Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III. INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III has cautioned fellow lawmakers against rushing to decriminalize libel, arguing that this was the only remedy available to individuals who felt maligned by others.
While some of his colleagues called for decriminalization, Pimentel pushed for the “status quo,’’ that is, for libel to be retained in the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Alan Peter Cayetano, Francis Escudero, Edgardo Angara and Teofisto Guingona III have called for the decriminalization of libel after the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of provisions on libel in the controversial cybercrime law.
They argued that libel as a criminal offense contravened the constitutional provision on the freedom of expression, and that, unlike newspapers, television and radio, a libelous statement on the Internet could be rectified within minutes of its posting.
Pimentel said that for as long as the provision on libel is lawful, charging someone with libel would be a means to seek redress for grievance by people maligned by others, regardless of whether the criminal charge prospers in court or not.
“If we decriminalize it, more people would feel they’re victims of injustice because they’ve been libeled, and they don’t have a remedy,’’ he told reporters Thursday afternoon. “We don’t want people to take the law into their hands because of inefficient justice system.’’
Its presence in the law books was a deterrent to “indiscriminate libeling,’’ Pimentel said.
“It’s a redress for grievance. If you’re libeled, you can file a complaint, and if the fiscal tells you no libel was committed, at least you feel you tried the remedy, and the potential penalty—since it’s a jail term—is sufficient enough to deter indiscriminate libeling of people,’’ he said.
Pimentel, chair of the justice committee, said proposals to decriminalize libel should be the subject of study.
He pointed out that the consequence of decriminalization would be the imposition of stiffer civil penalties.
“It’s really a policy decision if we decriminalize libel. Then the consequence is heavy fines. Those fines are like criminal punishment. It’s a policy decision. Either way it can be decriminalized, or the criminal nature can be retained,’’ he said.
Pimentel, a lawyer, said libel was the same in the Revised Penal Code and the cybercrime law.
“Yes, libel is libel. If you print it, it’s libel. If you utter it through radio, it’s libel. If you utter it personally, it’s slander. If you print online, not by ink, but by pixel, it’s libel,’’ he said.
Pimentel said that once he has gathered all the bills, he would call a hearing of the justice committee. He said media practitioners would be invited as resource persons.
Amnesty International Philippines said the Supreme Court ruling was cause for concern because “it cements the further expansion of the reach of the highly questionable Philippine libel law handed down from penal laws of former colonial administration.’’
“There is so much that the citizens of the Philippines have to speak out about as the country suffers from widespread corruption and poverty, and also having one of the worst records on extra judicial killings of activists and journalists,’’ Amnesty International human rights officer Romel Cardenas De Vera said in a statement.
Many libel suits have been filed by legislators, executive officials and even a Supreme Court justice, he said.
“It s not far-fetched that the cyber libel provision will be used against anyone seeking state and corporate accountability for abuses and violations of human rights,’’ De Vera said.
In January 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee found the Philippines’ criminalization of libel incompatible with the freedom of expression clause in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, he said.