http://asiapacific.ifj.org/assets/docs/009/148/a1b1809-294c794.pdf (last accessed Aug. 22, 2012). 24 Id.

at

14

Press-freedom advocates say that all defamation should be dealt with in the civil realm and that organizations and public bodies should never be able to bring defamation actions.‖25 Because of this situation, UNHRC proposes to decriminalize libel in order for the press and other individuals to fully exercise their freedom of speech.

B. Theoretical Literature The Philippines ranks 8th as to the number of Facebook users per country having 26,752,000 users.26 Social media has been a part of the popular culture where everyone is fused to. The internet and social media acts as a tool for communication but it has also paved way for online libel. Technology has consistently been making people‘s lives efficient and easy. Though the internet and social media offers great utility, misuse or abuse of its privileges make it harmful. Therefore, users must always use discretion in what they publish or post in the internet. After all, the information is only as public as you choose to make it. But punishment of online libel remains an issue as the definition and forms of libel do not clearly provide for libel done through cyberspace.

25 26

Id. Aaron Benedict De Leon, Welcome to the Age of Cyber-bullying, Nov. 25, 2011.

15

Lawmakers recognized the rise of libel suits in the country. Legislative bodies have proposed bills to decriminalize libel as believed to have been violating constitutional freedom of speech. Aside from Senate Bill 3244, another bill that seeks to decriminalize libel is Senate Bill 2162. This bill proposed by Senator Francis Escudero seeks to absolutely decriminalize libel to protect freedom of speech and expression. Under said bill, Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code is sought to be completely repealed. He says that ―strong print media could give great service to the Filipino people in providing an effective mechanism of complete and fearless transparency over the excesses of government in the exercise of its powers and prerogatives.‖27 Senate Bill 2053, An Act to Abolish the Penalty of Imprisonment in Libel cases, Amending for the Purpose Articles 355, 356, 357 and 360 of Act No. 3815, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code and for other Purposes, has also been introduced by Senator Edgardo Angara. This bill seeks to repeal Articles 355 to 357 and Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. Although it seeks to abolish the penalty of imprisonment, the bill sought to retain the penalty of fines. ―The penalty of fine must be sustained, as we believed that libel must not go unpunished. But to imprison a person convicted of libel might preclude him in the future from doing his job with zeal and critical eye.‖28

27 28

Francis Escudero, Explanatory Note, Senate Bill No. 2162. Edgardo Angara, Explanatory Note, Senate Bill No. 918.

16

The abovementioned bill was also introduced by Senator Loren Legarda, Senator Mar Roxas and Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada in their own Senate Bill 223, Senate Bill 110 and Senate Bill 5, respectively. In the Lower House, this bill was also introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez and Representative Maximo B. Rodriguez, Sr., Representative Teodoro A. Casiño and Representative Neri Javier Colmenares, Honorable Salvio B. Fortuno in their proposed House Bill 728, House Bill 1009, House Bill 2223 and House Bill 2979, respectively. House Bill 6391, introduced by Hon. Angelo B. Pamones and Hon. Allan Jay Q. Velaso also seeks to decriminalize libel. Under this bill, the need for practitioners to instill dsicipline is also recognized. Article III, Section 429 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution prohibits any law that abridges the freedom of expression. The purpose of this freedom of expression is to ensure the free and effective communication of one‘s ideas. This encompasses freedom of expression in general and likewise includes other rights such as freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of petition, right of association, and the right to access information on matters of public concern.30 It would be deemed meaningless if the ideas to be expressed will

29

PHIL. CONST. art. III, § 4. Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. 30 Celso Virgilio C. Ylagan IV, Obscenity, Pornography and Censorship in Cyberspace: Do We Have To Net The Internet? (1996) (unpublished J.D. thesis, Ateneo de Manila University) (on file with the Professional Schools Library, Ateneo de Manila University).

17

be limited to the ―safe‖ and ―conventional‖ ideas. The absolute reason why we have this freedom is to ensure the free exchange of different perceptions and ideas that have the probability of inciting controversy among the people and are not confined merely to views that we all agree upon. Speech and expression ranges from those which are orally made to those that are written or recorded in tapes or discs.31 But freedom of expression is not an absolute right. International human rights law also recognizes freedom of expression. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: ‗everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.‘32 Because of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as stated in Article 19 of UNHRC, some countries across the world have already decriminalized libel while others still pushed through the criminalization of libel and imposed greater criminal penalties. Some of the countries that have decriminalized libel are Bosnia and Herzegovina. Criminal offenses against honor and reputation (Articles 213 to 220 of the criminal code) were repealed on November 1, 2002. New law has been

31

JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: A REVIEWER-PRIMER 82 (2002). [hereinafter BERNAS PRIMER] 32 CEES J. HAMELINK, ETHICS OF CYBERSPACE 139 (2000).

18

introduced and enacted to allow defamation to be dealt within the civil jurisdiction.33 Another country that decriminalized libel is Ghana. On July 27, 2001, in an important act for press freedom in Africa, Ghana‘s parliament repealed its Criminal Libel and Seditious Laws; thus, making it a civil liability. However, in a recent civil defamation case, an independent newspaper was ordered to pay US$165,000 in civil damages to a minister of the government.34 Last example of a country that decriminalizes libel is Togo. Togo abolished criminal sanctions for defamation and insult on August 24, 2004, following the establishment of a reform commission made up of members of civil society, including journalists‘ associations, to examine the laws.35 While these three countries have already decriminalized libel, others take steps on the abolition of their Libel or Defamation laws. In Chile, the Senate discussed a bill eliminating the country‘s insult (desacato) laws in January 2005. However, the insult laws remain, which are seen as unconstitutional, arbitrary and obsolete. Several organizations are pushing for the total abolition of these laws.36 Aside from Chile, the Irish legislature has sustained ongoing pressure to abolish criminal defamation laws. The current law, the Defamation Act 1961, is out

33

Christopher Warren, Decriminalising Defamation, available http://asiapacific.ifj.org/assets/docs/009/148/a1b1809-294c794.pdf (last accessed Aug. 22, 2012). 34 Id. 35 id. 36 Id.

at

19

of date and a reviewed defamation Bill is due to go before the Irish Parliament in late 2005.37 Lastly, Kenya is also pushing for the abolition of its criminal libel law because it is already obsolete. This decision sets an important precedent in Africa and across the world for the abolition of criminal libel.38 Here in the Philippines, some speeches are not constitutionally-protected. There are speeches that must be protected and speeches that must be punished. Everyone can express views and take a stand but in appropriate times and places. Therefore, there are limits for freedom of speech and expression if such would be injurious to third persons or the public. Libel is defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code as ―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‖. Article 355 provides for the forms of libel which include libel by means of writing and other similar means. Article 357, on the other hand, provides for the oral means of committing libel – slander. Article 3, Section 3 (1) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: ―the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon

37 38

Id. Id.

