Of particular interest to journalists and netizens is the recent ruling of the Supreme Court, which revised the so-called prescriptive period in which a cyber libel complaint can be filed.
Correcting itself, the High Court has ruled that a cyber libel complaint can only be filed within one year from its discovery, compared to the previous window of 15 years.
In the October 11, 2023 decision which was published on its website recently, the Court said that cyber libel is not a new crime, which is why its prescriptive period should be based on the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not on Republic Act 3326, which established the prescription period for violations penalized by special acts.
In making the vital change, it noted that RA 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, did not create a new crime but merely implements the RPC’s provisions on libel when written defamatory remarks are published through a computer system.
“It is essentially the old crime of libel found in the 1930 Revised Penal Code and transposed to operate in the cyberspace,” it reiterated in a previous decision.
The Court noted that lawmakers did not have the intention of excluding cyber libel from the crime of “libel” in Article 90 of the RPC, in the absence of any such amendatory of exclusionary clause in RA 10175.
The same ruling also held that the prescriptive period of libel and cyber libel must be counted from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.
The prescriptive period may be reckoned from the publication of the libelous matter only when it coincides with the date of discovery, the Supreme Court clarified.
Thus, people who feel that they may have been defamed by a post on Facebook and other social media platforms have to begin gathering evidence against those responsible the moment they discover such libelous imputations.
Screenshots of the allegedly malicious posts should be done and saved, lest those liable remove them, which would make it harder for the victims to file a complaint within the one-year period.
Not mentioned in the many stories written about the SC’s new ruling on cyber libel is the Court’s discussion of “the continuing debate against criminal libel vis-à-vis the basic principle of criminal law that a crime is an offence against the State concerning matters of public – not of private – interests.”
It notes that many have lobbied for the limitation of actions for libel and defamation to civil actions only, upon the argument that these crimes concern only the private interest of an individual over his or her reputation.
The Court, however, reiterated that libel is not a protected speech, as a lie that is knowingly and deliberately published about a public official does not enjoy immunity.
Ultimately, it concluded, only Congress can lift the continuing recognition of criminal libel and, as long as it operates within the bounds of the Constitution, the Court’s duty is to apply it.
While legislators have filed more than 60 bills seeking the decriminalization of libel since 2004, the campaign has not moved forward and has little success to show.
In the current 19th Congress, four such bills – SB1593, SB2403, HB1769 and HB5372 – are pending before the two houses.
House Bill 1769 was filed by progressive lawmakers France Castro, Arlene Brosas and Raoul Danniel Manuel on July 11, 2022 while HB 5372 was submitted by Rep. Rufus Rodriguez on October 3 of the same year.
Since then, the proposed bills have been languishing with the Committee on Revision of Laws, of which three of the authors of the bills are members.
No other honorable representative put his or her name as co-authors of the two bills decriminalizing libel, even those who deem themselves as friends of the local media.