PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE IN LIBEL SUITS

Crystal Joy M. Malizon

A thesis submitted
In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Of Juris Doctor

College of Law
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

PUBLIC FIGURE DOCTRINE IN LIBEL SUITS

I declare that I have personally prepared this thesis. I have completed the same in
accordance with the provisions of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila College of Law
Thesis Manual and all existing rules of the University and the College.

No part of this thesis is plagiarized. I understand and agree that should the thesis
committee find that all or any portion of my thesis is plagiarized, this University shall subject
me to disciplinary action.

This research project is original and a result of my work. I have not submitted this to this
University or to any other academic or non-academic for any other degree or qualification.

CRYSTAL JOY M. MALIZON

 ABSTRACT

This thesis proposes to amend Article 353 of Revised Penal Code to include a concrete

definition of the term “public figure” as well as the factors that transform a private individual

into a public figure.

The public figure doctrine is an exception to the general rule that malice is always

presumed in the publication of the defamatory matters. Under the Public Figure doctrine, when

the plaintiff in a libel suit is a public figure/public official, the public figure has the burden of

proving that there is actual malice on the part of the defendant in order for the case to prosper.

The Supreme Court also ruled, in Borjal v. Court of Appeals, that a person even if not a public

official or at least a public figure could still be the subject of public comment for as long as he

was involved in a public issue. Therefore, Public Figure doctrine is also applicable in cases

where the plaintiff is a private individual who is drawn into a public controversy and suddenly

becomes a public figure. However, the Court has likewise held, in Yuchengco v. The Manila

Chronicle Publishing Corporation, that the Public Figure doctrine cannot be applied

automatically to a person even if he is a public officer and even if he is a public officer and even

if the controversy where the latter is involved deals with matters of public concern.

The various rulings on the Public Figure doctrine thus do not lend themselves to a

consistent understanding or application of the rule on the lack of presumption of malice in libel

suits concerning public figures. Courts have been unable to articulate a consistent standard for

measuring whether a person involved in public events automatically waives his right to privacy

once involved in such issue.

This thesis thus proposes to amend Article 353 of Revised Penal Code in order to provide

a set of definition of when a person is deemed a public figure, as well as the factors which

transform a private individual into a public figure, for purposes of judicial orderliness and

obtaining a consistent application of the law.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction……………………………………………………..1
II. Background……………………………………………………..4
III. Thesis Statement………………………………………………..6
IV. Discussion………………………………………………………7
A. Laws related to Privacy……………………………………..7
B. Defamation………………………………………………….8
C. Libel………………………………………………………...8
D. Publication must be malicious……………………………..10
E. Public Figure Doctrine……………………………………..11
F. Right to privacy…………………………………………….16
G. Factors that can consider a private individual
as public Figure……………………………………………..16
V. Conclusion………………………………………………………20
VI. Appendix (Amendment to Article 353 of
Revised Penal Code……………………………………………..21