For Decriminalization of Libel:

INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND TREATIES.

o CONSTITUTION: Similarities with the U.S. Constitution;
Inconsistency with the same.
Long has it been said that the Constitution of our Republic
is based on the Constitution of the United States. Although
this cannot be said with certainty, it is, at the very least,
safe to say that our Constitution is similar to an extent, to
its American counterpart. A similarity shared by both is the
provision on freedom of speech and of the press. For our
own:
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.1
and for the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.2
But the significant difference between the two countries is
that in the Philippines, libel is a crime nationwide. In the
U.S., as of 2005, only 17 states of the Union have libel
laws, 4 of which are merely Teacher Insult Statutes.
There are no federal cases on libel and defamation to
clarify the issue of whether criminal libel laws are
consistent with the U.S. Constitution. 3
American jurors have, more often than not, upheld the
right to free expression, particularly when it comes to
critique against the state. To cite a few cases:
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan4 where City
Commissioner Sullivan who was in charge of police

1
2
3
4

Sec. 4, Art. III, Philippine Constitution

First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
OSCE- Libel and Insult Laws (http://www.osce.org/fom/41958)
376 U.S. 256 (1964)

forces sued the New York times for publishing an

editorial by a certain Committee to Defend Martin
Luther King, the court upheld the validity of the
publication and highlighted the importance of
critique in a democratic society. To quote:
Thus we consider this case against the
background of a profound national
commitment to the principle that debate on
public issues should be uninhibited, robust,
and wide-open, and that it may well include
vehement, caustic, and sometimes
unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and
public officials An unconditional right to say
what one pleases about public affairs is what I
consider to be the minimum guarantee of the
First Amendment.5
In the same case Bridges v. California6 was cited:
It is a prized American privilege to speak
one's mind, although not always, with perfect
good taste, on all public institutions."
In America, it seems that the rule is freedom of
speech subject to certain exceptions such as:
a. Incitement7
b. False Statements of Fact8
c. Child Pornography9
d. Obscenity10
e. Fighting Words and Offensive Speech
f. Threats
g. Speech Owned by Others (Copyrights and
Trademarks)
h. Commercial Speech
In the United States, particularly with the majority
number of States, Libel is treated as a tort and not a
criminal offense.
5 Justice Brennan, 376 U.S. 256 (1964)
6 314U.S.252(1942)
7 Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444 [1969])
8 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (418 U.S. 323 [1974])
9 New York v. Ferber (458 U.S. 747 [1982])
10 Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15 [1973])

o INTERNATIONAL TREATIES: Inconsistency

In 2001, Alex Adonis was charged and convicted for
libel due to the the airing of an article which
contained scandalous allegations about a politician
running about naked after being caught by the
scorned husband of the woman he had been sleeping
with. To this effect, the United Nations Human Rights
Commission issued a statement based on General
Comment No. 3411 stating that:
"Defamations laws should not ... stifle
freedom of expression. Penal defamation
laws should include defense of truth."
According to the UNHRC our libel laws are
inconsistent with International Covenant on Civil
Political Rights. According to Art. 2.2 of the said
covenant:
"State party undertakes to take all necessary
steps, in accordance with constitutional
processes, to give effect to right recognized in
the Convention."12
This is commitment which we have obviously failed
to honor.

DECRIMINALIZATION OF LIBEL: A growing international trend.

The International Press Institute traces the origin of Libel to
England13, now part of Great Britain. Ironically, Parliament
abolished criminal libel by enacting the Coroners and
Justice Act of 200914
The Supreme Court of Bermuda also declared
unconstitutional its libel statute15
The law of libel developed many centuries before the idea
of human rights entered the statute books, as part of the

11 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf
12 International Covenant on Civil Political Rights
13
http://www.freemedia.at/fileadmin/media/Documents/IPI_general/IPI_W
hite_Paper_Website_Version_Final.pdf
14 Section 73
15
http://www.gov.bm/portal/erver.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_10809_204_22
6633_43/http%3B/ptpublisher.gov.bm
%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/non_ministerial/judiciary/judgment
s_2011/judgment_2011_no_35_charles_richardson_august_12_2011_fin
al.pdf

arsenal of the wealthy. From its origins in the eleventh

century to todays million-pound court cases, libel law has
been used to protect the rich and powerful from criticism
and has come to be associated with money rather than
justice.16
In sum, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights has always
recognized the right of a person to legal protection against attacks
upon their honor and reputation, this usually came in the form of an
award for damages which they may sustain. A penal sanction for
speaking ones mind is too much as it discourages the exercise of free
speech. The state is responsible for finding an appropriate balance
between free speech and the protection of reputation.17
Here are some decent sources/articles:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf
http://www.freemedia.at/fileadmin/media/Documents/IPI_general/IPI_W
hite_Paper_Website_Version_Final.pdf
http://www.libelreform.org/the-report?start=3
http://www.gov.bm/portal/erver.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_10809_204_22
6633_43/http%3B/ptpublisher.gov.bm
%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/non_ministerial/judiciary/judgment
s_2011/judgment_2011_no_35_charles_richardson_august_12_2011_fin
al.pdf
HOPE THIS HELPS <3

16 http://www.libelreform.org/the-report?start=3
17 http://www.libelreform.org/the-report?start=3