The Philippines may yet join other democratic nations in doing away with criminal libel, as the Supreme Court had asked a group of petitioners against the  Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 to amend its complaint, with the group now asking the High Court to declare as illegal and unconstitutional the regular libel—and not just the cyber libel, as penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Apparently, the criminal libel provisions in the RPC are much too antiquated, with jurisprudence having superseded the provisions.
Lawyer Rommel Bagares, one of the petitioners in the amended petition, along with co-petitioner lawyer Harry Roque. in an interview with the Tribune yesterday said that the amended petition, if brought to its logical conclusion, will have shown that the existing provisions in the RPC are no longer relevant. If the high court agrees with the amended petition on declaring the criminal libel provisions under the penal code, this would translate to expunging criminal libel although civil libel still stands.
In effect, if the High Court upholds the arguments posed by the petitioners, libel will be decriminalized.
It was Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio who had suggested during oral arguments that the regular libel provisions in the penal code may well be unconstitutional should the e-libel in the Cyber Crime law be deemed unconstitutional.
The High Court then asked petitioners Roque and Bagares to amend their petition to include the libel provisions found in the RPC.
The amended petition, Bagares said, was filed during the last day of the oral arguments.
Originally the petitioners filed their plea last September questioning the “electronic libel” or e-libel provision of the law, saying it was in violation of the constitutional right to free expression.
“It is clear that any discussion on the constitutionality of the libel provisions in the Cybercrime Prevention Act cannot be divorced from a serious consideration of the aformentioned libel provisions in the Revised Penal Code, which are referred to in the former directly or by implication,” the petitioners said in its second amended petition dated late last month.
The petitioners in their amended plea, wants the SC to declare as unconstitutional the following sections of the Revised Penal Code:
Article 355, which punishes libel and sets penalties for its commission.
Article 353, which defines libel.
Article 354, which states that malice is presumed for every defamatory imputation even if it is true, subject to limited exceptions.
Article 361, which states that truth can be used as defense against libel so long as the material in question is published with good motives and for justifiable ends.
Article 362, which states “malice” can still result in criminal liability even for privileged matters as stated in Article 354.
The amended petition stated that  “Article 355, as well as Articles 353, 354, 361 and 362 of the Revised Penal Code are unconstitutional as these stifle freedom of expression and any prosecution for libel under the RPC or under RA 10175... is a continuing violation of Philippine state obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),” adding that criminal libel in the RPC is incompatible with freedom of expression.”
The group said Articles 354, 361 and 362 of the RPC “conflict” with Article 19 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that truth should be a defense in libel laws. Journalists have been seeking from Congress a law decriminalizing libel, yet Congress never bothered to act on it to this day.
As a matter of record, too many of the senators signed and approved the cyber libel provisions.
When there was an uproar from the media, senators running for reelection, suddenly came up with bills decriminalizing libel, although there was no real move on their part to push the bills they submitted.
The other petitioners were Roque and Bagares’ other colleagues in the amended plea.