Is criticism against the government libelous?
The answer is not always. In the Philippines, criticism of the government is generally protected speech under the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression (Art. III, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution). But there are limits, especially when such criticism crosses into defamation against specific persons.
Key Legal Points1. Criticism vs. Defamation
Criticism of government policies, programs, or officials in their official capacity is part of democratic discourse. This is usually not libel, because public officials are expected to be open to scrutiny.
However, if criticism includes false, malicious statements attacking the personal character of a government official (not just their job performance), it may become libelous.
2. Public Officials Have Lesser Protection
The Supreme Court has repeatedly said public officials must endure more criticism than private individuals.
U.S. jurisprudence (which influences PH law) in New York Times v. Sullivan established the “actual malice” rule: statements against public officials are protected unless shown to be made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
The Philippine Supreme Court echoed this in Borjal v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126466, 1999) — ruling that fair commentaries on matters of public interest are not libelous.
3. Cyberlibel Still Applies
Under RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act), libelous statements made online are punishable.
But courts distinguish between fair criticism (allowed) and malicious defamation (punishable).
Example Case In Borjal v. CA (1999), a newspaper columnist was accused of libel for critical articles. The SC ruled not libelous, because the writings were fair comment on matters of public interest and not shown to be malicious.
On the other hand, in People v. Soliman (2023), a man was convicted of online libel for a Facebook post directly accusing an agriculture official of corruption without proof. The SC found the remarks malicious.
Bottom line:Criticizing government policies and actions = generally protected.
Making baseless, malicious personal attacks = may be libelous.
Practical guide for social media users in the Philippines about what’s generally safe to post vs. what may get you sued for libel or cyberlibel:
What’s Safe to Post (Protected Speech)Fair criticism of government policies or actions
> “The new transport policy is inefficient and causes traffic.”
Comments on matters of public concern (so long as not malicious or false).
Truthful statements backed by facts/documents (truth is a defense if made with good motive).
Opinion clearly stated as opinion
> “In my opinion, this project could have been managed better.”
Satire or parody (if not malicious and clearly exaggerated for humor). Constructive complaints about services or governance.
What Can Get You Sued (Libel / Cyberlibel Risks)Direct, malicious personal attacks
> “Mayor X is corrupt and steals people’s money!” (without proof).
False statements presented as fact
> “Senator Y has an affair with…” (if untrue).
Name-calling or insults that damage reputation
> “That official is a thief and a fool.”
Spreading unverified allegations/rumors (even if just “sharing” someone else’s post).
Publishing private or defamatory information about someone’s family, health, or personal life. Sharing “scandal” photos/videos without consent (also punishable under special laws).
Important RemindersPublic officials must tolerate more criticism, but you can still be liable if your post is false + malicious.
Reposting or sharing libelous content can be treated as a new act of libel.
Intent matters: If you knowingly spread false or harmful claims, that’s where liability kicks in.
Truth + good motive = defense. If it’s true and posted in good faith for public interest, it’s not libel.
Rule of thumb:Attack policies, not personalities.
Share facts, not rumors.
Frame as opinion, not accusation, unless you have solid evidence.
