In democratic countries, libel is civil offense. It is considered an extension of freedom of expression and press freedom. During the martial law years, Marcos criminalized libel to intimidate the media and stifle criticism against the government. It remains the law of the land.
Should libel be decriminalized? Why is it that it has been 20 years since Marcos' ouster and no real move to decriminalize it has been pursued by our national govt officials?
If you ask me, the National Press Club (NPC) should be working on this, instead of all that black propaganda over the Trillanes-Manila Pen affair. Mali naman ang ginawa nila doon.
How can you have a truly free press if he and/or his paper has/have the possibility of a criminal suit being filed against him everytime a press man writes against a personality. Pero astig pa rin sila
Re: Why is it that it has been 20 years since Marcos' ouster and no real move to decriminalize it has been pursued by our national govt officials?
Pikon kasi yata ang mga opisyal. And there is fear of abuse by media men of press freedom. Kahit ngayon na criminalize ang libel, minsan kung anu-ano pa rin ang sinasabi. They are suppose to report facts impartially, but very often, these are exaggerated to control public opinion. And you saw how they behaved in Manila Pen. And this is compounded by the fact that in the 60s, top media guys were also top communist leaders. Also, it is not unusual for reports to be published without checking the facts.
I dont understand why the Senate is not moving on decriminalization of libel. While press freedom is not absolute, imprisonment is such an extreme measure and should rarely, if at all, be imposed as a penalty for libel. Cacho-Olivarez should not have to ask the Supreme Court to declare said law unconstitutional. That should have been repealed by Congress a long time ago. But civil damages should remain. Di puede ibale wala iyang behavior ng press natin nawalang pakialam sa consequences ng gawa nila gaya ng nangyari doon sa Trillanes-Manila Pen.