MANILA — Facing cyberlibel cases, former vice presidential candidate Walden Bello has asked the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional libel and cyberlibel laws.

Bello, accompanied by lawyers Estrella Elamparo and Danilo Balucos, filed a 26-page petition before the high court on Tuesday seeking to void Articles 353 to 355 of the Revised Penal Code on libel and section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act on cyberlibel.

He claimed that these are violative of the freedom of expression clause under Section 4, Article III of the Bill of Rights.

He also asked the Supreme Court to permanently stop his prosecution under these laws.

Bello is facing 2 charges of cyberlibel before a Davao City court filed by Vice President Sara Duterte’s former Davao City information officer and current head of the Office of the Vice President Public Affairs team Jefry Tupas over 2 incidents where Bello mentioned Tupas’ alleged involvement in a drug raid in Davao.

First was a live interviewed streamed on Facebook and the second was a Facebook post which said that Tupas was “nabbed at a beach party where she and her friends were snorting 1.5 million pesos worth of drugs on November 6, 2021.”

The first was a statement while the second one was phrased as a question. Both took place on March 1, 2022, 2 months before the 2022 presidential elections.

Tupas claimed Bello’s remarks were false, defamatory and malicious, claiming she was never arrested.

Tupas said she had already left the party before the raid.

• Sara Duterte's info officer confirms presence in party later raided for illegal drugs

Duterte’s office at that time said Tupas was terminated a day after the incident.

• Sara Duterte fires information officer who attended party later raided for drugs

Bello, meanwhile, presented news articles about Tupas being sacked over a drug raid and some detained party guests claiming that she was among the main targets in the raid.

Davao City prosecutors, in June 2022, found probable cause to charge Bello with 2 counts of cyberlibel.

Bello was arrested in August 2022 but he refused to enter a plea of guilt.

His trial in a Davao court is set to begin in February 2024.

In his petition, Bello said his only fault was to talk about the “published” involvement of Tupas in a drug raid, in the context of Duterte’s VP candidacy.

“It was very clearly an expression of dissent and criticism against an incumbent official who was running for the second highest office of the land. And yet, such expression of dissent gave rise to his indictment, arrest, incarceration, and ongoing trial for cyberlibel,” the petition said.

“It is not a pleasant thing to be arrested, booked and jailed and having to post P95,000. The humiliation of being arrested, handcuffed and having your mugshot taken is I believe a very grave violation of one’s dignity,” he said during a press conference after the filing of his petition.

Bello argued for the decriminalization of libel and cyberlibel, which he said were at “loggerheads” with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.

“[T]he criminal statutes on libel and cyberlibel suffer from the same fatal flaw of overbreadth as it does not distinguish between defamation supposedly committed against private individuals and those committed against private individuals and those committed against public officers, employees, celebrities, high profile personalities, or persons involved in matters of public interest,” he said.

“Such blanket coverage of libel statutes allow for the curtailment of the precise speech or expression that the Bill of Rights had intended to insulate.”

Aside from citing Supreme Court rulings, Bello noted the Philippines’ obligations to international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and high court rulings in Kenya and Zimbabwe which voided defamation laws.

Bello, who also served as a former House lawmaker, said the cyberlibel cases against him are part of a “larger pattern of weaponization of the law,” citing nearly 4,000 cyberlibel cases filed all over the country which he said were aimed at silencing critics.

Bello cited the drug cases filed against recently-freed former senator Leila de Lima as an example of how the laws are allegedly being used to persecute dissenters, critics and the press.

“We can never allow that to happen again,” he said.

Bello warned that cyberlibel has now become a substitute for political assassination, particularly at the local level.

"Cyberlibel law allows a politician a method of silencing the politician that does not involve too much risk on their part,” he said.

Aside from facing cyberlibel charges, Bello had also been declared persona non grata by Davao City council and called a “narco-politician” by Duterte’s allies.

Bello said that even without a conviction, he already suffered prejudice not just with the expenses he is incurring but also by being tainted as having committed a crime.

Bello's lawyer, Estrella Elamparo, said the case is not just about her client but about libel and cyberlibel laws in general.

"The mere existence of these criminal laws in our law books already causes chilling effect...it already stifles freedom of expression and freedom of the press,” she said.

Elamparo added, it is high time, ten years after the SC ruling on the Disini case, to tackle head-on the constitutionality of libel and cyberlibel laws.

The Supreme Court ruled in February 2014 in Disini vs. Secretary of Justice that the provision on cyberlibel is valid and constitutional with respect to the original author of the post but unconstitutional with respect to others who receive or react to a post.

"We’re confident that the SC will be minded to look at this as a legality issue rather than a policy issue,” she said.

Elamparo called on journalists, campus journalists and other interested parties who have become vulnerable to cyberlibel to "recognize the evils of cyberlibel" as a "menace to society."