.

“

SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES }
FIRST REGULAR SESSION )
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Introduced by Representative Maximo B, Rodriguez, Jr.

House Bill No. 4965,

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This bill seeks to abolsh the penalty of imprisonment in libel cases and to
impose a higher fine instead to discourage if not totally deter the commission of the
crime of libel.

Libel is defined under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code as “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 cause the dishonor, discredit
or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.’. To be liable for ibel, the folowing elements must be shown to exist: (a) the
allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the
charge: (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice

‘An allegation made by a person against another is considered defamatory if it
ascribes to the latter the commission of a crime; the possession of a vice or defect,
whether real or imaginary: or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken
the memory of one who is dead. There is publication if the defamatory material is
communicated to a third person, i.e., a person other than the person to whom the
defamatory statement refers. And there is malice if the author of the libelous remarks
made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to
the truth or falsity thereof.

At present, a person guilty of committing libel is penalized with imprisonment
ranging from arresto mayor or one month and one day to 6 months, to prision
correccional or 6 months and one day to six years, aside from the fine ranging from
200 to P6,000.

While the penalty of fine must be sustained, for no crime should go
unpunished, imposing a penalty of imprisonment will work more to discourage
members of the media to perform their duties with zeal and vigilance. Instead of
looking deeply into issues that have a potential of affecting public interest and
general welfare, the penalty of imprisonment has paved the way for members of the
media to approach their mandates with doubts and hesitation. We cannot have that
in @ country where democracy is primarily infringed on the freedom of speech and of
expression, and where media is considered the Fourth Estate

Although this bill abolished the pena of imprisonment, it has increased the
‘amount of the fine imposed to allow the law to accomplish its purpose of penalizing
libel and deterring would be violators.

In view the foregoing, the immediate passage of this bill is eamestly

requested.

MAXIMO B. RODRIGUEZ, JR.


‘SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS )
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
FIRST REGULAR SESSION )

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced by Representative Maximo B. Rodriguez, Jr.

House Bilt No, 4965,

AN ACT
TO ABOLISH THE PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT IN LIBEL CASES, AMENDING
FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLES 355, 357, AND 360 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Article 355 of Act No. 3815, as amended, is hereby amended as

folows:
“ART. 355. Libel by means of writings or similar means. ~ A libel committed
by means of writing, printing, ithography, engraving, radio, phonograph,
painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means, shall be punished by [orision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods or ] a fine ranging from [200 TO 6,000, or both] TEN
THOUSAND PESOS (10,000 Php) TO THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(30,000 Php), in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the

. offended party.”

THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 90 AND 91 TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING, THE CRIME OF LIBEL AND THE
CORRESPONDING PENALTY IMPOSED ABOVE SHALL PRESCRIBE IN
‘SIX_(6) MONTHS COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST
PUBLICATION, AIRING OR EXHIBITION OF THE LIEBLOUS
MATERIAL.

SECTION 2. Article 356 of Act No. 3815, as amended, is hereby amended as

follows
"ART. 356. Threatening to publish and offer fo present such publication for
a compensation. - The penalty of [arresto mayor of] a fine ranging from
[200 to 2.000] FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (5,000 Php) to FIFTEEN
THOUSAND PESOS (15,000 Php) [or both] shall be imposed upon any
person who threatens another to pubish a libel conceming him or the
parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter, or upon
anyone who shail offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a
compensation or money consideration.”

SECTION 3. Article 357 of the same Act is Ikewise amended to read as folows:
“ART. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official
proceedings. — The penaty of [arresto mayor of] a fine from [200 to 2,000
pesos, or both] TEN THOUSAND PESOS (10,000 Php) TO THIRTY
THOUSAND PESOS (30,000 Php) [or both] shall be imposed upon any
reporter, editor, or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall


publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the
honor, virtue, and reputation of said person, even though said publication
be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the
narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts
have been mentioned.”

SECTION 4. Article 360 of the same Act is Ikewise amended to read as folows:
“ART. 360. Persons responsible. - [Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or
cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar
means] THE AUTHOR OF THE PRINTED ARTICLE OR ANY PERSON
WHO SHALL CAUSE THE EXHIBITION OF THE THEATRICAL OR
CINEMATOGRAPHIC EXHIBIT CONTAINING DEFAMATORY WORDS
shall be responsible for the same.

The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business
manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be
responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if
he were the author thereof, PROVIDED SAID DEFAMATORY ARTICLE
PASSED THROUGH SAID PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR BUSINESS
MANAGER FOR EDITING AND REQUIRED THE LATTER’S APPROVAL
FOR PUBLICATION.”

SEC. 5. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared invalid, the
remainder of this Act or any provision not affected thereby shall remain in force and
effect

SEC. 6. Repealing Clause. - All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders and
their implementing rules, inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby
repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in
at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,