Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL No. 3455

Introduced by
BAYAN MUNA Party-List Representatives CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE,
FERDINAND R. GAITE and EUFEMIA C. CULLAMAT

AN ACT.
DECRIMINALIZING LIBEL, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLES 353, 354,
355, 356, 357, 360, 361, AND 362 OF ACT NO. 3815 AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Specifically, Section
4, Article III of our fundamental law, in part, provides that “(N)o law shall be passed abridging
the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press...”

Notwithstanding this present constitutional fiat, the law on libel which was enacted during the
American colonial regime by the United States Philippine Commission as Act No. 277 on October
24, 1901, and which clearly obviates these fundamental rights, continues to be enshrined in our
penal statues under Article 353 to Article 362 of the Revised Penal Code

Accordingly, our libel law was enacted to protect private citizens from unwarranted damage to
reputation. Today, however, the law has been increasingly used by public officials as a tool to cow
and muzzle an independent press. Indeed, the law is meant to shield the subjects of reporting and
‘comment from media abuse. Yet, it has become the convenient and predominant way for those in
power to harass and silence critical and opposing voices. In the advent of the passage of R.A.
10175 or the Cybercrime Law of 2012, which made reference to Art. 355 of the Revised Penal
Code punish cyber libel, the threat to our peoples’ right to free expression and free press has even
become more serious and real


‘The growing number of cases filed against journalists highlights how the mighty and the powerful
in our land regularly abuse the libel law to curtail the democratic right of the press to delve into
the truth behind matters of public interest, and consequently, the peoples” right t know.

Truly, the libel law has been increasingly used to stifle press freedom and inhibit media criticism
of government officials, employees and public figures, as well as their acts and decisions.
Journalists critical of government officials or government acts and decisions speak or write under
the threat of criminal prosecution, a Sword of Damocles. The net effect of this abuse of the libel
law by the power-that-be is the gagging of media practitioners, the suspension of the truth from
becoming public, the exercise of prior restraint and the resulting inability of the people to gain a
meaningful understanding of the various public issues that are of paramount concern.

‘As part of its sworn duty to uphold and strengthen the democratic rights of the Filipino people,
Congress should now repeal the law on libel in order for the presto enjoy the free exercise of its
duties and function, and as a corollary, for the people to have an unfettered access to information
involving matters of public concer.

It must be stressed that a free press is an essential component of a democratic society. A free press
ferrets out graft and corruption wherever it may occur and exposes its perpetrators, reveals
dishonest and inept administration, contributes to the exchange of ideas, and advances
‘communication between the governed and those who govern. In other words, a free press acts as
the watchdog for the governed.

Decriminalizing libel is also in accord with the October 2011 declaration of the United Nations
Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), which states that the criminal sanction for libel in the
Philippines is “excessive” and in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) in which the Philippines is a signatory.

The UNHRC asked the Philippine government to review its libel law because it is incompatible
with Article XIX, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR. The UNHRC reiterates that “States parties should
consider the decriminalization of defamation 113 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.”

However, this does not mean that a person who has indeed been libeled by media can no longer
seek redress for the wrong done against him or act to enforce his right. The victim has the remedy
of filing an action for damages based on the Civil Code of the Philippines, such as Article 19,
Article 26, and other related provisions thereof.


remedy of filing an action for damages based on the Civil Code of the Philippines, such as
Article 19, Article 26, and other related provisions thereof.

‘A media practitioner may be held civilly liable for damages if he/she violates Article 19 of the
Civil Code which enjoins him/her to act with justice and to observe honesty and good faith when
exercising his/her rights and while performing his/her duties.

On the other hand, Article 26 of the Civil Code should remind the media of their duties to respect
the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind of others, otherwise, they may be held civilly
liable for damages for violations thereof.

The repeal of the libel law, without derogating the right of a person to enjoy privacy, dignity,
200d reputation and a peace of mind, will be a big step towards strengthening democracy in our
land, when freedom of expression shall be enshrined not just in books but more so in practice.

This bill was first filed during the 14" Congress by Bayan Muna Representatives led by Rep.
Satur Ocampo. It was refiled during yhe 15" and 16 Congress. During the 17" Congress, the
bill was refiled as House Bill No. 1008 by Bayan Muna Representative Carlos Isagani T. Zarate.
It is again being refiled in the 18 Congress with the high hopes that Congress will finally
recognize the ever-growing need to protect press freedom and uphold the people's democratic
rights.

Thus, the approval of this bill is eamestly sought.

Approved,

Re 'ERDINAND R. GAITE
BAYAN MUNA
ona
Rep. EUFE! C. CULLAMAT
BAYAN MUNA


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Quezon City
EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL No, _3455

Introduced by
BAYAN MUNA Party-List Representatives CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE,
FERDINAND R. GAITE and EUFEMIA C. CULLAMAT

AN ACT
DECRIMINALIZING LIBEL, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLES 353, 354,
355, 356, 357, 360, 361, AND 362 OF ACT NO. 3815 AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE

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

SECTION 1. Articles 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 360, 361, and 362 of Act No. 3815 as amended,
otherwise known as he Revised Penal Code are hereby repealed, thereby decriminalizing libel.

SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. ~ All laws, presidential decrees, letters of instruction, and other
issuances, orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby likewise repealed.

SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,