I. Historical Development and Legal Foundation
Cyber libel in the Philippines traces its roots to traditional libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC, Act No. 3815, as amended). Before 2012, internet-based defamation was prosecuted as ordinary libel because publication through the information and communications technology was already considered a mode of publication under settled jurisprudence (even as early as the 2003 case of People v. Macasaet).
The watershed moment came with the enactment of Republic Act No. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, signed into law on 12 September 2012. Section 4(c)(4) of the law expressly included online and electronic libel as a distinct cybercrime offense:
“The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel 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.”
Section 6 of the same law further provided that all crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code committed by, through, or with the use of information and communications technology shall be punished with a penalty one degree higher than that provided in the RPC.
This “one-degree-higher” penalty provision made Philippine cyber libel one of the most severely punished online speech offenses in the world.
II. The Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014) Constitutionality Challenge
The cyber libel provision was immediately challenged before the Supreme Court. In the landmark case Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014), the Court:
- Upheld the constitutionality of the basic cyber libel provision (Sec. 4(c)(4));
- Struck down the clause in Sec. 5 that punished “aiding or abetting” cyber libel as violative of freedom of expression;
- Struck down the clause punishing “attempt” in the commission of cyber libel;
- Declared that online libel is committed only by the original author/poster, not by those who merely react, comment, or share (thus, “liking” or “sharing” a libelous post does not make one liable for cyber libel);
- Clarified that publication occurs at the moment the defamatory statement is uploaded/posted on the internet (not when it is read or accessed).
The Court emphasized that the internet is a distinct mode of publication, but the elements of traditional libel still apply.
III. Elements of Cyber Libel
To be convicted of cyber libel under Philippine law, the prosecution must prove the concurrence of the following elements (as established in traditional libel jurisprudence and affirmed for cyber libel):
- Imputation of a crime, vice, defect, 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 (defamatory imputation);
- Publicity (publication through a computer system or any electronic device);
- Malice (either malice in fact or malice in law);
- Identifiability of the person defamed (the victim must be identifiable even without naming him/her if surrounding circumstances point to him/her as the object).
IV. Penalty
- Traditional libel under the RPC: prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) or a fine not exceeding ₱6,000, or both.
- Cyber libel under RA 10175: penalty one degree higher → prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods (6 years and 1 day to 10 years and 8 months) plus possible fine ranging from a minimum of ₱200,000 up to a maximum of ₱1,000,000 (or both imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court).
In practice, most trial courts impose both imprisonment and fine.
V. Prescription
- Traditional libel: 1 year from discovery/publication (Art. 90, RPC).
- Cyber libel: 12 years because the penalty is prisión mayor (affrefformed by the Supreme Court in GMA Network v. People, G.R. No. 253150, 13 July 2021).
VI. Venue and Jurisdiction
- Under Sec. 7 of RA 10175, cyber libel may be filed either in the place where the offended party resides or where the libelous material was accessed.
- The Supreme Court in Ayer Productions v. Capulong and subsequent cases has ruled that in internet libel, the offended party may file the case in his/her place of residence even if the post originated elsewhere.
VII. Key Supreme Court Rulings After Disini
Maria Ressa and Rappler cases (2020–2024)
- The Manila RTC convicted Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos Jr. of cyber libel in 2020 for a 2012 article republished in 2014 (the republication reset the prescriptive period).
- The Court of Appeals (2024) and Supreme Court (pending as of 2025) continue to affirm the applicability of cyber libel even to journalistic pieces.
GMA Network v. People (2021)
Confirmed that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is 12 years.Tulfo v. People (2022)
Reiterated that a single act of posting constitutes one count of cyber libel only (no multiple counts for multiple views).Disini clarification on liability of commenters and sharers
Only the original author/poster is liable. Those who comment or share are not automatically liable unless their own comment/share contains independently libelous statements.
VIII. Comparison with Traditional Libel
| Aspect | Traditional Libel (RPC) | Cyber Libel (RA 10175) |
|---|---|---|
| Mode of publication | Print, radio, TV, etc. | Through computer system / ICT |
| Penalty | Prisión correccional (max 4y2m) | Prisión mayor (max 10y8m) + higher fine |
| Prescriptive period | 1 year | 12 years |
| Multiple counts | One count per issue/broadcast | Generally one count per post (single publication rule) |
| Liability of sharers | Possible under aiding/abetting | No liability for mere sharing/reaction (Disini) |
IX. Criticisms and International Comparison
The Philippine cyber libel law is widely criticized by press freedom organizations (Reporters Without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights Watch) as one of the most repressive online speech laws in democratic Asia. The one-degree-higher penalty and 12-year prescription period are unique worldwide. Most countries either:
- decriminalized defamation entirely (UK, Ireland, many Commonwealth jurisdictions),
- retained civil defamation only (US, Canada, much of Europe), or
- imposed much lighter penalties for online defamation (South Korea, Taiwan).
X. Practical Realities and Abuse
In practice, cyber libel has become the most commonly weaponized charge against journalists, bloggers, opposition figures, and ordinary netizens. From 2012 to 2024, thousands of cases have been filed, often by politicians and powerful individuals. The high penalty and long prescriptive period give complainants enormous leverage to silence critics.
XI. Current Status (as of December 2025)
Despite numerous bills filed in Congress to decriminalize libel or at least remove the “one-degree-higher” penalty, none have prospered. The Supreme Court continues to uphold the constitutionality of the basic cyber libel provision. The law remains fully in force and is aggressively enforced.
In summary, Philippine cyber libel remains one of the world’s harshest criminal defamation regimes, combining traditional common-law libel concepts with draconian penalties made possible by the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, as interpreted and upheld by the Supreme Court over the past decade.