Criticism vs public officials’ performance not always slanderous, Supreme Court says

THE Supreme Court (SC) ruled that statements against public officials are not always defamatory or slanderous if they pertain to the performance of their official duties unless done with malice.

In a ruling, written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the high court’s Second Division said that actual malice must be proven to count remarks against public officials as defamatory or slanderous, citing Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Code provided that there is oral defamation or slander when (1) there is an allegation of a crime, fault, or flaw; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) maliciously; (5) towards a person, alive or dead; and (6) such allegation tends to cause dishonor on the person defamed.

“In interpreting laws criminalizing defamation of public officers, this Court notes that protection of these fundamental rights is primordial,” the 15-page decision, promulgated on Dec. 6, 2023, read. It was publicly released on Oct. 16.

“Recognizing that free speech empowers the citizens in exacting accountability from public officers, conviction for defamation involving statements related to their discharge of official duties entails proof that they were made with actual malice. Actual malice cannot be presumed,” it added.

The ruling stemmed from a Lanao del Norte village officer who accused her neighbor of grave oral defamation and other light threats following a series of confrontations.

The village officer had mediated in a barangay conciliation to settle disputes between two individuals.

The mother of one party, however, said the village officer should not have mediated “because she is dumb, has not gone to school, and is ignorant.” The ruling noted that many people allegedly heard the statements.

This prompted the village officer to raise the issue before the Municipal Trial Court, which convicted the accused of oral defamation but junked the light threat charge. The accused appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeals, which also upheld her conviction.

The accused then filed a petition before the SC, which ruled in her favor.

The high court said the remarks made by the accused were related to the official’s duties as a village officer and the prosecution failed to prove actual malice.

“Being ‘sensitive’ has no place in this line of service, especially when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public,” the top court’s decision read. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana