USAPIN SA LIBEL PART 4 (Libel against a Public Official and/or a Public Figure)
01:08.4
The term public official broadly covers national or local officials, holding either elective or appointive positions,
01:18.7
exercising discretionary,
01:19.7
powers in the performance of governmental functions as distinguished from a clerk or employee who performs merely clerical or manual functions.
01:33.5
Ang example po dito ay yung, of course, ang ating President ng Pilipinas, ang Vice President, yung mga Senators natin,
01:43.0
congressmen, mayors, governors, and other national and local elective and appointing officials,
01:49.7
exercising a certain level of discretionary power like a prosecutor, a policeman, a military official, a B.I.R. examiner, and the like.
02:01.0
Yung mga government employees po natin na clerical or manual lang yung trabaho, gaya ng isang docket clerk o government driver,
02:10.4
eh hindi po sila kasali sa term na public official for purposes of libel.
02:15.4
As such, they should only be considered,
02:19.7
as mga private individuals lang po.
02:23.2
Now, let's go to the term public figure.
02:26.4
Ang public figure naman is a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of living,
02:33.9
or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs, and his character,
02:42.0
has become a public personage or celebrity.
02:47.5
Included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public,
02:55.1
as in the case of an actor, a sports figure, or any other entertainer.
03:01.8
It includes anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person.
03:10.9
Now, owing to the legitimate interest of the public in his or her affairs,
03:17.5
the right of privacy of a public figure, take note,
03:21.7
is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen.
03:28.0
But, take note again, meron pa rin hong right of privacy kahit na public figure.
03:36.6
Another example of a public figure is yung mga vloggers po natin sa social media na meron ng substantial following.
03:43.9
Now, having answered kung ano ang ibig sabihin,
03:47.5
ng public official at public figure,
03:51.0
alamin na natin kung paano papasok sa libel kung ang complainant ay isang public official o public figure.
04:00.0
Again, pag private person ang complainant,
04:04.2
hindi na kailangan pang i-prove ang element of malice dahil malice is presumed in every defamatory statement.
04:12.7
Paano pag public official o public figure ang biktima ng paningirang puri?
04:18.0
Sapat na ba ang tatlong elemento para pumasok sa libel?
04:22.0
The answer is, it depends po.
04:25.0
Pag public official o public figure ka,
04:28.3
tas ang paningirang puri laban sa iyo ay may kinalaman sa trabaho mo bilang official o activities mo bilang public figure,
04:37.2
hindi po magiging liable agad ng libel ang tao na nirang puri sa iyo.
04:42.7
Kahit na defamatory pa ang post o ang content,
04:46.4
kailangan mo pang i-prove ang libel.
04:47.5
Kailangan mo pang i-prove ang pang-apat na elemento which is the element of actual malice.
04:54.0
This is the Supreme Court statement on how actual malice applies in the case of public officials and public figures.
05:05.2
For that matter, even if the defamatory statement is false,
05:10.3
no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct
05:15.0
unless the public official controls the law.
05:16.1
Unless the public official controls the law,
05:16.2
unless the public official controls the law,
05:17.3
unless the public official controls the law,
05:17.5
that the statement was made with actual malice.
05:22.7
That is, with knowledge that it was false
05:25.0
or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
05:31.1
What again is actual malice?
05:34.2
Ang malice po, like what I mentioned earlier in the video,
05:39.8
ay intensyon mong sirain ang reputasyon ng isang tao
05:43.7
either because alam mong hindi ito totoo
05:46.4
or hindi ito totoo.
05:47.3
Or hindi ito totoo ang sinabi mo
05:48.8
o wala kang papundangang sirain ang kanyang reputasyon,
05:53.0
totoo man o hindi ang sinasabi mo.
05:56.0
Now, reckless disregard of what is false or not
05:59.8
means that the author of the libelous remarks
06:02.7
entertains serious doubt as to the truth of his remarks
06:07.2
or that he possesses a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity.
06:14.2
Ibig sabihin, kahit na nagdududa ka sa katotohan,
06:17.3
nang sasabihin o ikokontent mo,
06:21.1
eh, pinablish mo pa rin sa social media.
06:25.0
There is also actual malice when,
06:28.2
even if the defamatory statement is true,
06:31.3
there is no showing of good motives or justifiable ends
06:35.4
in publishing the same.
06:38.7
Pero, kung ang paninirampuri ay wala namang kinalaman
06:42.9
sa trabaho mo bilang public official
06:45.2
o sa mga activities mo bilang public official,
06:47.3
hindi na po kailangang i-prove ang actual malice.
06:53.8
In other words, the public official or public figure concerned
06:57.8
will be regarded as if he were a private person.
07:04.2
Ito po ang sabi ng Supreme Court sa NOVA Communications v. Kanoy.
07:09.9
It is true that every defamatory remark
07:13.2
directed against a public person in his public capacity
07:16.1
is not necessary.
07:17.0
It is not necessarily actionable.
07:19.2
But if the utterances are false, malicious,
07:23.1
or unrelated to a public officer's performance of his duties
07:27.9
or irrelevant to matters of public interest
07:31.3
involving public figures,
07:34.0
the same may be actionable.
07:37.3
While Attorney Kanoy is a public figure,
07:40.7
the subject articles comment on the mental condition of the latter.
07:45.3
Thus, the defamatory statement,
07:46.8
the defamatory utterances are directed to Attorney Kanoy
07:50.0
as a private individual and not in his public capacity.
07:56.2
The mere fact that Attorney Kanoy is a public figure
07:59.4
does not automatically mean that every defamation against him
08:04.5
is not actionable.
08:07.5
Also, in the much earlier case of People v. Contreras,
08:13.1
ito ang sinabi ng Supreme Court.
08:16.8
Men have the right to attack,
08:20.3
rightly or wrongly,
08:21.7
the policy of a public official
08:24.3
with every argument which ability can find
08:27.5
or ingenuity invent.
08:30.0
They may show, by argument good or bad,
08:33.6
such policy to be injurious to the individual and to society.
08:38.2
They may demonstrate, by logic true or false,
08:41.3
that it is destructive of human freedom
08:44.0
and will result in the overthrow
08:46.1
of the rule of law.
08:46.8
or the nation itself.
08:48.8
But the law does not permit men
08:51.5
falsely to impeach the motives,
08:54.4
attack the honesty,
08:56.2
blacken the virtue,
08:57.6
or injure the reputation of that official.
09:01.5
They may destroy, by fair means or foul,
09:04.8
the whole fabric of his statesmanship.
09:07.9
But the law does not permit them
09:10.1
to attack the man himself.
09:12.8
They may falsely charge that his policies are bad.
09:15.6
But they may destroy, by fair means or foul,
09:15.7
the whole fabric of his statesmanship.
09:15.7
But they may falsely charge that his policies are bad.
09:15.7
but they may not falsely allege that he is bad.
09:20.6
Men may argue, but they may not traduce.
09:24.7
Men may differ, but they may not, for that reason, falsely charge dishonesty.
09:31.0
Men may look at policies from different points of view and see them in different lights,
09:36.6
but they may not, on that account, falsely charge criminality, immorality, lack of virtue, bad motives,
09:45.0
evil intentions, or corrupt heart or mind.
09:49.6
Men may falsely charge that policies are bad, but they cannot falsely charge that men are bad.
09:57.8
So, given these Supreme Court rulings and given the discussion that I just made a while ago,
10:05.8
let us now summarize the rules.
10:12.3
Pag private individual ang complainant,
10:15.0
tatlong elements lang po ang kakailanganin.
10:19.1
Number one, the statement must be defamatory.
10:22.5
Number two, it must be made publicly.
10:27.0
And number three, the person libeled must be identifiable.
10:31.8
Hindi na po kailangan i-prove ang malice because malice is already presumed from the defamatory utterance or statement.
10:45.0
Pag public official o public figure ang complainant at may kinalaman sa trabaho ng public official o sa activities ng public figure ang paninirampuri,
10:57.4
kakailanganin nang i-prove ang pang-apat na elemento, which is ang actual malice.
11:07.6
Kahit na public official o public figure ang complainant,
11:11.2
pero ang paninirampuri ay wala namang kinalaman sa trabaho ng public figure,
11:15.0
kung sa trabaho niya bilang public official o ang paninirampuri laban sa public figure e tungkol sa privado niyang buhay,
11:24.4
hindi na po kailangan pang i-prove ang actual malice.
11:28.4
Just like when the complainant is a private individual, malice is presumed na po in such a case.
11:36.2
So hanggang dito lang po muna tayo.
11:38.8
Kung may katanungan pa po kayo, please comment right down below.
11:43.7
Maraming salamat po.
11:45.0
Thank you for watching!
