Is It Libel to Post a Politician’s Photo With “WANTED” in the Philippines?

Short answer: very likely yes, unless you are accurately reproducing an official “wanted” notice (with proper context and attribution) or your post falls within a narrow legal privilege. Below is a practical, Philippines-specific deep dive so you can spot the risks and know safer alternatives.

The Legal Basics

Criminal libel (offline and online)

Source of law. Libel is defined in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Arts. 353–362. If done “through a computer system” (e.g., Facebook, X, websites), it can be cyberlibel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175).
Elements. A post is libelous if it:
1. Imputes to another a crime, vice, defect, or anything that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt;
2. Is published (seen by at least one person other than you and the subject);
3. The person is identifiable; and
4. Is made with malice (either presumed by law or proven in fact).
Penalty.
- Libel (Art. 355): prisión correccional in its minimum to medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) or a fine (after RA 10951, courts commonly impose fines rather than jail).
- Cyberlibel (RA 10175 Sec. 6): penalty is one degree higher (i.e., up to prisión mayor minimum, 4 years 2 months and 1 day to 8 years), which is notably harsher.
Civil liability. Separately, a politician may sue for damages under Civil Code Art. 33, seeking moral, exemplary, and actual damages, plus attorney’s fees.

Why “WANTED” Is Especially Risky

Putting “WANTED” over a politician’s photo implies a concrete fact: that the person is being sought by law enforcement (e.g., subject to an arrest warrant or manhunt). That is an imputation of crime—libel per se. In libel per se, malice is presumed (Art. 354), meaning the burden can shift to you to show a valid privilege, good motives, or other defenses.

Even if your broader post is “political commentary,” the “WANTED” label is not opinion—it reads as a verifiable assertion of fact. If it’s false or misleading, liability risk is high.

Privileged Communications and Public-Figure Status

Public officials/public figures. Philippine jurisprudence grants wider latitude for criticism of public officials on matters of public concern. However:
- Opinions and fair comment based on true and fairly stated facts can be qualifiedly privileged.
- False statements of fact (e.g., declaring someone “wanted” when they are not) are not protected by the fair-comment privilege.
- When a statement is qualifiedly privileged, the complainant must prove actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth). But if your post is not privileged (e.g., a flat false factual claim), malice in law is presumed and you can be convicted without proof of actual malice.
Statutory privileges (Art. 354, exceptions).
1. Private communications made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty (e.g., a complaint to the Ombudsman or police). Social-media blasts to the general public don’t fit this.
2. Fair and true reports of official proceedings, made in good faith and without comments. Reposting an official police/NBI “Wanted” bulletin accurately and with context is far safer than designing your own poster.

Key point: If you’re not accurately reporting an official wanted notice, a “WANTED” overlay is unlikely to enjoy any privilege.

Truth, Good Motive, and Other Defenses

Truth alone is not enough. Under Art. 361, the accused must show both that the imputation is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends (e.g., to inform the public about a genuine safety concern).
Opinion vs. fact. “In my opinion, this politician is corrupt” is opinion (though still risky if it implies undisclosed defamatory facts). “This politician is wanted by police” is a factual claim and must be true.
Satire and memes. Philippine law does not recognize a blanket “satire exception.” Context matters, but if an ordinary reader would take “WANTED” as literal, satire will not save you.
Retractions/apologies. These can mitigate damages or penalties but generally do not erase liability.

Online-Specific Exposure (Cyberlibel)

Scope. Posts, captions, stickers/overlays, stories, reels, blogs, forums, and group chats (with non-private reach) can all qualify as publication.
Reposts & shares. Republication can itself be libel. Posting your own “WANTED” edit is new publication. (Simple “likes” or “reacts” are less likely to be punished, but creating, captioning, or sharing defamatory content can draw liability.)
Jurisdiction/venue (Art. 360). Libel cases may be filed where the offended party resides at the time of the offense, where the material was first published, or (for public officers) where they hold office. With social media, complaints are often brought where the offended party resides—so you can be sued far from where you posted.
Prescription. Ordinary libel prescribes in one year from publication. For online posts, expect arguments about when the period starts and whether republication resets the clock. Don’t rely on prescription as a safety net.

Election-Season Considerations

Philippine election law allows robust debate but does not immunize defamation. “Black propaganda” that consists of false factual allegations (e.g., that a candidate is “wanted”) invites libel/cyberlibel complaints and possible regulatory action on illegal or unlawful propaganda. Campaign heat does not legalize libel.

Who Can Be Liable

Primary author/creator of the post.
For traditional media, the publisher/editor/business manager can also be criminally liable (Art. 360).
For online platforms, ordinary users who create or meaningfully amplify the libel can face charges. Pure platform intermediaries (without editorial participation) are generally treated differently, but this is fact-sensitive—don’t assume automatic immunity.

Practical Scenarios

There is an official PNP/NBI “Wanted” bulletin for the politician.
- Safer path: Share the unaltered official notice, credit the source, link or cite the case number/warrant, and avoid defamatory add-ons (“thief,” “criminal,” etc.). Stick to fact and context (e.g., “Per [agency], an arrest warrant was issued on [date] for [offense].”).
- Still risky: Creating your own “WANTED” art, especially if you omit crucial details (e.g., the charge is bailable, it’s for a minor offense, or the warrant was lifted).
There are only allegations or complaints—no warrant.
- High risk to use “WANTED.” You’re asserting a fact that is not true. Consider factual wording: “A complaint for ___ was filed on [date]; the case is pending. No warrant reported.”
Satirical meme during a heated campaign.
- Risk remains. If an average reader could think you mean “the police want this person,” the satire defense is weak. Use clear satire cues without mimicking official formats; better, avoid the “WANTED” tag entirely.

A Safer Communication Pattern

If your goal is public accountability without libel risk:

Lead with verifiable facts: charges filed, case number, docket status, official actions (e.g., Ombudsman findings), dates.
Cite the process: “The case is pending trial,” “subject to appeal,” “no warrant issued,” etc.
Separate facts from comment:
- Fact: “On 10 May 2025, the Ombudsman ordered the filing of charges for ___.”
- Comment: “Public officials should face these charges promptly.”
Avoid criminal labels (“criminal,” “thief,” “wanted”) unless they are literally true and currently accurate.

Checklist Before You Post “WANTED”

Do I have an official document (warrant/bulletin) proving “wanted” status now?
Am I reproducing it accurately, with source and date, and without sensational edits?
Is my post limited to facts plus fair comment (no extra accusations)?
Could an ordinary reader reasonably think I asserted a false fact?
Would I be comfortable proving truth + good motive in court?
Is there a less risky way to say what I mean (e.g., “Case filed/pending” rather than “Wanted”)?

If any answer worries you, don’t use “WANTED.”

Bottom Line

Using “WANTED” over a politician’s photo usually crosses from opinion to a factual assertion of criminality.
Unless you are accurately sharing an official wanted notice (with careful context), the post will likely be deemed libelous/cyberlibelous—with presumed malice, criminal penalties, and civil damages on the line.
Political speech is protected more broadly, but not false statements of fact. When in doubt, state the verified facts and keep your commentary clearly opinion-based.

This is general information, not legal advice. If you’re dealing with a real post or a live dispute, consult a Philippine lawyer who can review the exact wording, screenshots, and procedural posture.