What is libel? In its most general sense, it is any publication that is injurious to the reputation of another (Black’s Law Dictionary).

The law
1. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as “a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead”.

Presumption of malice
2. General rule: Every defamatory imputation, whether true or false, is presumed to be malicious, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.

Exceptions: The presumption shall not apply where the imputation is made by way of a: (a) a private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and (b) 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 (Art. 354, id.).

Proof of truth
3. General rule: If the matter charged as libelous is true, the accused shall be acquitted.
Exception: The truth shall not set the accused free if the publication of the libelous statement is: (a) without good motives; and (b) without justifiable ends.

Freedom of expression
4. The 1987 Constitution provides that: “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” (Sec. 4, ART. III).

Comments
5. Is the cited constitutional provision clear? YES. Congress cannot pass any law that reduces the right of the people to express and make known their ideas and feelings. To ABRIDGE simply means to REDUCE.

6. Does the law on libel reduce or abridge the people’s right to express and make known their ideas and feelings? YES. It constitutes a prior restraint and a real threat of subsequent punishment on the exercise of the freedom. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

7. Why is libel a crime? Because the law provides the penalties of imprisonment and fine for libelers. Hence, if such penalties are repealed and substituted with liability for civil damages alone, libel would not be a crime. Abuse of the freedom of expression or libel is thus malum prohibitum. It is essentially bad because it is prohibited by law, but it is essentially good because it keeps democracy alive and kicking.

8. In other words, even if libel is to be considered as an abuse of the freedom of expression, the same is not necessarily as odious as rape, murder, human trafficking, syndicated gambling, graft and corruption, and similar crimes which do not appear to have been effectively addressed by the government. Besides, the grant of much leeway for the exercise of the freedom serves a transcendental purpose under a constitutional democracy.

9. What is that purpose? It involves the balancing of interests between the possible abuse of the freedom and the prevention of a much greater evil which justice Stewart of the United States Supreme Court explained as follows:

“In the government structure created by our Constitution, the Executive is endowed with enormous power in the two related areas of national defense and international relations. This power, 4largely unchecked by the Legislative and Judicial branches, has been pressed to the very hilt since the advent of the nuclear missile age. For better or for worse, the simple fact is that a President of the United States possesses vastly greater constitutional independence in these two vital areas of power that does, say, a prime minister of a country with a parliamentary form of government.

In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry – in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government. For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For without an informed and free press there cannot be an enlightened people.” (BERNAS, The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., p. 210)
10. The libel law is of 1932 vintage. It was crafted when the Filipino people were still under a colonial government under the United States of America, whose dominating political and economic interest at the time was to suppress the EXPRESSION OF DISSENT. That no longer appears to be the situation at present. But the succeeding supposedly Filipino governments curiously continued the colonial policy. Hence, the libel law continues to be nurtured by the Congress and enforced by the Executive and Judicial Departments.

11. The interest of those individuals who may suffer the sting of an unfair criticism must yield to the greater public interest of freedom of expression as the ultimate check and balance against the systemic abuse of governmental powers and resources by corrupt public officials and political dynasties.

Conclusion
12. The law favors the guilty subjects of criticism, and disfavors the journalists who are not allowed to rely on truth alone. Thus, even if the “libelous” charge is TRUE, it is not the guilty, but the poor journalist, who gets convicted. This is violation of plain common sense.