Republic of the Philippines 03 JUL 2013
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES fo.
Quezon City Poon fy

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

House Bill No. 992

Introduced by Honorable Giorgidi B. Aggabao

EXPLANATORY NOTE

Criminal libel status, embodied in the pertinent articles of the Revised
Penal Code, were enacted for the vindication of private reputations. For this
reason, libel is classified in the Penal Code as a crime against honor.

Unfortunately, criminal libel laws have been used by many, notably high
ranking public officials, to silence or threaten critics. Thus, there is a growing
clamor to decriminalize libel, either by deleting it altogether from the criminal
statute books, or limiting punishment thereof exclusively to fine.

This bill aims to review libel as a criminal statute, by developing a
different standard for ordinary private libel and political libel. Under the
proposed law, discussions of matters of public concerns and criticisms of officials
are considered privileged. This means that accusations, even if defamatory,
would not be presumed malicious. The complaint must show the defendant
acted with malice ie. knowledge of the falsity of the imputation or reckless
disregard of truth.

In short, what this bill aims to accomplish is to remove the presumption
that every imputation that is defamatory is malicious. This will make truth a
complete defense and thus enrich freedom of speech and of the press without
impairing the right to a good name.


This bill also seeks to increase the penalty of fine from the current
minuscule amount (Php. 200.00 to Php. 2,000.00) to Php. 100,000.00 to
Php. 300,000.00, to adjust the penalty to a more contemporary level.

This bill further seeks to limit those responsible for libel. As proposed,
publishers, editors and business managers may be made responsible only if said
persons actually passed upon and approved the publication of the libelous
material.

Finally, this bill seeks to curb the practice of filing libel cases anywhere.

Against a community journalist, venue for libel will now be limited to the place
where the principal office of the offending publication is located.

GIORGI |GABAO


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

First Regular Session
992

House Bill No.

Introduced by Honorable Giorgidi B. Aggabao

AN ACT
MAKING ANY DISCUSSION OF ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN,
OR CRITICISM OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF PUBLIC FIGURES,
QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEDGED, INCREASING FINES FOR THE CRIME OF
LIBEL, AND PROVIDING FOR THE VENUE OF LIBEL CASES FILED
AGAINST COMMUNITY JOURNALISTS, THEIR EDITORS, BUSINESS
MANAGERS OR PUBLISHERS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
ARTICLES 354, 355, 356, 357, 360 AND 361 OF ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

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

SECTION 1, Article 354 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code, is hereby amended to read as follows.

ART. “ 354. Requirement of Publicity AND MALICE. - Every defamatory
imputation PUBLICLY MADE is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if
no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the
following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the
performance of any legal, moral or social duty; [and]


2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or
remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not
confidential in nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of
their functions; AND

3. ANY DISCUSSION OF ANY MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, OR
CRITICISM OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT OR THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC
FIGURES, UNLESS SUCH MATTER IS SHOWN BY THE PROSECUTION
TO BE FALSE AND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEFENDANT
KNOWING ITS FALSITY OR WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD OF
WHETHER IT IS FALSE OR NOT”

SECTION 2. Article 355 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“ART. 355 Libel by means of writings or similar means. - A libel committed
by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph,
painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means,
shall be punished by prison correccional in its minimum and medium periods or
fine ranging from [ 200 to 6,000] ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TO THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND pesos, or both, 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 LIBELOUS
MATERIAL.

SECTION 3. Article 356 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“ART. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a
compensation. - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from [ 200 to 2,000] FIFTY
THOUSAND TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning
him or the parents, spouse, child , or other members of the family of the latter or
upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a
compensation or money consideration.”

SECTION 4. Article 357 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“ART. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official


proceedings. - the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine [ of ] RANGING from [ 200 to
2,000 ] ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TO THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
pesos, 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 5. Article 360 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“ ART. 357. 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, THAT SAID DEFAMATORY ARTICLE
PASSED THROUGH SAID PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR BUSINESS
MANAGER FOR EDITING AND REQUIRED THE LATTER’S APPROVAL
FOR PUBLICATION.

The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations
as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with
the [ Court of First Instance ] REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of the province or city
where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the
offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense:
Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer
whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense,
the action shall be filed in the [ Court of First Instance ] REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT of the City of Manila, or the city or province where the libelous article is
printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in
the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the [ Court of First Instance ]
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of the Province or city where he held office at the
time of the commission of the offense where the libelous article is printed and
first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the
action shall be filed in the [ Court of First Instance ] REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published; Provided,


further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal
action is filed and vice versa; Provided, furthermore, That the court where the
criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction
to the exclusion of other courts; And provided, finally, That this amendment shall
not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions to
which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law.

THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PARAGRAPH
NOWITHSTANDING, IN CASE OF LIBEL FILED AGAINST A
COMMUNITY JOURNALIST, HIS OR HER EDITOR, BUSINESS
MANAGER OR PUBLISHER, THE VENUE SHALL BE THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF THE PROVINCE OR CITY WHERE THE PRINCIPAL
OFFICE OF THE PUBLICATION IS LOCATED. THE COURT WHERE THE
CRIMINAL OR CIVIL ACTION IS FIRST FILED SHALL ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER COURTS.

Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as
provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of
the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the
province where such action may be insulted in accordance with the provisions
of this article.

No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a
crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance
of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party.

SECTION 6. Article 361 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“ART. 361. Proof of the truth. - In every criminal prosecution for libel, the
truth OF THE IMPUTATION OF THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS
CONSTITUTING THE CRIME may be given in evidence to the court and if it
appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was
published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be
acquitted.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of act or omission WHETHER OR not
constituting a crime, [ shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have
been ] IF made against Government employees with respect to facts related to
the discharge of their official duties, MAY BE GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT
TO REBUT EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFAMATORY IMPUTATION WAS
MADE BY HIM WITH ACTUAL MALICE.


[ In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made
by him, he shalll be acquitted. | ”

SECTION 7. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and
regulations inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified
accordingly.

SECTION 8. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
its publication in at least two national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved.