MANILA, Philippines — The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) and human rights lawyers are renewing calls to remove criminal penalties for libel, arguing that the possibility of imprisonment can discourage journalists, critics and ordinary Filipinos from speaking on matters of public concern.
The renewed campaign comes as the debate over libel and cyberlibel continues to draw attention from media groups, human rights advocates and members of the judiciary.
NUJP Secretary-General Ronalyn Olea said criminal libel remains inconsistent with the Philippines’ international commitments on freedom of expression. The Philippines is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), whose Article 19 protects freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions.
Under the current legal framework, libel remains a criminal offense in the Philippines. Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code provides criminal penalties for libel committed through writing, printing, radio, and other similar means, while Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, also covers libel committed through computer systems.
Why NUJP wants criminal libel removed
Olea argued that the threat of a criminal case—and ultimately imprisonment—can have consequences far beyond the courtroom.
She said the issue should not be viewed as a concern affecting journalists alone because libel complaints can also be filed against citizens who publicly criticize people in positions of power.
For NUJP, replacing criminal penalties with civil remedies could preserve a person’s ability to seek compensation for reputational harm while eliminating the possibility of imprisonment over allegedly defamatory speech.
CenterLaw Executive Director Atty. Gilbert Andres similarly argued that disputes involving reputation should primarily be addressed through civil litigation, where an aggrieved party can seek damages rather than rely on criminal prosecution.
The argument reflects a broader principle at the center of the debate: how can the law protect individual reputation without creating a chilling effect on legitimate criticism, journalism, satire and public discussion?
The issue goes beyond traditional media
The campaign has gained additional relevance as more Filipinos use Facebook and other online platforms to express opinions, criticize officials and discuss public issues.
The Commission on Human Rights has also called for the decriminalization of libel and cyberlibel. In a human rights advisory issued in 2026, the CHR said cyberlibel has raised concerns because criminal complaints can potentially be used to intimidate or silence critics, journalists and human rights defenders.
The agency has emphasized that cyberlibel became a criminal offense under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, with penalties one degree higher than those applicable to ordinary libel under the Revised Penal Code.
The debate is not new.
Senator Risa Hontiveros filed Senate Bill No. 1593, or the Decriminalization of Libel Act, in 2022. The proposed measure sought to remove several libel provisions from the Revised Penal Code and repeal the relevant cyberlibel provision of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. However, proposals to decriminalize libel have not become law.
Supreme Court ruling adds another layer to the debate
The issue has also surfaced in recent Supreme Court proceedings.
In April 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed that cyberlibel cases generally prescribe one year from discovery of the offense, rather than automatically running from the date an online post was published. The Court also reiterated that cyberlibel is not a completely separate crime but libel committed through a computer system.
In a separate concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen went further, saying libel involving public figures is “best decriminalized” because criminal punishment for criticism of public officials can hamper robust public discussion. He argued that civil remedies are more consistent with protecting free expression while allowing individuals to pursue damages for reputational injury.
That position does not mean the Supreme Court has abolished criminal libel. It was an opinion expressed in connection with the case; changing the criminal law itself remains a matter for Congress.
Press freedom remains a wider concern
The renewed push also comes against a backdrop of continuing concerns about attacks and legal pressure against journalists.
The NUJP has long campaigned for the decriminalization of libel, describing criminal defamation laws as a potential source of intimidation and a chilling effect on critical reporting.
In July 2026, the Inquirer reported that NUJP had documented 256 cases of attacks against the press since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. assumed office in 2022. The organization said the cases included harassment, cyberattacks, judicial harassment and libel or cyberlibel complaints.
The numbers illustrate why the libel debate is increasingly being framed not only as a legal question but also as a press-freedom and democratic-participation issue.
What decriminalizing libel would actually mean
Decriminalization would not mean that people could freely publish false or defamatory accusations without consequences.
The central proposal is to remove criminal punishment, particularly imprisonment, while retaining civil remedies that could allow people whose reputations have been harmed to pursue damages.
Supporters argue that this approach could strike a better balance between protecting reputation and protecting freedom of expression.
Opponents or critics of such reforms could argue, however, that removing criminal penalties may weaken deterrence against deliberately defamatory statements. That tension is at the heart of the legislative debate.
For now, criminal libel and cyberlibel remain part of Philippine law. The NUJP and CenterLaw’s renewed call is therefore a push for legislative change—not an announcement that criminal libel has already been abolished.
The bigger question now is whether Congress will eventually act on decades-old calls to replace criminal defamation with civil remedies—or whether the country’s existing libel framework will remain in place despite growing concerns from journalists, human rights advocates and some members of the judiciary.
And as more Filipinos move their political debates, criticism and commentary online, the question becomes even harder to ignore: should a Facebook post, news story or public criticism ever be enough to put someone at risk of imprisonment?
Leave a Reply