Submitted by: Migue, Ronald Brian Q.

ONLINE BASHING OF PUBLIC FIGURES FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR LIBEL?

I. Introduction

Libel actions, when we look at them in perspective, are an

ornament of a civilized society. They have replaced, after
all, at least in most cases, a resort to weapons in defense of
a reputation.

- Henry Grunwald, editor-in-chief, Time Magazine

For some quite now, our country has faced many recent issues of controversial in
nature. On August 2017 up to second week of September 2017 alone, these are some
of the issues and still being in debated in the Internet:

- Uber, a transportation service, was suspended by the Land

Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).1 After
hearing petitions for the lifting of the suspension, the LTFRB required
Uber to pay a massive amount of PhP190 million to lift the said
suspension.2 The LTFRB chairman, Martin Delgra III, received numerous
online bashing from the people for his action, as the public interest is in
favor of Uber due to its effective and efficient use as a means of
transportation service.

1 http://cnnphilippines.com/transportation/2017/08/14/LTFRB-Uber-suspend-one-month-TNVS.html
2 https://www.rappler.com/nation/180074-ltfrb-uber-190-million-pesos-fine-suspension

Page 1 of 4
 - Kian de los Santos, a 17 year old minor, was gunned down by cops due
to his allegedly involvement on drugs.3 His death posted numerous
reactions from the people and the country is divided on the issue on
whether the police have abused its power or Kian is nanlaban. The
issue results in a domino effect of new issues, in which all issues
surrounding this case will yet to be proven: the true involvement of the
police, the portrayal of media for broadening up the issue, the conspiracy
theories against the Liberal Party for sparking an outrage4, and so on.
Those issues that come up had received massive reaction and wide
tirades from the people, directly attacking those public figures who are
involved in this case.

- Senator Antonio Trillanes had alleged the presidential son, Paolo Duterte,
for his involvement on the issue of confiscated dangerous drugs in the
Bureau of Customs. On a larger extent, the senator alleged the latter for
being a part of a big Chinese drug triad.5 The act of the senator is the
new target of criticism from the people, as his ways are seemingly
annoyingly, as evident by the heated argument between him and Senator
Dick Gordon.6

- The House of Representatives, through their power of budget

appropriation, had allocated an annual budget of only PhP 1,000.00 to
the Commission of Human Rights. The citizens of the internet,
colloquially known as Netizens, had reacted to this through satire
commentaries.7

xxxx

3 http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/08/18/Kian-Loyd-Delos-Santos-war-on-drugs-Caloocan-police-operations.html
4 http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/08/21/Kian-Loyd-Delos-Santos-death-rally-August-21.html
5 https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/inside-track/181396-trillanes-paolo-duterte-tattoo-triad-customs
6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQ6gswSOf0, video from TV Patrol: |Gordon, Trillanes, nagkainitan sa hearing|
7 https://www.rappler.com/technology/social-media/181952-viral-commission-human-rights-2018-budget-house

Page 2 of 4
 These types of current events had initiated massive reaction from the Filipino
people. With the help of the internet, the ordinary people can get their voices be heard
across the globe with just few types and clicks away. Such opinions of the people are
uncontrollable due to the internet in itself have no capacity to filter the opinions in which
the information is being fed. In Disini Jr. vs Secretary of Justice8, the Supreme Court
had defined the internet or the cyberspace as:

This is cyberspace, a system that accommodates millions and billions of

simultaneous and ongoing individual accesses to and uses of the internet. The
cyberspace is a boon to the need of the current generation for greater
information and facility of communication. But all is not well with the system
since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would want to use
cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes. One of them can, for
instance, avail himself of the system to unjustly ruin the reputation of
another or bully the latter by posting defamatory statements against him
that people can read. (Emphasis provided)

Since the internet could not filter out a number of persons who make ill of
another person, especially on those issues of public interest, the question of debate is
that whether ill opinions against public figures is a part of freedom of speech or as
unprotected speech.

Our right to freedom of speech is not absolute.9 In the real world, one may claim
that ill opinions are libelous in nature, and is defined and punishable based on our
Revised Penal Code.10

But things are different in the online world, where in such opinions could spread
uncontrollably with just one click of a mouse or from a mobile application. Another thing
of major importance is when a public post of ill opinion becomes trending, would it

8 G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014

9
Gonzales vs COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969
10 Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code

Page 3 of 4
mean that those people who likes, comments, and share that post can also be
liable?

Many other issues can arouse in this issue of online libel, to wit but not limited
to:

(1) The jurisdiction of our courts if the person accused of libel is in abroad.11

(2) Public figures have placed themselves in public eye, and therefore, it is more
difficult for them to be successful in a defamation claim.12

(3) Claiming for moral damages from libelous speech can be a matter of taste,
and not law.13

(4) If the courts will allow a public figure to sue those who are involved on
libelous speech, we can assume that the courts will be flooded,

xxxx

In this research, we would provide illustrations or examples based on actual

cases and its decisions, even provide theoretical situations for future contingencies, in
which we are seeking the ultimate goal of answering whether online bashing of public
figures is entitled to our freedom of speech or is it libelous. These are two opposites
conclusion. Therefore, we will delve to answer this research very carefully since this
issue is very relevant today and is very vital on our society today.

11
Banal III vs Panganiban and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167474, November 15, 2005
12
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
13
Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, (1987)

Page 4 of 4