Justice Should Not Depend on Who Can Afford It

In the Philippines, you do not have to win a libel case to break the person you filed it against. Often, simply filing the complaint is enough.

Libel remains a criminal offense under Articles 353 to 355 of the Revised Penal Code, a law enacted in 1930. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 increased the penalties for statements made online. In practice, however, imprisonment is rarely the most immediate consequence. The real burden begins the moment a complaint is filed, long before any court determines whether the accusation has merit.

In many libel cases, the central question is no longer whether a statement is true. It becomes whether the accused can afford the years and expense required to defend it.

The imbalance is striking. Filing a libel complaint generally requires relatively modest resources. Defending one does not. Retaining private counsel for a criminal case often requires a substantial acceptance fee before the first hearing, followed by additional legal expenses for appearances, motions, and appeals. Because contested cases can take years to resolve—and even longer if they reach the appellate courts—the financial burden accumulates steadily over time.

The costs rarely fall on the accused alone. Legal fees compete with household necessities. Savings intended for education, healthcare, or retirement may be redirected toward litigation. Families borrow money, sell assets, or postpone important plans simply to sustain a defense. Even when an accused is eventually acquitted, the financial and emotional toll has already been paid.

Recent events illustrate how multiple complaints can significantly increase that burden. Earlier this year, several individuals identifying themselves as former Marines publicly alleged that they had transported cash connected to allegedly irregular flood-control projects. The truth or falsity of those allegations remains for the appropriate investigative bodies and the courts to determine, and those accused have denied wrongdoing.

What is beyond dispute is that multiple cyber libel complaints have since been filed against some of the individuals who made the allegations, with public statements indicating that additional complaints may follow if further interviews are given. Each separate complaint requires legal representation, court appearances, and considerable time and expense to defend.

For many of those involved, these costs are substantial. Former enlisted personnel generally do not possess the financial resources available to prominent political figures or senior public officials. Regardless of how the cases are ultimately decided, years of litigation may consume savings accumulated over an entire career.

This dynamic raises an important public policy concern. Criminal libel can become more than a means of protecting reputation. It can also function as a powerful deterrent against criticism, investigative reporting, and whistleblowing. Even when defendants eventually prevail, the process itself may discourage others from speaking on matters of public interest.

The result is a chilling effect that extends beyond any individual case. Reporters may abandon investigations. Citizens may choose not to publish concerns they believe deserve public attention. Potential witnesses may remain silent rather than risk years of litigation. The public loses access to information that could otherwise contribute to informed democratic debate.

None of this suggests that reputations deserve no protection. False and malicious statements can cause genuine harm, and those injured should have an effective legal remedy. The question is whether imprisonment—and the burdens of criminal prosecution—is the appropriate response.

Many legal scholars, media organizations, and civil society groups have long advocated decriminalizing libel while preserving civil remedies for those who suffer actual damage to their reputation. Under such a system, legitimate victims could still seek compensation through the courts, but criminal prosecution and the threat of imprisonment would no longer accompany disputes over speech.

Bills proposing this reform have been introduced repeatedly in Congress, yet none has become law.

Until meaningful reform is enacted, criminal libel will continue to serve not only as a legal remedy but also, in some cases, as an instrument whose greatest force lies in the cost of defending against it. For many Filipinos, justice is not lost because a judge rules against them. It is lost because the price of reaching that judgment is simply beyond their means.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are intended to encourage public discussion on governance and national issues. They do not represent any official position of the institutions the author may be affiliated with.

About the Author

Paul Y. Chua, PhD, holds doctoral degrees in Fiscal Management and Peace and Security, and a master’s degree in National Security Administration. He has completed executive programs in several countries specializing in transport, migration, urban planning, and public policy, with emphasis on governance, innovation, and integrity.