Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City, Metro Manila

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

House Bill No.3 498

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

AN ACT
DEFINING STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,
PROHIBITING THE FILING THEREOF, PROVIDING MEASURES
FOR ITS DISMISSAL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

EXPLANATORY NOTE

‘The past several years have witnessed the proliferation of a special kind of harassment suit
called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) as a powerful mechanism for
stifling the cognate rights of freedom of speech, expression, ot of the press, and the right of
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

SLAPPs defy simple definition. ‘They are initiated by influential entities like corporations,
government officials, politicians, landlords, or employers against community residents,
indigenous peoples, envitonmentalists, members of the press, peasants, workers, students, or
even against ordinary citizens to prevent them from fully exercising their right to participate
in matters of public concem.

‘The term SLAPP was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope
Canan and George W. Pring. It was originally defined as “a lawsuit involving
communications made to petition for a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a
baseless suit filed against individuals or non-governmental organizations, on a substantive
issue of some public interest or social significance.” It has since been defined more broadly
to include suits arising from speech on any public issue.

Essentially, SLAPPs are designed and intended to intimidate and silence certain public
constituencies by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their
advocacies and concems. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the plaintiff or
complainant. Their goals are accomplished if the defendant, respondent or accused
succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and thereby
abandons the public advocacy.


According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the
head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."

SLAPPs are cloaked as claims or accusations for multi-million libel suits, slander, grave
coercion, nuisance, illegal assembly, direct assault, resistance and disobedience, and
injunction, to name a few.

In the Philippines, for instance, a notable SLAPP case involves the charges against fifteen
(15) individuals in connection with the evacuation of some 700 amads to a church sanctuary
in Davao City. The dumads left their homes because of alleged human rights violations and
militarization in their communities. The Haran 15, as they are collectively called, are
composed of human rights workers, church people, prominent members of indigenous
peoples and socio-civic groups, were charged with kidnapping and illegal detention. The case
was eventually dismissed by the Department of Justice after finding no probable cause for
the commission of the accused crime.

For all the diversity of SLAPPs, however, their unifying features make them a dangerous
force: they are brought not in pursuit of justice, but rather to ensnare their targets in costly
litigation that distracts them from the controversy at hand, and to deter them and others
from engaging in their rights of speech and petition on issues of public concern.

Hence, the poor and the marginalized sectors, who have become the usual victims of
SLAPPs, find it difficult to continue their work or pursue their livelihood, engage in social
and participative actions, and assert their civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights
as they are being burdened, restrained, threatened, or distressed by SLAPPs.

‘The inequality of wealth and resources between the rich and the poor, the abuse of power
and processes, the lack of independence and impartiality of prosecutors and judges, among
other reasons, bring about these SLAPPs.

In other jurisdictions, particularly in Canada, Europe, and twenty-six (26) States and one (1)
territory of the Unites States, to name a few, the disturbing increase in SLAPPs has led said
jurisdictions to either enact anti-SLAPP legislations or promulgate rules against SLAPPs.

Hence, this proposed measure is being filed as a concrete step to address the societal
problems caused by SLAPPs in the Philippines, particularly the achievement of the following
purposes:

a. Promote and protect the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, expression, and
of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assembly, and petition the
goverment for redress of grievances;

b. Encourage and strengthen the participation of individuals in matters of public
concern;

Prevent any abuse of the judicial process that shall curtail such participation;

Prohibit the filing of SLAPPs;

€. Establish the speedy dismissal of SLAPPs;

ae


f. Award damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief to the defendant,
respondent, or accused, as the case may be, upon the final and executory dismissal of
SLAPPs; and

8. Provide the defendant, respondent, or accused, as the case may be, the right to
recover separate damages, litigations costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief by filing a
SLAPPBack action against the complainant of a SLAPP upon the final and executory
dismissal of such SLAPP.

‘This bill was first filed in February 2009, authored by Bayan Muna Partylist representatives
Satur Ocampo and Teodoro Casifio, aiming to prohibit the filing of harassment cases against
persons involved in “public-interest advocacies”. It was refiled by Bayan Muna Partylist
representatives Neti Colmenares and Carlos Isagani Zarate in the 16th Congress in
recognition of the need for the protection against legal harassment of people in
environment, human rights and other socio-civic advocacies. It was refiled by Bayan Muna
representative Carlos Isagani Zarate in the 17% Congress where it was referred to the
‘Committee on Justice.

Itis in this light that the approval of this proposed measure is earnestly sought.

