Malice an overstaying ‘despotic derelict’
A singularly pernicious impairment of freedom of (cyber)speech lurking in the present law is the legal presumption that “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown . . .” (Article 354, Republic Act No. 3815)
While the rule admits of two exceptions, as a procedural rule it mocks and renders meaningless the right of a person in all criminal prosecutions to be “presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,” (Bill of Rights, Constitution)—a fundamental and inalienable human right. At the outset, the rule lays the burden on the one accused to prove his innocence instead of the other way around. It inflicts a stifling mist of prior restraint, chilling free and open discourse. It is oppressive, abusive and downright unconstitutional. Those accused of lesser offenses are better protected because the burden of proof lies with their accuser.
It is time to slay this despotic derelict that has long overstayed its presence in our law books.
Article continues after this advertisement—JO IMBONG, lecturer,
Communication Department,
Ateneo de Manila University, [email protected]