20

lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.‖ In order for obscene acts to be prosecuted, it has to be public in nature. The right to privacy of communication and correspondence may be abridged upon lawful order of court or when public safety or order so requires; hence, it is not an absolute right. As stated in the debates of the 1935 Convention, ―...a person is entitled to his secrets, but in those cases where the secret involves public questions which the state should and ought to know, the state may infringe upon the privacy of communication by some process or by appealing to the court in order to determine whether or not the privacy may be maintained.‖ 39 The forms of correspondence and communication include covers letters, messages, telephone calls, telegrams and the like.40

C. Synopsis of Schools of Thought A survey of the abovementioned Philippine bills, laws and jurisprudence as well as foreign laws and jurisprudence reveal that the State now has the difficult task of maintaining the delicate balance between constitutional freedoms and protecting public morals. Legislators have to tread carefully in achieving this

39

Ana Maria V. Pastrana, Cybersurveillance: Carnivore And Its Legal Implications (2003) (unpublished J.D. thesis, Ateneo de Manila University) (on file with the Professional Schools Library, Ateneo de Manila University). 40 BERNAS PRIMER, supra, note 25, at 79.

21

delicate balance as the immense power of the State may be inadvertently used to sweepingly curtail constitutional freedoms.

22

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section of the study presents the methodology employed in the analysis of the problem to achieve its purpose. This includes the methods of research, research framework, and the theory of analysis used to answer the main research question.

A. Research Framework

23

The main issue was based on the concept that it entails a systematic, objective analysis of the corollary issues in relation to its objectives. The assessment of the main issue includes a thorough review of related literature. Moreover, the conceptual and theoretical paradigm illustrated is divided into four (4) parts namely, the input, process output and outcome. The independent variables as defined below are the required inputs of the study. These refer to the basic data that enters into the objective part of the system to be processed so as to come up or to bring the expected result of the study. The independent variables are the corollary issue (right to privacy), which is the research question involving parameters, and Section 1 of Senate Bill 3244. The schools of thought or the legal philosophy (positivist school, functional school or sociological jurisprudence, sociology of law or social science school of law and modern legal realism or social legal realism, American legal realism, theory of ethical and legal pragmatism (empiricism) and experientalism) form part of the input while the selected school of thought (functional school or sociological jurisprudence, sociology of law or social science school of lawhistorical approach between positivist and functional school of law and the comparative study approach between constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence and constitutional right to privacy form part of the process.

24

The output is the result of the collaborative interaction between the inputs and the analysis made in the process. This does not just answer the main issue but shall also involve contribution of new knowledge. The outcome of the study shall entail the beneficiaries of the output; hence, reflects the significance of the study. It tells how the study can be of help to the government, the general public and the academe in general.

B. Research Design The study adopted a descriptive type of research. The researchers assessed the constitutionality of Senate Bill 3244, An Act Decriminalizing Libel and for Other Purposes in accordance with the right to privacy through Philippine laws related to libel as well as actual cases, both foreign and local. The following schools of thought were likewise examined to lay down significant differences: • Positivist School The positivist school of thought believes that the law must be explicit and written. One of the most notable advocates of the positive school of law was Austin. To him, the law is objective, commanding and empirical; thus, it has to be enforced authoritatively. He believes that the law is the expression of the will of the state and shall be imposed to those who are liable in case of violation thereof. The

25

positive school of thought believes that there is no law unless it‘s promulgated by the state.41 • Functional School Today, the world recognizes the rise of functional school which is also called theory of sociological jurisprudence, sociology of law or social science school of law.42 This was developed in the United States and focuses on the question ―Will this law work?‖ Its most notable proponent is Dean Nathan Roscoe Pound, a distinguished American legal scholar and educator and was Dean of Harvard Law School from 1916 to 1936. This school of thought believes that the law balances interests of the society and it follows the principles of social utilitarianism. The greatest good for the greatest number shall be followed by law. According to the principle of utilitarianism, advantages and disadvantages must be weighed to carry out what is just for the greatest number. • Modern Legal Realism On the other hand, modern legal realism contradicts the positivist school of law. For positivist school, the law imposes sanctions to those who violated it; hence, the law dictates what shall be imposed and what not. But modern realism, also called social legal realism, American legal realism, theory of ethical and legal

41

James B. Murphy, Critics on the Natural Law Tradition, available at http://www.nlnrac.org/critics/legalpositivism (last accessed Jul. 29, 2012). 42 Manuel Laserna Jr., The ―Historical School‖ of Legal Philosophy: Its Relevance to the Philippines, available at http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/legal-philosophy-historical-school.html (last accessed Jul. 29, 2012).

26

pragmatism (empiricism) and experientalism, believes that unless a case arises to interpret it, there is no law; thus, the law is what the courts say it is.43 In the Philippines, the law requires that acts or omissions be punishable by law under the Revised Penal Code based upon the legal maxim, ―nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege.‖ Modern legal realism believes that a case must first arise before there can be a law. Since modern legal realism believes that a case must first arise before there can be a law, the positivist school will be followed by the researchers in the thesis proposal. Since Senate Bill 3244 is currently pending, the functional school of thought shall be taken into consideration as to whether this bill will work for general welfare and benefit wide range of sectors, if approved. Therefore, in assessing the wisdom of removing libel laws, the researchers will adopt the positivist and functional schools of thought.

43

What is Legal Realism?, available at http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-legal-realism.htm (last accessed Jul. 29, 2012).

27

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS A defamation of one‘s reputation and an infringement to one‘s right to privacy - these age-old defenses have been attached to the word ―libel‖ since the debates on decriminalizing libel were raised. Many legislators have geared their efforts toward decriminalizing libel claiming that libel laws infringe one‘s constitutional right to free speech. But right to freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Some speeches are protected while some are not if it is injurious to third persons. Freedom of speech is not just a matter of right but also a matter of duty on the part of every individual who has a right to use it and a duty not to abuse it. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code44 defines libel as the ―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.‖ The penalty for written, printed or broadcast libel is imprisonment for six months and one day up to four years and two months or fine between P200 and P6,000 or both jail time and fine. A publication of a false statement against an individual that tends to harm such individual‘s honor and reputation or hold that individual up to ridicule or contempt is called defamation or

44

An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Law REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932).

