Defamation Laws in the Philippines: Slander and Libel

Below is a comprehensive discussion of defamation laws in the Philippines, focusing on slander (oral defamation) and libel (written defamation). This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you need specific guidance, please consult a licensed attorney in the Philippines.

1. Legal Framework on Defamation in the Philippines

Defamation in the Philippines is primarily governed by the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and related special laws. Key provisions include:

  1. Revised Penal Code

    • Articles 353 to 362: Governing definitions, penalties, and distinctions between different types of defamation (libel, slander, slander by deed).

  2. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175)

    • Expanded the scope of libel to include online or “cyber-libel,” applying the same elements and penalties with certain distinctions regarding the use of computer systems or the internet.

  3. Civil Code

    • Provides additional causes of action for moral or exemplary damages in certain defamation cases.

2. Definition of Defamation

Defamation (paninirang puri) is any wrongful or malicious statement—either oral or written—that injures another person’s reputation or character. In the Philippine context, defamation is a criminal offense and may also result in civil liability. The law distinguishes between libel and slander:

  1. Libel: Defamation in writing or any similar permanent form (e.g., printed, broadcast, or posted online).
  2. Slander: Oral defamation (spoken words or gestures).

3. Distinction Between Libel and Slander

3.1 Libel

  • Definition (Article 353 of the RPC): “Libel is 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 dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person…”
  • Medium: Written, printed, or communicated via publications or electronic means (including social media posts, blog articles, and other internet-based platforms).
  • Penalty: Under the RPC, libel is punishable by imprisonment (arresto mayor or prisión correccional, depending on circumstances) or a fine, or both.
    • Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, if libel is committed through a computer system (cyber-libel), the penalty may be one degree higher than that provided for under the RPC.

3.2 Slander (Oral Defamation)

  • Definition (Article 358 of the RPC): Slander is committed “by oral defamation or by uttering words which are defamatory and injurious to the reputation of another.”
  • Types:
    1. Simple Slander: A relatively less serious case of oral defamation.
    2. Grave Slander: Oral defamation that is of a serious or insulting nature, taking into account the circumstances of the person, the context, and the words used.
  • Penalty: Generally punishable by arresto menor or arresto mayor (imprisonment or fine). Grave slander carries a higher penalty.

4. Elements of Defamation

To hold a person liable for defamation (slander or libel) in the Philippines, the following elements must be present:

  1. Imputation of a Discreditable Act or Condition

    • The statement must accuse the complainant of a crime, vice, defect, or act that could cause damage to reputation.

  2. Publication (or Public Utterance)

    • The statement must be made public. In libel cases, “publication” typically means it was communicated to someone other than the person defamed. In slander, it must have been heard by a third party.

  3. Identification

    • The person defamed must be identifiable or ascertainable from the statement.

  4. Malice

    • There must be malice, meaning the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. In certain instances, malice is presumed once the defamatory statement is shown to have been published or uttered.

5. Presumption and Proof of Malice

5.1 Malice in Fact and Malice in Law

  • Malice in Law: In libel and slander cases, once it is shown that a defamatory statement was published or uttered, the law generally presumes malice.
  • Malice in Fact: The prosecution or plaintiff must show specific proof that the accused acted with knowledge of the statement’s falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was false.

5.2 Rebutting the Presumption of Malice

  • The accused can offer proof that the statement was made under justifiable motives, such as a privileged communication (discussed below).
  • Other defenses include showing a lack of defamatory intent or that the statement was made in good faith and without knowledge of its falsity.

6. Privileged Communications

Privileged communications are exceptions to the presumption of malice. They are statements made in certain contexts where freedom of expression and public interest outweigh potential harm to reputation. There are two types:

  1. Absolute Privilege

    • Statements made in official proceedings, such as legislative sessions or judicial proceedings, are generally immune from defamation suits, provided they are relevant to the subject matter at hand.

  2. Qualified Privilege

    • Covers statements made in the performance of a legal or moral duty, such as reporting crimes to authorities or fair comment on matters of public interest.
    • To claim qualified privilege, the statement must be made in good faith, without malice, and with a lawful interest or duty in making it.

7. Cyber-Libel (Online Defamation)

7.1 Legal Basis

  • Covered by the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175).
  • Similar elements to libel under the RPC, but committed through a computer system or any similar digital means.

7.2 Higher Penalties

  • Cyber-libel is punishable by a penalty one degree higher than that of libel under the Revised Penal Code. This means that if libel is punishable by six months to four years, cyber-libel could be punishable by up to eight years or more, depending on aggravating factors.

