“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 discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead” – The Revised Penal Code: Philippines
Following the definition above, the Philippines is one of the few countries in the world that criminalises libel along with Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, and other states with questionable democratic standards. I offer an alternative, liberal perspective, where I advocate that rather than criminalising libel, the Philippines should follow the example of most Western liberal countries, in which libel in classified as a civil crime. I have two important disclaimers. One is that there is no a prior criteria to apply in deciding whether something should be criminalised or not; rather, it depends on the principles that a state stands for and wants to be known for. The other is that there is no question that libel should be punished; however, the main question is should it be in the form of criminal liability, the loss of certain privileges or incarceration, or through civil liability, the imposition of debt to the petitioner to compensate for the damages incurred by the victims.
I believe that if the Philippines wants to be consistent with its stand to respect human rights, free speech, and dignity to both the international community and to its constituents, the state should decriminalise libel. Fundamentally, liberal societies consider an act a civilian case if the issue is about civil rights and duties between citizens, while criminal cases assume that the issue is about public safety, morals, and policy beyond the act committed by the accused to the victim. Actions which are considered criminal threaten to take away the liberties of, and continue to pose a danger to, the constituents of the state. Murder, theft, manslaughter, rape, and drunk driving are not only considered criminal acts because the targets are wrongfully harmed, but also because non-targets are threatened in such a way that they could eventually become targets, preventing people from exercising their liberties without fear in daily life. In these cases, the state has the power and mandate to remove guilty parties from participation in society through incarceration.
Following this background, there are two ideas against the criminalisation of libel. First, libel hinders the participation of citizens in democratic governance. Theorists have argued that the effectiveness and legitimacy of governance depend on the ‘dialectics of delegation’—while citizens delegate governing to the state, the state equally delegates responsibilities to citizens. This is recognising that the members of any society have multiple roles, citizens are foundations of the state, and government officials themselves can also be citizens in the social order. Since government officials themselves could be perpetrators of harmful acts, one of the most important civic and moral responsibilities of citizens is to speak and expose wrongdoings. Although government institutions could investigate these issues, civilian participation is an important and effective safeguard. Libel is a tricky case because it encompasses the fundamental right, or some would even say the responsibility of, individuals to freedom of speech. However, how can civilians perform their responsibilities to the state and to other citizens if the state itself, instead of acting as the judge alone, is the prosecutor, the defence (if the accused cannot afford legal representation), and the judge all at the same time? Simply put, it is also the responsibility of the state to give citizens enough space to participate in governance without resorting to the threat of a dangerous punishment such as criminal liability.
About the Author
Thank you sir. Your views on decriminalizing libel has helped me a lot in our upcoming debate on whether or not Libel should be considered a crime here in the philippines.