28

libel. Defamatory statements reflect negatively upon another person‘s integrity, character, good name and standing in the community as it degrade a person in the eyes of others. For a statement to be considered defamatory, it must meet all of the elements mentioned in said definition – that it must be a false statement which harms an individual‘s reputation or hold that individual up to ridicule or contempt. But it does not follow that a false statement is always defamatory. A statement which might be false would not be considered defamatory if it does not harm one‘s honor and reputation. Also, if a statement has been considered a fact, and

therefore true, it is not considered defamatory as in the case of a statement purporting a certain individual who has been convicted of theft as a thief. It is said the truth is an absolute defense to libel; hence, if the statement is in fact, true, there can be no defamation. But some claims that true statements about a person can also be defamatory and therefore libelous for a truth can also defame an individual‘s honor and reputation as much as a lie. A published opinion is not defamatory unless it conveys to the recipient a false assertion of a fact. Aside from harm on one‘s reputation as an indicator of a statement being defamatory, another operative word in the abovementioned definition of libel is ―publication‖. This is where the major distinction between libel and slander sets in. In other words, slander is defamation by oral communication. Since broadcasting involves widespread dissemination of defamation, it is considered libel. Being an oral defamation, slander is perceived to be a lesser offense than libel since the 29

words, once uttered, are quickly gone. Libel, on the other hand, tends to cause greater injury for written and printed materials lasts long. As a result, courts tend to be stricter in dealing with libel cases than with slander claims. Libel laws vary from state to state. But all states agree that libel is defamation, an act which tends to degrade a person in the eyes of others. The effects can not only hold such person up to ridicule, hatred or contempt but also cause financial injury by hurting the person‘s property and business. This is where the right to privacy would factor in. Privacy. Under the Bill of Rights or Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, ―The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized,‖ every Filipino citizen has the right to his/her own privacy. No one has the right to invade one‘s privacy as it is stated in the 1987 Constitution. Whoever plans to step on this right has to face a consequence for his doings under the law. Thus, this may be stepped on when Senate Bill 3244, decriminalization of libel, is passed. If ever this bill becomes a law, imprisonment as a means of penalty to the accused would be removed. Instead, payment for damages caused 30

would be the substitute remedy available for the victim. If it happens that libel is decriminalized, what would be its effect to the people in general? It is possible that people would be satisfied for the passage of this law, especially those media practitioners and other members of the press. Yes, every citizen would be free to express his/her opinion in public without any fear of being accused with libel, or if there is any, only civil offenses would be filed against this person. Thus, payment for damages is the manner on how the accused could pay for his wrong doing. Libel as a civil offense can possibly result to invasion of one‘s privacy. Publication of articles, stories, or simply works, by press people or an ordinary individual about one person may personally attack that person emotionally because of revelations that should have remained a secret or kept personally. Though there is still a sanction imposed to an offender, libel cases would increase in number as most of the known offenders of past libel cases are well-known, or has the capacity to pay the damages that they may cause to the other party. Hence, one‘s privacy would be invaded. An individual‘s right to privacy refers to an individual's right to be left alone. It may be violated by 1) an intrusion into an area where the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy; (2) the publication of true but embarrassing facts about the individual that are of no legitimate interest to the public; (3) the publication of facts that, while true, create a false impression about the individual; or (4) the use of the individual's name or other identifying characteristics in 31

advertising or for similar commercial purposes. If one intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs and if the intrusion is highly offensive, then he shall be subject to liability for invasion of privacy. With regard to defamation or libel, penalties and sanctions are imposed upon the offender not solely because the information is false but because the information is personal, thus, it should not be exposed to the general public. Publishing photos of an event that occurred in a public place, therefore observable by anyone in that place does not constitute an invasion of privacy. Hence, publication of facts that are generally known or available to the public or facts that relate to public figures is not an invasion of privacy. However, public disclosure of private facts which are not of public concern is an invasion of privacy. If the defamatory statement against a certain individual or group of persons is made public, either by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter becomes one of public knowledge, it is constitutive of libel. An indicator of a defamatory statement being regarded as constitutive to libel is one of a communication that reaches, or is sure to reach, the public. Hence, it is not an invasion of privacy if a fact concerning the private life of a person was communicated to a single person or to a small group of persons. Once it is published in a newspaper or a magazine, even not of general circulation, if addressed to a large audience, is sufficient to give publicity; thus, becomes constitutive of libel. 32

There have been a lot of libel suits in the Philippines. One of the most controversial libel suits was the libel case filed by Davao First District Representative Prospero Nograles in October 2001 against Alex Adonis, a radio commentator of dxMF Bombo Radyo (Booming Radio). In a radio broadcast, the latter reported that Congressman Nograles was seen running naked in a hotel after they got caught by the husband of a woman whom he spent the night with. Alex Adonis was convicted of libel by Judge Renato Fuentes (Regional Trial Court Branch 17) and sentenced to four years and six month imprisonment. 45 After serving two years in prison, Adonis questioned the libel laws in accordance with the right to freedom of speech and expression. His lawyer, Harry Roque of (CenterLaw) argued that ―the sanction of imprisonment for libel fails to meet the standard of necessity and reasonableness. Imprisonment is unnecessary since there are other effective means available for protection for the rights of others.‖ Harry Roque claimed that the penalty of libel laws is excessive as it includes imprisonment. Civil liability or payment of damages is believed to be a sufficient penalty. UNHRC supported Adonis in his fight against Philippine laws criminalizing libel. UNHRC asserted that libel laws is ―incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights (ICCPR).‖ The
45

Journalist receives four and a half year prison sentence for article on congressman‘s alleged love affair, available at http://www.ifex.org/philippines/2007/04/02/journalist_receives_four_and_a/ (last accessed Aug. 21, 2012).

33

Committee recalled its General Comment No. 34 which states: ―Defamations laws should not ... stifle freedom of expression. … Penal defamation laws should include defense of truth.‖ In Salvador G. Tumang v. The People of the Philippines,46 petitioner Salavador Tumang asks the court grant his right to prove the truth of the libelous imputations and the fact that the offending article was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code states that: ―Art 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall be acquitted. Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.‖ Hence, truth is an absolute defense against libel and only false statements against a person would be considered defamatory. If the defamatory statement against a certain individual or group of persons is made public, either by
46

Salvador G. Tumang v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-48498, Sep. 30, 1942.