7.3 Jurisdiction

  • Philippine courts can exercise jurisdiction over cyber-libel if any element of the crime (publication, damages, etc.) is shown to have occurred within the Philippines.
  • Because of the global reach of the internet, jurisdictional questions can be complex. However, once the defamatory content is accessed or viewed in the Philippines, it may be enough to confer jurisdiction.

8. Criminal and Civil Liability

  1. Criminal Aspect

    • If found guilty of slander or libel, the accused faces imprisonment and/or fines.
    • For slander by deed or more serious forms of oral defamation, penalties increase proportionally.

  2. Civil Aspect

    • The offended party may file a civil action for damages under the Civil Code.
    • Moral Damages: Granted for mental anguish, social humiliation, or damage to reputation.
    • Exemplary Damages: May be awarded if the accused’s act was done in a wanton, reckless, malicious, or oppressive manner.

9. Common Defenses in Defamation Cases

  1. Truth

    • In libel and slander cases, truth is a valid defense if the statement pertains to a public official or public figure, and the statement is related to their official functions.
    • For private individuals, truth alone may not suffice if the intent was purely malicious. The accused must still show absence of malice.

  2. Privileged Communication

    • As discussed, absolute and qualified privileges can protect certain statements.

  3. Lack of Publication

    • If the statement was never communicated to a third party, no defamation occurs.

  4. Lack of Identification

    • If the statement does not clearly refer to the offended party, there is no actionable defamation.

  5. Good Faith or Fair Comment

    • If the statement is an opinion on a matter of public interest, made without malice, it may be protected as fair comment.

10. Notable Points and Practical Considerations

  1. Public Officials and Public Figures

    • Philippine jurisprudence tends to allow broader leeway for criticism of public officials or figures, considering freedom of speech and public interest. However, malicious attacks remain actionable.

  2. Freedom of the Press vs. Defamation

    • The right to free speech and a free press is constitutionally protected (Article III, Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution). Balancing this with the individual’s right to protect their reputation is a recurring theme in defamation cases.

  3. Injunctions and Take-down Requests

    • In cases of online defamation, complainants sometimes seek take-down orders or injunctions to remove defamatory content from websites or social media platforms.

  4. Venue of Cyber-Libel Cases

    • The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of venue in cyber-libel. The rule of thumb is that the case may be filed in the place where the content was first accessed, or where the complainant or the alleged offender resides.

  5. Slander by Deed

    • In addition to ordinary oral defamation, the RPC recognizes “slander by deed,” which involves performing an act (without words) that dishonors or discredits another person. For example, a public humiliation not accompanied by speech might still qualify as slander by deed.

  6. Prescription Period (Statute of Limitations)

    • Under Article 90 of the RPC, offenses penalized by imprisonment of less than six years generally prescribe in five years. Libel, depending on the penalty range, may prescribe in one or two years for printed defamation but may differ under special laws for cyber-libel.
    • In cyber-libel cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the one-year prescriptive period under the RPC for libel also applies but starts from the date of posting or publication. Subsequent re-publications or “shares” may be treated differently.

11. Best Practices and Tips

  1. Exercise Caution Online

    • Given the expanded coverage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, always verify information before posting or sharing potentially defamatory statements online.

  2. Use Polite, Non-Defamatory Language

    • Criticism or commentary should focus on factual information and avoid malicious personal attacks.

  3. Check Your Sources

    • When reporting on allegations, especially regarding public figures, cite reliable sources and clarify that statements are allegations or opinions (if they are).

  4. Seek Legal Counsel Early

    • If you believe you have been defamed—or if you are accused of defamation—consult a lawyer for guidance on the proper legal remedies or defenses.

  5. Document Everything

    • In defamation disputes, evidence is crucial. Keep records (screenshots, links, recordings) of the alleged defamatory statements and any communications about them.

12. Conclusion

Defamation laws in the Philippines protect individuals against wrongful damage to their reputation through oral or written statements. Libel (written) and slander (spoken) remain criminal offenses and can also give rise to civil liability. With the advent of digital communication and social media, the scope of defamation liability has expanded, particularly under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

To navigate potential defamation risks:

  • Understand the elements and requirements of libel and slander.
  • Be aware of defenses like truth, lack of malice, and privileged communication.
  • Heed the stricter penalties for cyber-libel.
  • When in doubt, seek legal counsel for tailored advice on defamation issues.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not replace independent professional judgment. For specific concerns regarding Philippine defamation laws, please consult a qualified attorney.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login