Decriminalization of libel: A dichotomy of freedom of the press and one's reputation

• Main Authors: Chan, Joyce Aiza Z., Cu, Krystle Rits T.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2007
• Subjects: Commercial Law
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/17706
• Institution: De La Salle University

Media as watchdog of the society experience unwarranted hindrances in the performance of their duty. Criminal prosecution from public officers and/or public figures hinders media, as it is an unwarranted impediment upon them. Decriminalizing libel has been one option as to remove this unwarranted impediment against media. However, this option tramples upon the right of a defamed individual, as the remedy is limited to civil liability alone. The government must always protect one's reputation, which is constitutional right. The tussle between valuing both rights is addressed by the researchers. The Philippine Constitution, interviews, articles and other research materials were utilized to answer the issues of this paper. The researchers have established how police power in implementing the proposed bill to decriminalize libel does not limit one's right to reputation. Due process in terms of removing criminal liability is not a valid limitation to one's right to property. One's right to property has a higher value as compared to freedom of the press. This brings about a proposal by the researchers of a bill to decriminalize libel where after final, unappealable and executor court decision, and additional right to reply is granted to the famed individual. This bill in effect is a win-win situation as it removes unwarranted hindrances against media. And at the same time allows public officers and/or public figures to regain their good reputation.