FILE

The frequency of high-profile individuals filing libel cases has become a common occurrence.

Just this week, actor Dominic Roque initiated libel charges against showbiz columnist turned vlogger Cristy Fermin.

Roque's decision to pursue legal action stems from the numerous malicious statements and innuendos made by Fermin on her YouTube channel, "Showbiz Now Na."

According to the actor, Fermin's remarks have tarnished his reputation and inflicted significant emotional distress.
The prospect of protracted court battles becomes daunting, particularly when dealing with content published behind “paywalls”.


Journalists, advocates, and activists cannot evade their responsibilities to address grievances and uphold the truth.

However, the use of paywalls to shield content raises ethical concerns. While such mechanisms are commonplace among influencers, they risk obscuring advocacy behind financial barriers, potentially compromising transparency and accountability.

Just last week, Health Reform Advocate Dr. Tony Leachon found himself entangled in a similar predicament for criticizing a local pharmaceutical company in his social media posts. It's noteworthy that Leachon also held a position in a major pharmaceutical company, Pfizer.

His allegations against Bell-Kenz are currently under investigation in the Senate, yet his association with Pfizer cannot be overlooked.

Meanwhile, Larry Gadon has been stripped of his professional title as a lawyer by the Supreme Court due to attacks against journalists, including Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa. Fermin's contemporary, Ogie Diaz, is also embroiled in multiple libel cases.

The landscape of libel laws in the Philippines adds layers of complexity to this dilemma. Originating from the American colonial era, these laws have evolved to criminalize online libel, often carrying severe penalties that stifle dissent and criticism.

Critics rightfully argue that the breadth of these laws and their punitive measures inhibit free speech and shield the powerful from accountability.

The burden of proof weighs heavily on defendants. Indeed, the financial and emotional toll of navigating libel cases is significant.

However, when false advocates, driven by undisclosed interests, persist in damaging reputations, they must face the full extent of legal scrutiny.

In this intricate interplay of legal and ethical considerations, the imperative remains clear: to pursue justice tempered with fairness and balance.

Libel cases, despite their challenges, serve as a crucial mechanism for upholding truth and accountability in the public sphere.