34

communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter becomes one of public knowledge, it is then constitutive of libel. UNHRC added that "in comments about public figures, consideration should be given to avoiding penalties or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defense." In a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Davao, the court ruled that "the evidence was sufficient to prove the authors guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a malicious, arbitrary, abusive, irresponsible act of maligning the honor, reputation and good name of Congressman‖. In the case at bar, an essential element of libel is present – actual malice. Malice is referred to as defamation against a person deliberately or on purpose. A public official or public figure must prove that false or defamatory statements directed against him were made with actual malice; that is, with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false. Through Adonis‘ irresponsible reporting, Congressman Nograles‘ reputation was tarnished by a report claiming that he was having an affair with a woman married to another man. In People of the Philippines, et. al., v. Ascension P. Olarte,47 although the issue of the case focuses on the prescription of libel, malice was also present as it determined the issue to be one of libel.. Actual malice is a vital element to be
47

People of the Philippines, et. al., v. Ascension P. Olarte, G.R. No. L-22465, Feb 28, 1967.

35

considered in determining if a defamatory statement directed against an individual or a group of persons is constitutive of libel. On or about the 24th day of February, 1954 and subsequently thereafter, Defendant Ascension P. Olarte ―had willfully, unlawfully and feloniously written certain letters which were libelous, contemptuous and derogatory to Miss Visitacion M. Meris, 'with evident and malicious purpose of insulting, dishonoring, humiliating and bringing into contempt the good name and reputation‖48 of Miss Meris. Every broadcasting company has its own company rules and regulations with regard to responsible reporting. Practitioners of mass media are expected to observe and follow the ethics of mass communication. But no matter how hard practitioners of mass communication try to keep up with moral and professional responsibilities, others could not fight the urge to defy the odds. There are instances wherein some reporters and journalists abuse the privilege given to them through irresponsible reporting and writing; hence the need for Philippine laws criminalizing libel as it harms one‘s reputation. According to Atty. Fred Pamaos, a Supervising Lawyer at the UP College of Law Office of Legal Aid (OLA), ―protecting one‘s honor and reputation is very important, so much so that civil liability is not enough‖.49 Thus, under Act No. 3815 or the Revised Penal Code, the offenders

48 49

Id. Fred Pamaos, Decriminalizing Libel in the Philippines, available at http://attyatwork.com/decriminalizinglibel-in-the-philippines/ (last accessed Sep. 6, 2012).

36

shall be subject to a minimum sentence of six months and one day imprisonment and a fine from P200 to P6,000. The Supreme Court of the United States‘ decision in New York Times v. Sullivan,50 requires that a statement of and concerning a ―public official‖ or a ―public figure‖ must be made with actual malice for it to be considered libel. Actual malice does not mean ill-will in the ordinary sense. A public official or public figure must prove that false or defamatory statements directed against him were made with actual malice; that is, with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.51 Public figures do not necessarily have to be public officials. Persons who have attained general fame in a community or who are involved in society‘s affair are to be considered public figures. Persons who become involved in public issues and controversies may also be considered public figures. It is enough that these public figures are involved in an issue of public interest or public concern. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations of 1966 also protects privacy: ―No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,

50 51

New York Times v. Sullivan. 376 U.S. 254 (1964). David Koehser. Defamation, Privacy and Publicity Claims, available at http://www.dklex.com/defamationprivacy-and-publicity-claims.html (last accessed Dec. 2, 2012).

37

nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.‖52 The Revised Penal Code is a criminal statute in the Philippines. If libel would be decriminalized as a result of House Bill 6391 and Senate Bill 3244, emphasis now would be on Article 26 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines 53 (Republic Act 386), for causes to pursue civil liability against an actor of acts analogous to libel. Article 26 of Republic Act 386 provides: ―Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: (1) Prying into the privacy of another‘s residence: (2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another; (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends; (4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.‖ While it may be true that imprisonment could be an excessive punishment for the crime of libel in the Philippines, whether serious or less serious cases, libel

52

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm (last accessed Dec. 2, 2012). 53 An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines CIVIL CODE OF THE Philippines, Republic Act No. 386 (1977).

38

should still be classified properly as to the degree of the offense. The complete decriminalization of libel will leave the State without right or power to intervene in extraordinary cases as the State cannot interfere in civil cases between individuals. When severe imputations disturb national security and public order, for example, what would be the proper remedy? Would complete decriminalization militate against, or be dereliction of, the prime duty of the Government under the first sentence of Article II, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution that ―[t]he prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people‖54 As stated above, the Government is responsible for the protection of the people. How could the people be protected if the Government itself does not take the necessary actions in regulating hate speech? Right to free speech, as guaranteed by the Constitution will be protected, if libel law would be decriminalized. Now how about one‘s right to privacy and right to dignity? If regulation of hate speech will be placed upon the shoulders of companies and organizations, and not on the state, a probable increase in a number of victims of libel would arise. Most likely, complainants who have been victims of libel will not succeed in their fight against invasion of privacy and harm to reputation for said organizations will side not on the protection of reputation. Lawmakers or legislators, as members of the Government, are the ones who will push through

54

Berne Guerrero. Decriminalizing Philippine Libel Laws?, available at http://berneguerrero.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/decriminalizing-philippine-libel-laws/ (last accessed Dec. 10, 2012).

39

with the passage of a law that would not fully protect the people, then, these legislators violate Article II, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution. In the explanatory note of Senate Bill 3244, Honasan fears that Philippine laws criminalizing libel would abridge freedom of speech that is guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution. But Sections 2 and 3 of the bill itself would violate freedom of speech as it requires ―practitioners of mass communication‖ to be members of professional organizations. Sections 2 and 3 of SB 3244 provide: ―Section 2. In view of the decriminalization of libel there is need for practitioners of mass communication to impose upon themselves utmost discipline in the practice of their profession. Professional organizations shall prescribe ethical standards as well as rules and regulations in the practice of their profession. Penalties for their erring members shall also be prescribed. Professional organizations must be registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).‖ ―Section 3. Practitioners of mass communication must be members of registered professional organizations. No mass media practitioner can practice his/her profession unless he/she is a member of a registered professional organization.‖ Would their right to free speech still be protected when some of these present mass communication practitioners are not members of these mandatory 40

