The Commission on Human Rights expresses its concern on how cyber libel has been recently used to suppress press freedom and threaten the right to free expression. The conviction of journalist Frank Cimatu for his social media post five years ago against then-Secretary of Agriculture Emmanuel Piñol is the most recent case of a pattern of legal actions targeting critics of the government.
Once more, the CHR reminds the Philippine government that as a consignee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), it has the obligation to protect people’s rights to freedom of opinion and expression. When these rights are compromised, especially for journalists and critics, the government also cripples one of its informal feedback mechanisms that serve to inform and improve government policies and decisions.
As such, the CHR also urges our legislators to process Senate Bill No. 1593, introduced by Sen. Risa Hontiveros, which seeks to decriminalize libel. The Commission agrees with its observation that recently, “libel laws have been used and abused by private parties to advance their various interests, and by public personalities to shield themselves from public scrutiny, even on matters of public concern.” SB 1593 also echoes the ICCPR when it states that imprisonment is too harsh a penalty for libel.
The CHR hopes that the Court of Appeals will consider the above as they handle Cimatu’s case.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that, instead of suing for libel, the most responsible way for government officials and politicians to deal with criticism is through open discussions and the exercise of transparency. These further promote Article 19 of the ICCPR, covering not only the freedom of expression but also the right to receive and impart information, especially concerning public affairs.
Still, the CHR understands that the decriminalization of libel requires careful deliberation. Though libel can be weaponized against free expression, laws against libel remain one of society’s safeguards against disinformation. The discourse over this bill should thus encompass not only the mentioned rights; it must remain mindful of facts and truths.
About disinformation, the CHR suggests an approach similar to what the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights proposed: guidelines should be established so lawful efforts directed against libel would aim to correct erroneous information, instead of applying legal restrictions. Freedom of expression and the prevention of the spread of disinformation both contribute to human rights and must not be seen as conflicting values. ###