3 weeks ago
18
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
The main building of the Philippine Supreme Court in Manila as taken on Dec. 13, 2024.
Philstar.com / Martin Ramos
MANILA, Philippines — Libel is “best decriminalized” when it comes to public figures to protect the freedom of speech, Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said.
Leonen said this in his concurring opinion in the case of Causing vs. People of the Philippines dated April 8, 2026, which affirmed that the prescriptive period for cyberlibel is one year, a ruling previously issued by the Supreme Court in 2023.
“Libel against public figures is best decriminalized. The continued punishment of comments and criticisms directed at public figures hampers the promotion of an atmosphere of uninhibited discussion of ideas and opinions relating to the proper conduct of those in public office,” Leonen said.
Leonen contended that the continued characterization of libel as a crime produces a "chilling effect" that stifles fundamental guarantees of free expression, citing his separate opinion in Disini Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice — the case assailing the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
He noted that criminal libel is frequently utilized by "the powerful and influential" as a tool to silence their critics and dissenters, also citing the case of Tulfo vs. People:
Tulfo v. People echoed this observation, emphasizing that the kinds of speech actually deterred by criminal libel are often more valuable than the State interest the law seeks to protect:
Besides, the constitutionality of criminalizing libel is doubtful. In libel, the kinds of speech actually deterred are more valuable than the State interest the law against libel protects. The libel cases that have reached this Court in recent years generally involve notable personalities, highlighting a propensity for the powerful and influential to use the advantages of criminal libel to silence their critics.
In any event, alternative legal remedies exist to address unwarranted attacks on a private person's reputation and credibility, such as the Civil Code chapter on Human Relations. Civil actions for defamation are more consistent with our democratic values since they do not threaten the constitutional right to free speech and avoid the unnecessary chilling effect on criticisms toward public officials. The proper economic burden on complainants in civil actions also reduces the possibility of using libel as a tool to harass or silence critics and dissenters.
The case. The Supreme Court denied separate motions for reconsideration filed by disbarred lawyer Berteni Cataluña Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The ruling clarifies that while cyberlibel is committed through computer systems, it remains a form of libel governed by the one-year prescriptive period set in the Revised Penal Code.
The legal battle stems from a December 2020 complaint filed by Cotabato 2nd District Rep. Ferdinand Hernandez against Causing.
The lawmaker accused Causing of cyberlibel over Facebook posts from 2019 that alleged Hernandez had pocketed over P200 million in relief goods intended for Marawi victims.
Causing sought to quash the charges, arguing that the crime had already prescribed because more than one year had passed between the uploading of the posts and the filing of the case. Conversely, the Regional Trial Court initially ruled that cyberlibel prescribes in 12 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
In its resolution dated April 8, 2026, the high court rejected Causing’s argument that the prescriptive period should start from the date of publication.
The Supreme Court explained that a prescription runs from the moment the offended party or authorities discover the crime.
The high court dismissed the idea that online publication automatically implies a "presumed discovery" by the victim. Unlike public registries, the high court noted that social media visibility depends on privacy settings and internet access, meaning a post is not immediately "discovered" just because it is live.
Rejection of the 15-year period. The OSG had pushed for a 15-year prescriptive period, citing an unsigned resolution in Tolentino v. People.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that unsigned resolutions are not binding legal doctrines and apply only to the specific parties involved in those cases.
The Court reiterated that cyberlibel is not a new or separate crime but simply libel committed through a computer system.
While RA 10175 imposes higher penalties, the Supreme Court ruled that this does not automatically extend the time allowed to file a case.