professional organizations? These sections in Senate Bill 3244 provide for the requirements for self-policing of practitioners of mass communication, and the membership to professional organizations before these practitioners of mass communication can practice their profession. And whoever these ―practitioners of mass communication‖ pertain to, the law is unclear about it. Practitioners of mass communication may include ―not only journalists and news-reporters, but everybody in the profession: photojournalists, broadcasters, commentators, artists, printers, publishers, editors, writers, news-readers and even cameramen/women involved in mass dissemination of news and opinions‖55. If Senate Bill 3244 would be passed, no media practitioner can publish or broadcast information unless they are certified members of a duly registered professional organization allowed by government to exist. Hence, no reporting of events shall be allowed if there is no membership in a government-approved and registered media organization. The bill is also unclear as to what regulatory body will oversee said professional organizations registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and to what extent of powers shall it have. Debates on decriminalizing libel laws raise issues that go to the core of the First Amendment. People and organizations who support efforts toward retaining libel laws argue that malicious and defamatory statements cause serious injury to

55

Stuart Santiago, Honasan’s “other purposes”, available at http://stuartsantiago.com/honasans-other-purposescensorship/ (last accessed Dec. 11, 2012).

41

individuals and groups, assaulting their dignity as human beings and citizens. For the states, there is a need to tilt the balance between protecting freedom of speech and protecting the other constitutional rights to privacy and dignity. Libel laws faced harsh reactions among free press advocates including media practitioners, journalists, broadcasters and some legislators for violating freedoms supposedly enshrined in the Constitution and guaranteed by

international human rights covenants to which Philippines is a party. Opponents of this law say that its purpose is to curb free speech and limit information available to the public. They perceive libel laws as a threat to the constitutional right to freedom of speech. It may be a threat but only to those who abuse the right to free speech by degrading one‘s person. Offenders worry so much about protecting the right to freedom of speech but care very little on the repercussions brought about by the defamation on one‘s reputation. If libel is decriminalized, then the right to privacy would be infringed. Thus, decriminalizing libel laws will affect certain constitutional rights such as the right to privacy and right to dignity. Privacy is freedom from intrusion and public attention and right to dignity is the right to be treated with respect. The right to honor, to reputation, to dignity is as real a right as the right to freedom of expression. It influences one‘s self-esteem. After all, dignity or reputation is one‘s priceless possession. To protect one‘s reputation, hate speech should be regulated; hence, the need for libel laws. Libel laws play a significant 42

role in protecting individuals from the damage to honor or reputation that can be caused by the untrue statements made against them. In his article titled Libel,56 Fr. Ranhilio Aquino asserted that ―the law defines the crime of rape and penalizes acts of lasciviousness because its ideal of social relations is one of mutual respect, of which defilement is the antithesis. Libel, by whichever medium, is a crime because it remains a worthwhile ideal of social living that we accord each other the honor and the right to a good name and to an unblemished reputation that come with one‘s sense of self-worth and self-respect. It is these latter two that characterize us as human…‖. Fr. Ranhilio Aquino recognizes the freedom of speech but he also takes into consideration the right to privacy- the right which is often ignored, the right which is currently at stake. He respects not only the society‘s desire for uninhibited press but also the society‘s desire for an untarnished reputation. He also believed that not penalizing malicious statements against a person would reflect how a society fails to recognize self-respect and self-esteem as the necessary entailments of being human. Fr. Aquino ended his article with a striking question, ―Let us by all means have a free society, but what is that when it cannot be at the same time a fair society?‖ If the society exercised freedom of speech properly and wisely then

56

Ranhilio Aquino. Libel, available at http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/10/01/libel/ (last accessed Dec. 1, 2012).

43

there‘s no need for criminalizing libel laws. However, in a society where respect toward other people decreases, the need for libel law arises. In a democratic country like the Republic of the Philippines, protecting freedom of speech is vital for it facilitates the exchange of diverse opinions that influences self-determination and develops public opinion. Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states, ―Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.‖ Article 3, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines also protects the right of every person to freedom of speech. But ―there are many instances in which competing interests, such as retaining a good reputation in one‘s community, place restraints on public communications.‖57 Defamation poses threat not only to the persons offended but also to democratic principles we now possess. When a false statement against a certain individual is published, libel laws side with the protection of reputation. The preference for one‘s right to protection of his reputation reflects the fundamental concept of dignity and worth of every human. Although, as guaranteed by the Constitution, there is a need to safeguard the right to freedom of expression, a need for promoting principles against harming others‘ safety and dignity shall also factor in.
57

ALEXANDER TSESIS. DIGNITY AND SPEECH: THE REGULATION OF HATE SPEECH IN A DEMOCRACY (2009).

44

It is true that libel is one of the reasons why the freedom of speech and expression is curtailed, and why press people, media practitioners and journalists cannot fully express themselves. Libel is that one crime that fears a number of people in the Philippines, especially those members of the press, because of heavy penalties imposed on the accused.58 Because of this, different press and media groups, like Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility and National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, petition for the decriminalization of libel and repealing of Articles 353,59 354,60 355,61 35662 and 357,63 and Articles 360,64 36165
58 59

Art. 355 RPC Id. Art. 353. Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is 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. 60 Id. Art. 354. Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. 61 Id. Art. 355. Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party. 62 Id. Art. 356. Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration. 63 Id. Art. 357. Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both,

45

shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned. 64 Id. Art. 360. Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law. Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article. No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965). 65 Id. Art. 361. Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted. Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

46

at 36266 of the Revised Penal Code.67 Petition for the decriminalization and repealing of libel laws did not only start this year or the yesteryears, but it has already started few decades ago. Years had already passed since different groups are calling for the decriminalization of libel but until now, there is no law passed decriminalizing libel in the Philippines. Opponents of this libel law would not pursue with their objective if there are no supporters at their back. These supporters may include those personalities in the government or those who have connections with them. According to the decision of UNHRC last October 2011,68 there is an ―excessive‖ penalty imposed to the crime of libel under the Revised Penal Code. UNHRC says that Philippine libel law is incompatible with Article XIX, paragraph 3 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.69 Quoting its General Comment No. 34 which detailed the application of Article XIX: Freedoms of opinion and expression, UNHRC reiterated that ―States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation 113 and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a
66

Id. Art. 362.

