Secretary Briones and cyber libel

Some two weeks ago, many netizens took to the social media to make fun of, and in the process, criticized the so-called “sick books” and “sick online learning modules” published by the Department of Education (DepEd) for the use of students in the public schools.

Those publications came to be called “sick” because they contain plenty of errors, not only regarding grammar and spelling, but also in the facts they are supposed to purvey.

Another problem with the “sick” publications concerns multiple- choice type exercise questions which appear to be impossible to solve, mainly because the list of possible answers to choose from does not contain the correct choice.

The netizens meant to be critical, considering that these “sick” publications not only constitute a waste of public funds, but also because of their likelihood to mislead the students who use them. That’s like learning how to play chess using a checkers manual. It’s a waste of time and money.

It is difficult to forgive the DepEd for this mess, not only because of the unconscionable wastage of public money and the bad effects the “sick” publications will have on students, but because the anomaly could have been avoided if the DepEd undertook a thorough review of the materials before giving the green light to the printing presses concerned.

The mess is highlighted by the Constitution, which mandates that the DepEd be given the largest budget among the agencies of the Executive Department. Surely, the DepEd has enough funds to hire competent personnel to review their publications prior to printing them.

Last week, an irked DepEd Secretary Leonor Briones threatened to file cyber libel charges against “malicious” netizens who criticize the DepEd’s “sick” learning modules.

That threat may have intimidated some netizens, but it is out of line. As discussed in an earlier article under this byline, a libel suit cannot prosper when the criticism concerned is directed against a public official regarding a matter of public concern.

It must be emphasized that one who seeks or accepts a post involving the exercise of public power, must be ready and willing to face public scrutiny. That is the essence of Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution which declares that “public office is a public trust” and that “public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people.”

Secretary Briones was never compelled to join the government. She accepted her appointment as DepEd secretary freely and voluntarily, in full expectation of her duty to be accountable to the people at all times. Now that the time for her public accounting has reached the level of social media, she cannot complain.

Actually, Briones’ threat is directed at “malicious” netizens who criticize the DepEd’s “sick” learning modules. By itself, the term “malicious” peddles the idea that the criticism against the “sick” learning modules was made with malice and is, therefore, libelous. Although malice is an element of the crime of libel as penalized under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, it does not necessarily follow that the mere presence of malice in the criticism of a public official already makes the criticism libelous, even on the assumption that the other elements of the crime of libel concur.

American jurisprudence on defamation law states that, among others, no liability attaches to the criticism of public officials for statements that are true, even if the same was motivated by malice. This is one of two cornerstones of the so- called “public official rule” obtaining in the United States, and recognized in local libel cases by no less than the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

In other words, even if the netizens who made fun of the “sick” online learning modules of the DepEd were motivated by malice, but as long as the errors in those modules actually exist, then it is very doubtful if the DepEd or Secretary Briones will have any legal ground to sue for cyber libel.

Besides, the “sick” publications will not go away even if the DepEd and Briones sue for cyber libel.

“

It must be emphasized that one who seeks or accepts a post involving the exercise of public power, must be ready and willing to face public scrutiny.

“

The sick publications will not go away even if the DepEd and Briones sue for cyber libel.