Every work or occupation has its hazard although only a few workers are mandated by law to be paid what is called “hazard pay”. Come to think of it, not just those working with dangerous chemicals, infectious diseases, or those where risking one’s life is part of the job should be compensated. Elected officials are also under constant psychological attacks because of the nature of their job, but of course do not receive such kind of compensation. The hazard is part of the job as they say. People who desire to be elected to an office must know and accept that they are exposing themselves to become “punching bags” during the campaign and after being elected. This is the nature of the job and therefore they cannot later on claim that they should be afforded privacy or that they be spared from public scrutiny. The equation is quite simple: if you do not wish to let go of your privacy, do not go into public office. But how about insults hurled at a public official, is this part of the job? It seems so. In one of the latest decisions of the Supreme Court penned by Justice Leonen, it once again declared that insults or harsh words directed to a public official does not constitute defamation if the same is related to the discharge of functions.
Insults to a Barangay Kagawad
Labargan (accused) exclaimed during a public meeting: “Si consehal Macabangon ay bobo ay consehal na bobo, walang pinag-aralan, ignorante!”. Later, while standing under a waiting shed, Macabangon was threatened by Labargan who was brandishing a bolo and repeatedly hacked a table saying: “Papatayin kita dahil hindi ako natatakot sa ‘yo”. With these, Labargan was found guilty on the insults but not on the light threats by reason of reasonable doubt. On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) sustained the guilty verdict on Labargan who elevated to case to the Supreme Court with the argument that his quilt was not sufficiently proven and most importantly, the statement were made in the heat of anger and made in the context of Macabangon as a public official.
No Defamation
Public officials are subject to greater scrutiny and criticism due to the nature of their roles. Therefore, statements against public officials in relation to their functions are not defamatory. Freedom of speech is protected by our constitution but must be balanced so as to protect people from false statements. With respect to public officials however, the scale is tilted towards freedom of speech in order for the public to be free in criticizing the officials to ensure accountability. The Supreme Court also said that statements made in the heat of anger do not constitute an actionable defamation. The SC also reiterated that public officials must not be “onion skinned” and for statements to be considered defamatory, it must be proved that they were made to destroy the reputation of the public official.