Opinion: Is it Time to Decriminalize Libel?
Public officials occupy positions of power and trust; their actions affect the collective. Public scrutiny comes with the job.
Published on Apr 29, 2026
In many jurisdictions, including the Philippines, libel remains a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. The rationale behind this rule is that reputation matters, and the law has a role in protecting individuals from false and damaging imputations and insinuations.
Yet when speech is punished with imprisonment, the issue is no longer simply about reputational harm. It becomes a question about the boundaries of state power, the health of public discourse, and the paramount value of constitutional rights.
To be clear, the case for decriminalizing libel is not an argument against accountability. It is fundamentally about democratic priorities. It asks whether the coercive force of criminal law, backed by the threat of incarceration, is an appropriate response to injury caused by speech.
In fact, there is a global push towards libel being decriminalized and treated as a civil matter, where harm is addressed through remedies rather than punishment. At the core of this position are the constitutional guarantees of free speech and media freedom.
Note that public communication is how citizens scrutinize power, exchange ideas, and participate in collective decision-making. Criminal libel laws have a tendency to distort this function. They introduce fear into the process, producing what is commonly described as a chilling effect.
Journalists, academics, activists, and even ordinary citizens begin to self-censor, not because they think their speech is false or malicious, but because the risks of speaking are too high. Libel is another cause for anxiety in the list of speech-suppression techniques, which include red-tagging and EJK.
Even when statements are true or made in good faith, the burden of defending oneself in a criminal proceeding can be overwhelming. The legal process itself becomes punishment. Legal fees and the psychological toll of litigation deter speech long before any court reaches a verdict.
Crucially, criminal libel laws are rarely neutral in their application. Public officials, political personalities, and society elites are more likely to file libel complaints, not necessarily to vindicate truth, but to fend off criticism.
Investigative journalists, whistleblowers, and citizen reporters are particularly exposed. Their work often involves probing the exercise of power, uncovering wrongdoing, and publishing information that those in authority would prefer to keep hidden from the public.
Notably, criminal libel has migrated to the digital realm as cyber libel. Defamatory posts on social media platforms can lead to criminal prosecution. Surprisingly, in 2022, the conviction rate for cyber libel cases was very low, with fewer than 1% of cases resulting in convictions.
However, the inherent difficulty of cyber libel prosecution still did not stop people, especially politicians, from filing complaints. In fact, high-profile cyber libel cases have increased in the past decade. In 2025, the police raised the alarm on the rising number of cyber libel complaints being filed.
The problem with criminal libel is especially acute in political speech. Purposeful assessment of public officials lies at the heart of democratic accountability. It is in this context that the argument for decriminalization is strongest. Public officials occupy positions of power and trust; their actions affect the collective. Public scrutiny comes with the job.
In a separate opinion, Justice Marvic Leonen reiterates his position that libel against public figures ought to be decriminalized, reasoning that "The continued punishment of comments and criticisms directed at public figures hampers the promotion of an atmosphere of uninhibited discussion of ideas and opinions relating to the proper conduct of those in public office."
The reality is that statements made in the course of political debates may often be harsh, exaggerated, or even offensive. The oft-cited judicial observation brings home the point: a public official, especially an elected one, should not be "onion-skinned." The role demands resilience in the face of criticism, even when that criticism is uncomfortable or excessive.
Pertinently, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Leonen maintains that this expectation is especially obligatory on law enforcement. Being "sensitive" has no place in this line of service where public reactions to such power, particularly in moments of tension, may be emotional or imperfectly expressed.
The concern that decriminalization will unleash a wave of irresponsible speech is often raised. Removing criminal penalties does not create a legal vacuum. Civil liability remains. Courts can impose damages, and frivolous or malicious claims will still be sanctioned.
Civil remedies, if made accessible and efficient, offer a more realistic avenue for redress. They lower the stakes from imprisonment to compensation and correction, making it easier for individuals to seek justice without engaging the full machinery of the criminal enforcement and prosecution apparatus.
Moreover, mechanisms such as the right of reply illustrate how decriminalization can enhance, rather than diminish, free speech. The idea is simple: individuals who are criticized or maligned should have an opportunity to respond through the same medium. Properly designed, such a measure can correct inaccuracies, reduce conflict, and strengthen public trust in media institutions.
Understandably, concerns about editorial autonomy in relation to mandating a right to reply cannot be dismissed. But they can be addressed by designing a process that respects journalistic discretion while ensuring fairness. The same principle can be applied to social media platforms. The point is that consequential public discussions can be better sustained by removing the threat of imprisonment.
Ultimately, the question is not whether reputation should be protected. It should be. The question is how. The current regulatory structure, with its punitive orientation and coercive force, is a poor fit for regulating speech in a democratic society.
History has shown that imprisonment is a disproportionate response to reputational harm. It is a blunt instrument applied to what is often a nuanced and context-dependent human activity. When the state uses its penal power to regulate speech, the risk of abuse inevitably increases. And the decline of democratic deliberation will surely be next.
In sum, decriminalizing libel is less a radical shift than a necessary correction. It aligns legal doctrine with constitutional values, brings domestic law closer to international human rights standards, and recalibrates the balance between speech and reputation.
More importantly, decriminalizing libel affirms a basic democratic premise: the answer to problematic speech is not the threat of imprisonment but a framework that allows free and meaningful political discourse to prevail.
Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco is a constitutionalist, law lecturer, and a senior research fellow of the Ateneo Policy Center.