Art. 362. Libelous remarks. — Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability. 67 Melanie Y. Pinlac. Decriminalizing libel: UN declares PH libel law ―excessive‖, available at http://www.cmfrphil.org/2012/02/17/decriminalizing-libel-un-declares-ph-libel-law-excessive/ (last accessed Dec. 3, 2012). 68 Id. 69 Id.

47

State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously – such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others.‖70 Looking at the Philippine libel law, legislators are saying that it is not fair as it is against the freedom of speech and expression, particularly Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, saying: ―Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.‖ Some members of the Congress are also in favor of decriminalizing libel, thus, pushing through with various bills repealing libel law. Francis Escudero, Alan Peter Cayetano, Gregorio Honasan, Pia Cayetano and Manuel Villar are only few of the Senators and Representatives who pursue with it. They want to decriminalize libel, removing imprisonment as a form of penalty, and treating it as a civil offense only, where person found guilty of libel would only pay for the amount of damages due to the victim. While many believe and say that libel curtails the freedom of speech and expression, it should still be taken into consideration the rights of Filipinos that would be affected when libel is decriminalized, or when Senate Bill 3244 is passed.
70

Id.

48

It may be true that libel may hinder Filipino people in expressing their opinions, but it should also be noted that this right is not absolute. It is still subject to certain limitations. Under the 1987 Constitution, freedom of speech and expression is respected but no one should abuse this right because if abused, there might be an invasion of privacy or it may cause harm to the dignity of a person. The role of libel laws is to ensure that freedom of speech does not outweigh the social values and interests of the individual. Some argued that the conflicting interests involved cannot be balanced as the interests of the right to privacy and right to freedom of expression are not of equal weight. Professor Gavin Phillipson, in a presentation introducing the Westminster Policy Forum ―Libel & privacy law ‐ challenges for reform‖ on 15 June 2010, asserted that the balancing exercise between right to freedom of expression and right to privacy has been fairly well-established. According to Phillipson, ―the rights now have presumptively equal status; neither may be enforced in such a way as to disproportionately damage the other, and which claim wins out in a given case depends upon an intense focus upon how far the values underlying the right are really at stake in the particular circumstances.‖ This means that a written or published statement concerning the private affairs of an individual without consent, the publisher cannot simply rely on the general liberty of the press. It must identify that the story contributes to an issue of general interest.

49

Every democratic country has its own codes and policies against hate speech, except the United States. For the supporters of freedom of expression, hate speech is perceived as a violation of the First Amendment and a contravention to a free society. Jeremy Waldron, author of ―The Harm in Hate Speech,‖71 professor of law and political theory at New York University and Oxford, argued that First Amendment allows the kind of speech a well-ordered society would most likely not permit. Waldron stood firm on his belief that ―hate speech and defamation are actions performed in public, with a public orientation, aimed at undermining public goods.‖ Waldron also asserted that defamations can produce ‗a large-scale toxic effect‘ even though it operates as a ‗slow-acting poison.‘ This just goes to show how harmful hate speech would be not only to the person offended but also to the nation at large. Having the right to dignity, every person must feel that his security is certain and that he does not have to feel humiliated and discriminated once he steps out of the door of his home. Most probably, the vulnerable members of the society or the minority groups would be the target of those who would opt to spread fallacy. This would then undermine public good which is ought to be protected by the state. Waldron further contended that hate speech would not most likely be the type of speech that parents would want to hear from their little children; that the effects of defamation are so distressing and potentially dangerous that the government must take the necessary steps to curtail
71

JEREMY W ALDRON. THE HARM IN HATE SPEECH (2012).

50

them; that it does not have a redeeming social value. Supporters of libel laws remain vigilant against any attempts of abuse of the right to freedom of speech that will mire a person‘s sense of dignity. According to Robert Post, a scholar in the United States, ―the freedom to intimidate vulnerable groups, for instance, can prevent others from enjoying their equal right to public safety.‖ Post asserted that such freedom, when abused, can attack an identifiable person or group‘s sense of dignity. Post also recognized the challenge upon the supporters of libel law who carry the burden of justifying the democratic value of libel laws. Public policy tends to favor victims of libel than those who intentionally spread false statements against an individual or group. Hence, libel laws, which pose limitations on speech is justified by the government‘s countervailing interest in order and morality. The government recognizes the social value of maintaining public order that may be balanced against the right to freedom of speech. Liberals believe that speech must be free from government interference; that no law shall be passed abridging the right to freedom of speech or expression. However, the demands for free speech must be balanced with one‘s right to dignity. Through libel laws, a dignitarian social order is secured by imposing necessary penalties to those who intentionally or willfully spread false statements against a person which tends to harm such person‘s honor and reputation. Society has to recognize that freedom of expression must be exercised with due care. 51

Retaining libel laws would help prevent or deter wrongful acts done by the offenders. So long as the reports are full, fair and accurate, media practitioners are conditionally privileged to report most governmental events without fear of libel. Hence, they are privileged to report the actions and statements of legislators, judicial personnel, or other public officials and executives in connection with their official duties. Through libel laws, media practitioners would then be alarmed to demonstrate accountability and responsibility in what they opt to write, post and publish. Through libel laws, media practitioners would practice good reporting by not disclosing public information in a way that is not within the public‘s right to know. This would then increase mutual respect toward each member of the society and positively influence self-esteem. If libel laws would be decriminalized, then the country would apparently have a losing sense of dignity and worth for every human person. In our constitutional democracy, although the right to freedom of speech or expression is recognized, certain social values such as maintaining moral and public order and protecting one‘s honor and reputation outweigh speakers‘ interests in self-determined expression.

52

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION

Public disclosure of information raises two conflicting interests on the part of the ―offender‖ claiming to have exercised the right to freedom of speech or expression and on the part of the ―offended party‖ claiming his right to privacy and right to dignity. As guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not just a matter of right but also a matter of duty on the part of every individual who has a right to use it and a duty not to abuse it. But right to freedom of speech or expression is not an absolute right. Although some speeches are protected, some are not if injurious to third persons. Libel, for one, is injurious to third persons as it harms honor and reputation and sense of dignity. Defamatory statements reflect negatively upon another person's integrity, character, good name and standing in the community as it degrade a person in the eyes of others. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as the ―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.‖ The penalty for written, printed or broadcast libel is imprisonment for six months and one day up to four years and two months or fine

