BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – Individuals in public office should not be overly sensitive to criticism or easily offended.
Given their roles, they are constantly under scrutiny and are expected to handle public feedback, both positive and negative, with grace and professionalism.
The Supreme Court ruled that statements made against public officers regarding their discharge of official duties generally do not constitute oral defamation or slander unless there is actual malice involved.
“Being ‘sensitive’ has no place in this line of service, more so when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public,” that is, citizens will be afraid to criticize public officers,” read the SC decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
In this case, the tribunal acquitted Argelyn M. Labargan of grave oral defamation filed against her by Aileen R. Macabangon.
Macabangon is a barangay kagawad of Muntay, Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte. She mediated between Labargan and a certain Edna Jumapit in a barangay conciliation to settle their dispute.
One day, Macabangon was passing by Labargan’s house when the village official heard the latter yell from their terrace that she was dull, uneducated, ignorant, and biased towards Jumapit. Since the terrace was beside a highway, several neighbors heard Labargan.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court found Labargan guilty of grave oral defamation. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals also upheld the conviction.
In acquitting Labargan, the Supreme Court ruled that offensive remarks against public officers do not constitute defamation relating to their discharge of official duties unless actual malice is proved.
Under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, the charge of oral defamation or slander will prosper if: (1) there is an allegation of a crime, fault, or flaw; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) maliciously; (5) towards a person, alive or dead; and (6) such allegation tends to cause dishonor on the person defamed.
The law assumes that a defamatory allegation is malicious or made with knowledge that it is false, so the person who made the defamatory remarks has the burden of proving there was no malice.
However, when it comes to defamation against public officers about their duties, the prosecution has the burden to prove there was actual malice in the defamatory remarks.
The Court recognizes that the right to free speech empowers citizens to hold public officers accountable because public office is a public trust.
In this case, the high court noted that Macabangon is a public officer. Hence, Labargan’s statements against her were criticisms of her competence as a barangay kagawad, specifically her supposed bias against Labargan in the barangay conciliation proceedings.
As the statements relate to Macabangon’s duties, the prosecution must prove actual malice on the part of Labargan, which it failed to do.
The Court also underscored that while Labargan’s statements against Macabangon may be offensive, they are not actionable by themselves./PN
