.' 
SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session 
) 
) 
) 
,S £'11 III I' 
Ot}tfHC- llf Hl€ jt'fnrbr~ 
"14 
FEB 27 P2 :21 
SENATE 
S.No. 2146 
IUX'EIVU) By;k 
Introduced by Senator Ralph G. Recto 
AN ACT 
DECRIMINALIZING LIBEL, REPEALING FOR TillS PURPOSE ARTICLES 353, 354, 
355, 356, 357, 360, 361 AND 362 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE 
KNOWN AS "THE REVISED PENAL CODE" AND SECTION 4 (c) 4, CHAPTER II OF 
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "CYBERCRIME 
PREVENTION ACT OF 2012" 
Explanatory Note 
The bill seeks to decriminalize libel as defined and penalized under our statutes. For this 
purpose it will repeal Articles 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 360, 361 and 362 of the Revised Penal 
Code and Section 4 (c) 4 of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of2012. 
Historically, libel was conceived as a repressive tool against criticisms and insults to 
government. It was introduced by the Spanish Codigo Penal and reinforced by the 1932 Revised 
Penal Code during the American occupation thereby making insulting remarks punishable in 
many instances. 
In his dissenting opinion in Disini, et. al. vs. Secretary of Justice (GR No. 2033335), 
February 11,2014, Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen said: 
"In essence, Philippine libel law is a "fusion" of the Spanish Law 
on defamachion and the American law on libel. It started as a legal tool 
to protect government and the status quo. The bare text of the law had to 
be qualified through jurisprudential interpretation as the fundamental 
right to expression became clearer. 
In theory, libel prosecution has 
slowly evolved from protecting both private citizens and public figures to 
its modem notion of shielding only private parties from defamatory 
utterances. 
xxx 
Libel law now is used not so much to prosecute but deter speech. 
What is charged as criminal libel may contain precious protected speech. 
There is very little to support the majority view that the law will not 
continue to have this effect on speech. 
xxx 
It is time that we now go further and declare libel as provided in 
the Revised Penal Code and in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, 
as unconstitutional. 
xxx" 


But he pointed out that decriminalization of libel does not mean that no recourse can be 
obtained for scurrilous and defamatory remarks on reputation. Any offended party may opt to 
pursue his case through the institution of a civil action for damages where the court may restore 
his sullied name. 
Moreover, there is a strong clamor in the international community to decriminalize libel 
and this sentiment is embodied under Article XIX, General Remarks number 47 of the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which the Philippines is a state 
party. It provides: 
"Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with 
paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of 
expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include 
such defences as the defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard 
to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. 
At least with regard to comments about public figures, consideration should be 
given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements 
that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public 
interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. 
Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures 
and penalties. Where relevant, States parties should place reasonable limits on 
the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the successful 
party. States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in 
any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the 
most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is 
impermissible for a State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but 
then not to proceed to trial expeditiously - such a practice has a chilling effect 
that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person 
concerned and others. (Underscoring supplied.) 
The legislature then must insure that no law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech 
and expression. Congress must stand by these constitutionally-ordained guarantees by repealing 
the libel provisions in the Revised Penal Code and Cybercrime Prevention Act of2012 for being 
violative of the Free Speech clause. 
Senators and Congressmen enjoy immunity from prosecution even if they defame or 
accuse anyone of any wrongdoing in their privilege speeches while the law threatens to 
incarcerate an indignant Facebook user for his social sentiments via internet. 
It is high time that all citizens regardless of rank or creed share 1his immunity as these 
lawmakers are simply the representatives and the voice of the people from whom their rights and 
privileges truly emanate. Through this legislation, we are giving flesh to the time honored legal 
dictum on popular democracy that Vox Populi est Suprema Lex. 


SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE pmLIPPINES 
First Regular Session 
) 
) 
) 
SENATE 
S.No. 2146 
Introduced by Senator Ralph G. Recto 
AN ACT 
'14 
FEB 27 P 2 :21 
DECRIMINALIZING LIBEL, REPEALING FOR TmS PURPOSE ARTICLES 353, 354, 
355,356,357,360,361 AND 362 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE 
KNOWN AS "THE REVISED PENAL CODE" AND SECTION 4 (c) 4, CHAPTER II OF 
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "CYBERCRIME 
PREVENTION ACT OF 2012" 
1 
SECTION 1. Articles 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 360, 361 and 362 of Act No. 3815, as 
2 
amended, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code" are hereby repealed. 
3 
SEC.2. Section 4 (c) 4, Chapter II of Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the 
4 
"Cybercrime Prevention Act of 20 12" is hereby repealed. 
5 
SEC. 3. All laws, executive orders, decrees, instructions, issuances, rules and regulations 
6 
contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby likewise repealed or modified 
7 
accordingly. 
8 
SEC. 4. Effictivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication 
9 
in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation or the Official Gazette. 
10 
Approved,