53

between P200 and P6,000 or both imprisonment and fine. With regard to defamation or libel, penalties and sanctions are imposed upon the offender not solely because the information is false but because the information is personal, thus, it should not be exposed to the general public. Hypothetically, if libel laws would be decriminalized and Senate Bill 3244 would be passed, therefore leaving the regulation and imposition of penalties to companies, practitioners of mass media would not fear reporting malicious and defamatory statements that could cause serious injury to individuals and groups, assaulting their dignity as human beings and citizens since some companies would most likely not enforce company rules as strict as the state could through libel laws. The researchers believe that every company has its own codes of discipline regarding reports containing defamatory statements. Every practitioner of the mass media is believed to be aware of his moral and professional responsibilities but still chooses to defy the odds. Hence, the need for the government to take necessary steps to regulate the kind of speeches in a way that it one‘s right to dignity and privacy would be protected. In line with this, right to privacy could be invaded as the practitioners would most probably exercise their right to free speech without immense fear of the consequences of their actions, in the absence of laws criminalizing libel. Most importantly, the right to honor and dignity, one‘s priceless possession, would be violated if such practitioners would be given the power to exercise free speech 54

relying only with the regulations imposed by the companies, and not by the State. Although the right to privacy would not be directly invaded by decriminalizing libel laws, it would be violated in the long run especially when companies fail to strictly enforce their codes of discipline. The researchers fear that companies would not strictly implement their codes of discipline with regard to defamatory statements directed against an individual or a public figure for an instance, since it would most likely favor the practitioners of mass media, obviously claiming to have exercised the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Philippine laws criminalizing libel would be more effective and appropriate in regulating ―hate speech‖ and imposing penalties to the offenders than organizations and companies. The State has the difficult task of maintaining the delicate balance between constitutional freedoms and protecting public morals. Opponents of the libel law fear that the immense power of the State may be inadvertently used to sweepingly curtail constitutional freedoms. Libel laws side with the protection of one‘s reputation. After all, libel laws can only be a threat to those who would use the right to freedom of speech and abuse it by deliberately degrading a person in the eyes of another. Philippine libel laws criminalizing libel has achieved the delicate balance by protecting one‘s reputation and regulating freedom of speech or expression only if such is injurious to third persons, ensuring that freedom of speech would not be abridged. After all, it is the primary duty of the government to 55

protect the people – this would be achieved if regulation of hate speech would be handled by the State and not by the organizations or companies. Opponents of the libel laws perceive such laws as a threat to the constitutional right to freedom of speech. It may be a threat but only to those who abuse the right to free speech by degrading one‘s person. Offenders worry so much about protecting the right to freedom of speech but care very little on the repercussions brought about by the defamation on one‘s reputation. If libel is decriminalized, then the right to privacy would be infringed. Thus, decriminalizing libel laws will affect certain constitutional rights such as the right to privacy and right to dignity. The right to honor, to reputation, to dignity is as real a right as the right to freedom of expression. It influences one‘s self-esteem. After all, dignity or reputation is one‘s priceless possession. To protect one‘s reputation, hate speech should be regulated; hence the need for libel laws. Therefore, Senate Bill 3244, otherwise known as an Act to Decriminalize Libel and for Other Purposes is unconstitutional for it violates a person‘s right to privacy and dignity.

56

CHAPTER VI RECOMMENDATION

In a society where mutual respect decreases; a society where dignity and self-worth loses, strict implementation libel laws that will promote protection of one‘s honour and reputation is crucial. This is where the role of the Executive bodies would factor in advocating sense of responsibility from the people under mass media. Through strict implementation, media practitioners will recognize their crucial role in providing information to the public that may threaten other social interests.

For the legislative bodies which has the power to make and repeal laws, through this study which can serve as a feedback mechanism, both houses of Congress, as recommended by the researchers, may formulate laws that will provide precise provisions regarding libel, its scope and punishment. For the Judiciary, the researchers recommend that libel cases be treated with serious weight for the number of successful libel cases might help prevent or deter recurring offenses.

Mass media plays a significant role in providing information to the public. However, there are some information that should not be exposed to the general 57

public but are actually published even if it is not of public interest or concern. Therefore, the researchers recommend that each company engaged in the field of mass media must enforce strict codes and company policies regarding disclosure of private information, regardless of its veracity. Awareness shall be raised not only on the social and professional responsibility of media practitioners but also of their legal responsibilities. The researchers recommend that professional men and women under mass media be aware of their responsibilities towards the present sensible society. It is also highly recommended that editors be extra vigilant on the publication of any information that may harm one‘s honour and reputation. They must also ensure that the information would fulfil the interest of the public in general.

To positively influence and promote social harmony and sense of dignity, media practitioners, as recommended by the practitioners, should be aware of the following responsibilities:



Social Responsibility- Media practitioners aim to raise social awareness and to make the society well-informed of the current issues and happenings concerning the country. Thus, published materials reflect the society. It is recommended that media practitioners be compelled to live

58

by the duties and responsibilities that may be enforced by a ―standard social responsibility for all media practitioners.‖



Professional Responsibility- The researchers recommend that the top management in the field of mass media encourage every media practitioner to be a man of integrity; hence, he has to say what he means and mean what he says. Editors must uphold the core values of honesty, sincerity and commitment toward the profession so that published materials could contain only truthful and unbiased information. After all, the role of mass media is to disseminate correct and undistorted information to the public. Editors could require high degree of professionalism to avoid libel cases filed against nay of them.



Legal Responsibilty- Every media practitioner must be aware of the legal consequences of his actions. The researchers recommend that professional men and women in the field of mass media be aware of the libel laws and the sanctions to be imposed upon by the offender. Through this, responsible and accountable reporting can be expected; hence, libel cases would be prevented and lessened in the long run. Specifically, media practitioners must be aware that their job does not lie

59

at intervening someone‘s privacy until it is required to be brought to the notice of the public. Any defamatory statements should be avoided by the media practitioner.

Although some information communicated by media practitioners to the general public may be considered by the society as acceptable, complying with the standard of professionalism should also be taken into consideration. Thus every media practitioner must be socially, professionally and legally responsible for whatever information he published.

To the Academe, the researchers recommend that the teachings and seminars that will promote better understanding of the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and right to privacy be intensified. To broaden the student‘s knowledge on such rights which are perceived by some as absolute, the Commercial Law Department may invite speakers who can answer the inquiries and confusions regarding the right to freedom of speech and right to privacy. Also, the Commercial Law Department, through Ley La Salle, the professional organization for Legal Management students, may conduct debates with the students themselves as the participants. This may be done in partnership with Lasalle Debate Society to facilitate exchange of various opinions from students of different courses. 60

To the future batches of Legal Management Students who might venture on the similar study, it is highly recommended that online libel be the focus of their study, or at least, be included in the scope of their study since the Anti-Cybercrime Act is today‘s controversial issue.

