SC ruling on free speech ‘defangs’ public officials vs critics — NUPL
THE Supreme Court (SC) ruling that statements against public officials are not inherently defamatory or slanderous could boost transparency and protect frequently harassed advocacy groups in the Philippines, a lawyers group leader said.
Tomas Kauer 
By Chloe Mari A. Hufana, Reporter
THE Supreme Court (SC) ruling that statements against public officials are not inherently defamatory or slanderous could boost transparency and protect frequently harassed advocacy groups in the Philippines, a lawyers group leader said.
“It may lead to increased transparency, because now, defamation case[s] as a weapon of government officials [have] been defanged, and critics cannot be threatened with legal cases,” National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) President Ephraim B. Cortez told BusinessWorld in a Viber message over the weekend.
Mr. Cortez added that the ruling would offer added protection to whistleblowers and investigative journalists, who, despite constitutional safeguards, often face legal harassment.
In the ruling written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen publicized last week, the High Court’s Second Division said that actual malice must be proven to count remarks against public officials as defamatory or slanderous, citing Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Code provided that there is oral defamation or slander when (1) there is an allegation of a crime, fault, or flaw; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) maliciously; (5) towards a person, alive or dead; and (6) such allegation tends to cause dishonor on the person defamed.
“This decision recognizes that critics of the government and that of government officials should be afforded protection and not subjected to harassment, including legal harassment, like the filing of defamation cases,” Mr. Cortez added, noting this ruling should have also included libel.
“This decision recognizes the constitutional protection to free speech, including the right of redress of grievances,” he added, noting that this is a reiteration of previous SC rulings where it upheld that government officials should not be “onion skinned.”
Mr. Leonen noted in the decision that “being ‘sensitive’ has no place in the line of public service, especially when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public.”
“Recognizing that free speech empowers the citizens in exacting accountability from public officers, a conviction for defamation involving statements related to their discharge of official duties entails proof that they were made with actual malice,” the SC ruling also read.
