Editing Defamation (section)

===Philippines===
====Criminal====
{{see also |Mass media in the Philippines#Libel and cyber libel}}

According to the [[Revised Penal Code]] of the [[Philippines]] ("Title Thirteen", "Crimes Against Honor"):<ref name="Philippines Penal Code">{{cite web |url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/ |title=Act No. 3815, s. 1930 (Revised Penal Code of the Philippines) |website=[[Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines]] |access-date=2 September 2023 |archive-date=8 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230608093131/https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

{{blockquote |text=
ARTICLE 353. Definition of Libel.{{snd}}A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
}}

* Malice presumed, even if true; exceptions: private communications in the course of duty, fair reports{{snd}}without comments{{snd}}on official proceedings (Art. 354)
* Punishment for libel in writing or similar medium (including radio, painting, theatre, cinema): imprisonment, fine, civil action (Art. 355)
* Threat to publish libel concerning one's family, for extracting money (Art. 356)
* Publication in [[Mass media#Print media|the press]] of private-life facts{{snd}}connected to official proceedings{{snd}}offending virtue, honour, reputation (Art. 357)
* Slander{{snd}}oral defamation (Art. 358)
* Slander by deed{{snd}}"any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person" (Art. 359)
* Responsibility for dissemination; same as for authorship (Art. 360)
* Conditions for defence of truth: good motives, justifiable ends; not available for allegations of non-criminal activities{{snd}}unless related to official duties of government employees (Art. 361)
* Malicious comments cancel the exceptions of Art. 354 (Art. 362)
* Incriminating an innocent person (Art. 363)
* Intrigue against honour or reputation (Art. 364)

Related articles:
* Aggravating circumstances (Art. 14)
** Crime committed in contempt of, or with insult to, public authorities (¶ 2)
** Act committed with insult or disrespect, regarding rank, age, or sex (¶ 3)
** Intentionally causing [[wikt:ignominy|ignominy]], in addition to other effects of the act (¶ 17)
* Statute of limitations: Two years for libel, six months for slander, two months for light offences (Art. 90)
* Offending religious feelings{{snd}}in places of worship, or during religious ceremonies (Art. 133)
* Disrespectful behaviour towards legislature or related bodies, during their proceedings (Art. 144)
* "Unlawful use of means of publication" (Art. 154)
** Publication of malicious [[fake news]], endangering public order, or damaging state interests or credit (¶ 1)
* False testimony against defendant, in criminal cases (Art. 180)
* Spreading false rumours, when aiming to monopolize or restrain trade (Art. 186 ¶ 2)
* Lesser physical injury, when intended to insult, offend, cause ignominy (Art. 265 ¶ 2)
* Threats to harm honour{{snd}}e.g. for extracting money (Art. 282)

In January 2012, ''[[The Manila Times]]'' published an article on a criminal defamation case. A broadcaster was jailed for more than two years, following conviction on libel charges, by the [[Regional Trial Court]] of [[Davao Region|Davao]]. The radio broadcast dramatized a newspaper report regarding former speaker [[Prospero Nograles]], who subsequently filed a complaint. Questioned were the conviction's compatibility with freedom of expression, and the [[trial in absentia]]. The United Nations Human Rights Committee recalled its [[#General comment No. 34|General comment No. 34]], and ordered the Philippine government to provide remedy, including compensation for time served in prison, and to prevent similar violations in the future.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/16100-libel-law-violates-freedom-of-expression--un-rights-panel |title=Libel law violates freedom of expression{{snd}}UN rights panel |author=Frank Lloyd Tiongson |date=30 January 2012 |website=[[The Manila Times]] |access-date= |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509133717/http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/16100-libel-law-violates-freedom-of-expression--un-rights-panel |archive-date=9 May 2013}}</ref>

====Online====
{{see also |Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 |People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler}}

In 2012, the Philippines enacted Republic Act 10175, titled ''Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012''. Essentially, this Act provides that libel is criminally punishable and describes it as: "Libel – the unlawful or prohibited act as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future." Professor Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines has written that under this law, electronic libel is punished with imprisonment from six years and one day to up to twelve years.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/opinion/2012/09/21/lee-cybercrime-prevention-act-2012-244029|title=Lee: The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012|work=Sun*Star – Davao|date=21 September 2012|access-date=20 September 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120922225054/http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/opinion/2012/09/21/lee-cybercrime-prevention-act-2012-244029|archive-date=22 September 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/09/20/cybercrime-law-and-freedom-of-expression/|title=Cybercrime law and freedom of expression| author=Harry Roque Jr. |work=Manila Standard|date=20 September 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120922014156/http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/09/20/cybercrime-law-and-freedom-of-expression/|archive-date=22 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/|title=Republic Act No. 10175|work=Official Gazette|publisher=Office of the President of the Philippines|date=12 September 2012|access-date=22 May 2020|archive-date=9 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211209023224/https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/|url-status=dead}}</ref> {{as of|2012|9|30}}, five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court, one by Senator [[Teofisto Guingona III]]. The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression, due process, equal protection and privacy of communication.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/4966-cybercrime-law-draws-outrage-among-netizens|title=Cybercrime law Draws Outrage Among Netizens|date=30 September 2012|newspaper=The Daily Tribune|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121029032238/http://www.tribune.net.ph/index.php/headlines/item/4966-cybercrime-law-draws-outrage-among-netizens|archive-date=29 October 2012}}</ref>