Take for example the ―Amalayer‖ video which went viral. It was named after Paula Jamie Salvosa, an LRT passenger, who shouted shamelessly at a lady guard. Two conflicting sides have emerged on the issue: on one hand, Facebook and Twitter users quickly condemned Salvosa for being rude; on the other hand, some reasoned that the video failed to capture the whole of the story especially the part why Salvosa snapped. Those who remained calm believe that Filipinos have to be apathetic to more pressing/ relevant issues instead of bullying someone who probably might just been having a bad day. Some felt that the LRT incident was normal, not really something to be posted on social networking sites to be scrutinized and some believed that judging someone you barely know without benefit of the doubt is no democracy. Some claimed that Gregory Paulo Llamoso, the one who took the video and posted it in a social netowrking site was responsible for exposing the video to the general public and shall be liable for invasion of privacy. To date, Paula Jamie Salvosa still receives ―hate tweets.‖ Salvosa regretted her behavior and asks the public to stop condemning her as she wishes for her life to go back to normal. Future batches of Legal Management 61

students who intend to focus on libel might as well include online libel and the legal actions that might be brought against the offender to raise awareness for every user on what they opt to publish.

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY I. PRIMARY SOURCES A. STATUTORY MATERIALS 1. THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION a. CONST. (1987), ART. II, § 4 b. CONST. (1987), ART. II, § 11 c. CONST. (1987), ART. III, § 2 d. CONST. (1987), ART. III, § 4 e. CONST. (1987), ART. III, § 3(1)

2. PUBLIC LAW a. ACT NO. 3815         REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932), art. 353 REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932), art. 354 REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932), art. 355 REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932), art. 356 REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932), art. 357 REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932), art. 360 REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932), art. 361 REVISED PENAL CODE, Act No. 3815 (1932), art. 362

63

b. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386  REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386, ART. 26

B. COURT DECISIONS 1. CASE REPORTS (PHILIPPINE CASES)  People of the Philippines, et. al., v. Ascension P. Olarte (G.R. No. L-22465, Feb. 28, 1967).  Salvador G. Tumang v. The People of the Philippines (G.R. No. L-48498, Sep. 30, 1942).

C. BILLS, RESOLUTIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS         S.B. 3244, 15TH CONG., 3D SESS. S.B. 2162, 15TH CONG., 1S SESS. (JUL. 22, 2010). S.B. 2053, 15TH CONG., 1S SESS. (JUL. 26, 2010). H.B. 0728, 15TH CONG., 1S SESS. H.B. 1009, 15TH CONG., 1S SESS. H.B. 2223, 15TH CONG., 1S SESS. H.B. 2979, 15TH CONG., 1S SESS. H.B. 6391, 15TH CONG., 3D SESS. (JUL. 11, 2012).

64

D. TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Dec. 19, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171

II. SECONDARY SOURCES A. BOOKS   CEES J. HAMELINK, ETHICS OF CYBERSPACE (2000). JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S.J., THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: A REVIEWER-PRIMER (2002).  JEREMY W ALDRON. THE HARM IN HATE SPEECH (2012).

B. JOURNALS  Aaron Benedict De Leon, Welcome to the Age of Cyberbullying, Nov. 25, 2011.  Alexander Tsesis. Dignity and Speech: The regulation of Hate Speech in a Democracy (2009).  Ana Maria V. Pastrana, Cybersurveillance: Carnivore And Its Legal Implications (2003) (unpublished J.D. thesis, Ateneo de Manila University) (on file with the Professional Schools Library, Ateneo de Manila University).

65



Celso Virgilio C. Ylagan IV, Obscenity, Pornography and Censorship in Cyberspace: Do We Have To Net The Internet? (1996) (unpublished J.D. thesis, Ateneo de Manila University) (on file with the Professional Schools Library, Ateneo de Manila University).

C. INTERNET SOURCES  Berne Guerrero. Decriminalizing Philippine Libel Laws?, available at

http://berneguerrero.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/decriminalizin g-philippine-libel-laws/  Berteni Cataluña Causing, Chapter II Definition of Libel, available at http://totocausing.com/my-books/my-

bookschapter-ii-definition-of-libel/  Christopher Warren, Decriminalising Defamation, available at http://asiapacific.ifj.org/assets/docs/009/148/a1b1809294c794.pdf  David Koehser. Defamation, Privacy and Publicity Claims, available at http://www.dklex.com/defamation-privacy-and-

publicity-claims.html

66



Fred Pamaos, Decriminalizing Libel in the Philippines, available at http://attyatwork.com/decriminalizing-libel-in-thephilippines/



Gabriel T. Ingles, A judge‘s view on decriminalizing libel, available http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/article/benefits-andpitfalls-of-decriminalizing-libel/ at



James B. Murphy, Critics on the Natural Law Tradition, available at http://www.nlnrac.org/critics/legal-positivism



Manuel Laserna Jr., The ―Historical School‖ of Legal Philosophy: Its Relevance to the Philippines, available at http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2007/10/legal-philosophyhistorical-school.html



Melanie Y. Pinlac. Decriminalizing libel: UN declares PH libel law ―excessive‖, available at http://www.cmfr-

phil.org/2012/02/17/decriminalizing-libel-un-declares-ph-libellaw-excessive/  Ranhilio Aquino. Libel, available at

http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/10/01/libel/

67



Robert C. Post, The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution, available at

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1216&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer  Stuart Santiago, Honasan‘s ―other purposes‖, available at http://stuartsantiago.com/honasans-other-purposescensorship/  Continue Fight for Libel Decriminalization, Media Urged, available http://www.philpressinstitute.com/2012/04/24/continue-fightfor-libel-decriminalization-media-urged/  Criminal Liability for Defamation, available at at

http://russiansnews.blogspot.com/2012/07/criminal-liability-fordefamation.html  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm  Journalist receives four and a half year prison sentence for article on congressman‘s alleged love affair, available at http://www.ifex.org/philippines/2007/04/02/journalist_receives_ four_and_a/

68



What is Legal Realism?, available at http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-legal-realism.htm (last accessed Jul. 29, 2012).

III.

FOREIGN SOURCES A. STATUTORY MATERIAL New York Times v. Sullivan. 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

69

APPENDIX

70