SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
FIRST REGULAR SESSION )

ee \
27M 2018 wv

)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez
Representative Maximo B. Rodriguez, Jr.

2562

House Bill No.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This bill was originally introduced as House Bill No. 2133 by the
undersigned during the Fourteenth Congress. It was approved by the
Committee on Revision of Laws as substitute House Bill No. 5760 under
Committee Report No.1656, dated January 19, 2009.

This bill seeks to abolish 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 libel, the following
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
toa 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 P200 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 a 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 penalty 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 earnestly
requested.

Uy
RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ

Ly.

MAXIMO B’ RODRIGUEZ, JR.


SIXTEENTH CONGRESS )
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES _—)
FIRST REGULAR SESSION )

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez and
Representative Maximo B. Rodriguez, Jr.

House Bill No.__2562

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

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 [prision
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 to present such
publication for a compensation. — The penalty of [arresfo mayor or] 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 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 3.
follows:

SECTION 4.
follows:

Article 357 of the same Act is likewise amended to read as

“ART. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the
course of official proceedings. - The penalty 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.”

Article 360 of the same Act is likewise amended to read as

“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 repeal

led, 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,