Approved,

eS ee

Bayan Muna Party-List
a er
Rep. Ra ire
Bayan Muna Party List
R INKND R. GAITE
Bayan Muna Party-List


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Quezon City, Metro Manila

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

House Bill No 3456

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

AN ACT
DEFINING STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,
PROHIBITING THE FILING THEREOF, PROVIDING MEASURES
FOR ITS DISMISSAL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

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

Section 1: Title. — This Act shall be known as the “Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation Adt of 2019” ox the “Anti-SLAPP Act of 2019”.

Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. — It is the declared policy of the State to promote and protect
the freedom of speech, expression, and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and petition the government for redress of grievances. ‘The State hereby finds and
declares that it is in the public interest for people to participate in matters of public concern
and provide information to the public on issues that affect them, and that this participation
should not be impeded through abuse of the judicial process. Thus, lawsuits that are
intended to harass, vex, o silence critics or individuals or groups, or exert undue pressure on
them, or deplete their resources, thereby deterring them from fully exercising such
constitutional rights shall not be allowed. To this end, this Act shall be construed broadly in
favor of the exercise of such constitutional rights.

Sec. 3. Purposes. — ‘The purposes of this Act shall be the following:

1. Promote and protect the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, expression, and
of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assembly, and petition the
government for redress of grievances;

2. Encourage and strengthen the participation of individuals in matters of public
concern;

Prevent any abuse of the judicial process that shall curtail such participation;
Prohibit the filing of SLAPPs;
Establish the speedy dismissal of SLAPPs;

fae


6.

Award damages, litigation costs, attorney's fees, and other relief to the defendant,
respondent, or accused, as the case may be, upon the final and executory dismissal of
SLAPPs; and

Provide the defendant, respondent, or accused, as the case may be, the right to
recover separate damages, litigations costs, attorney's fees, and other relief by filing a
SLAPPBack action against the complainant of a SLAPP upon the final and executory
dismissal of such SLAPP.

Sec. 4, Definition of Terms. ~ For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be
defined as follows:

s

“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” or SLAPP includes any civil
complaint, counter-claim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc) — party complaint, or
complaint-in-intervention, criminal complaint or information, or administrative
complaint filed against individual or individuals, groups, labor unions, entity or
associations, community residents, or the like by reason or arising out of their
exercise of freedom of speech, expression, or of the press, or of the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, or petition the government for redress of grievances
in matters of public concern, and is intended to harass, vex, or silence individual or
individuals, groups, labor unions, entity or associations, community residents, or the
like, or exert undue pressure on them, or deplete their resources.

“Public Concern” means anything that involves matters of public, social, or
community issue, significance, interest, importance, or welfare.

“Claim” means any civil complaint, counter-claim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) —
party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.

“Plaintif?” refers to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the
third (fourth, etc.) — party plaintiff.

“Defendant” refers to the original defending party, the defendant in counter-claim,
the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) ~ party defendant.

“SLAPPback” means an action for damages filed by the defendant, respondent, or
accused, as the case may be, of a SLAPP against the plaintiff or complainant thereof
arising from the final and executory dismissal of the said SLAPP.

Sec. 5. Prohibition on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation \t is hereby
prohibited to file a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) as defined in this
‘Act. The courts, prosecutors and public or private officer, as the case may be, with the duty
to act and decide on civil, criminal or administrative complaint or information, as the case
may be, shall immediately order the dismissal of suits determined by them to be SLAPPs

Sec. 6, Duty of the court: Upon receipt of any complaint or pleading asserting a claim or
any complaint ot information, the court shall have the duty to immediately make a
determination whether the same is a SLAPP.


If the court finds the same to be a SLAPP, it shall order its dismissal and award to the
defendant or accused, as the case may be, damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other
relief as warranted by the circumstances of the case.

Subject to the sight of appeal, an order dismissing the complaint or pleading asserting a claim
determined to be a SLAPP shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim, and an order
dismissing the complaint or information determined to be a SLAPP shall bar another
prosecution for the same offense.

(@) Motion to Dismiss. — In civil cases, the duty of the court to make such determination
does not preclude the defendant from filing a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint or pleading asserting a claim is a SLAPP. Such ground shall not be deemed waived
even if not included in a motion to dismiss.

(0) Motion for Judicial Determination. — n criminal cases, the duty of the court to make
such determination does not preclude the accused from filing a motion for judicial
determination of the complaint or information as a SLAPP within a reasonable period of
time upon the receipt of the complaint or information by the court.

Sec. 7. Duty of the prosecutor. ~ Upon receipt of any complaint, or in the conduct of
inquest proceedings of a person validly arrested without a warrant, the investigating or
inquest prosecutor, as the case may be, shall have the duty to immediately make a
determination whether the complaint is a SLAPP.

If the investigating or inquest prosecutor, as the case may be, finds the same to be a SLAPP,
he shall order its dismissal. Subject to the right of appeal, an order dismissing the complaint
determined to be a SLAPP shall bar another prosecution for the same offense.

(@) Motion for Determination. ~The duty of the investigating prosecutor to make such
determination does not preclude the respondent from filing a motion for determination of
the complaint as a SLAPP prior to the submission of his counter-affidavit and that of his
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense.

(b) Release for Further Investigation. — \f the inquest prosecutor is not certain whether
the complaint is a SLAPP but that there is a possibility that the same may be a SLAPP as
reasonably shown during the inquest proceedings by the person arrested, the inquest
prosecutor shall order the further investigation of the same, and the immediate release of the
person arrested.

‘The duties of the investigating prosecutor and the rights of the respondent as stated in this
section shall be performed and observed with in the conduct of such further investigation.

Sec. 8, Administrative cases. — In every administrative case, whether in the public or
private sector, the public or private officer, as the case may be, having the duty to decide the
complaint shall have the duty to immediately make a determination whether the same is a
SLAPP.


In case of a public officer, if he finds the same to be a SLAPP, he shall order its dismissal
and award to the respondent damages, litigation costs, attomey’s fees, and other relief as
warranted by the circumstances of the case.

In case of a private officer, if he finds the same to be a SLAPP, he shall order its dismissal.
Subject to the right of appeal, an order dismissing the complaint determined to be a SLAPP
shall bar the refiling of the same complaint.

‘The duty of the public or private officer, as the case may be, to make such determination
does not preclude the respondent from filing a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint is a SLAPP.

Sec. 9. Non-applicability to action involving public interest. ~The right to file such
motion to dismiss or motion for determination, as the case may be, shall not be applicable
against any action brought solely and certainly in the public interest or involving public
concern,

Sec. 10. Right to file legal action and recover separate damages, litigation costs,
attorney's fees, and other reliefs. ~ Upon the final and executory dismissal of a SLAPP,
the defendant, respondent, or accused thereof, as the case may be, shall have the right to file
a SLAPPback, as defined in Section 4 (f) hereof, for damages against the plaintiff or
complainant, as the case may be, of the SLAPP, and recover separate damages, litigation
costs, attorney's fees, and other relief as warranted by the circumstances of the case.

‘The court shall consider only the fact of the final and executory dismissal of the SLAPP in.
granting the right to file legal action. Provided, That the court shall consider the circumstances
of the case in the determination of the amount of damages, litigation costs, attomey’s costs,
and other relief that shall be awarded to the plaintiff thereof.

Sec. HM. Motion to dismiss SLAPPhack. ~The defendant in a SLAPPback action may file
a motion to dismiss a SLAPPback action on the ground that the dismissal of the SLAPP
from which the former arises is not final and executory, among other grounds that may be
available upon the defendant under the Rules of Court.

Provided, ‘That if the motion to dismiss a SLAPPback action on any ground is found to be
frivolous or solely intended for delay,the court shall deny the motion and award to the
plaintiff damages, litigation costs, attorney's fees, and other relief as warranted by the
circumstances of the filing and denial of the motion. Provided further, That the same are
separate from the damages, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief that shall be
awarded to the plaintiff in the SLAPPback action upon the favorable judgment therein
becoming final and executory.

Sec. 12. Prohibition of Appeal. ~The denial of (a) a motion to dismiss on the ground that
the complaint or pleading asserting a claim is a SLAPP, (b) a motion for determination of
the complaint or information as a SLAPP, or (c) a motion to dismiss a SLAPPback action on
the ground that the dismissal of the SLAPP is not final and executory, is not appealable.
Provided, that the movant may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.


Sec. 13. Rules and Regulations. ~The Supreme Court shall promulgate the rules and
regulations, administrative orders, and circulars for this purpose.

Sec. 14. Repealing Clause. ~ All laws, acts, decrees, executive orders, issuances, and rules
and regulations or parts thereof which are contrary to and inconsistent with any provisions
of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

Sec. 15, Separability Clause. ~ If any provision of this Act is subsequently declared
unconstitutional, the validity of the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force
and effect.

Sec. 16. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete
publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.

Approved