Public official puwede bang magsampa ng libel?

Itinuturing na krimen sa batas ang paninirang-puri. Pero, iba ang aplikasyon n’yan pag ang pinag-uusapan ay opisyal ng gobyerno.

Ano nga ba ang libel? Sa Revised Penal Code, libel ang mensaheng:

• nakaka panirang-puri;
• na publikong ginawa o inilathala;
• na may identidad ng siniraan; at
• ginawa nang may malisya ( ‘yung may intensyong manakit).
• Kailangan mapatunayan lahat ng ito- at in general, pine-presume o ipinapalagay ng batas na basta nakakapanirang-puri ang mensahe, may malisya sa paggawa nito.

Pero iba ang tuntunin kung ang pinag-uusapan ay opisyal ng gobyerno dahil walang ganung presumption.

Kung magkaso man ang public official, dapat niyang patunayan na talagang malisyoso ung mga nagpo-post ng kritisismo sa kanya. Halimbawa — na talagang alam mong walang basehan sa katotohanan ‘yung sinasabi mo.

May pagkakaiba sa kaso ng libel pag private persons at public official — dahil may karapatan tayo sa freedom of speech:

Mismong ang 1987 Constitution nagdedeklara:

“Article III
Bill of Rights

Section 4. 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.
xxx

Article XI
Accountability of Public Officers

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”

1987 Constitution

Ibig sabihin, karapatan nating maghayag ng opinyon kung papaano pinapatakbo ang gobyerno natin. Hindi lang ito karapatan, masasabing responsibilidad nating maging parte ng diskusyon na ito. Kung may maling ginagawa-dapat lang na icall-out ito!

Pinaliwanag na ng Korte Suprema na dapat sabihin ng taumbayan ang opinyon sa gobyerno para siguraduhing maayos ang pagpapatakbo nito.

Dapat hindi balat-sibuyas ang mga opisyal dahil trabaho nilang pagsilbihan tayo:

“The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience.

A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts… Rising superior to any official, or set of officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary — to any or all the agencies of Government — public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy.
xxx

it is a duty which every one owes to society or to the State to assist in the investigation of any alleged misconduct. It is further the duty of all know of any official dereliction on the part of a magistrate or the wrongful act of any public officer to bring the facts to the notice of those whose duty it is to inquire into and punish them… The people are not obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government, but only in a despotism.

xxx

Public policy, the welfare of society, and the orderly administration of government have demanded protection for public opinion.”

Supreme Court

May kalayaan tayo sa ating opinyon at protektado ito ng konstitusyon — kahit na ‘yung mga salita na minsan ‘di kaaya-aya:

“Commentaries on matters of public affairs are not always expected to conform with what is acceptable. More often, these commentaries will contain a degree of crudeness bordering on boorishness when they are directed against unscrupulous public officials. Even then, the Constitution remains steadfast in protecting these kinds of commentaries.”

Supreme Court

Pero alisto naman ang korte sa ganyang modus operandi ng mga opisyal na gustong patahimikin ang mga kritiko:

“The libel cases that have reached this Court in recent years generally involve notable personalities for parties, highlighting a propensity for the powerful and influential to use the advantages of criminal libel to silence their critics.”

Supreme Court