2 SC justices: shift burden of proving malice to public officials

The legal burden of proving malice should be shifted from defendants to public officials. This is what the dissenting opinions of Senior Justices Antonio Carpio and Arturo Brion say on the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act. The present “presumed malice rule” requires the defendant to prove that he or she had a justifiable motive in publicizing defamatory information and Carpio wanted this struck down when it comes to public officers or public figures. The Cybercrime law’s adaption of this rule is “a gross constitutional anomaly,” Carpio said, but he and Brion were outvoted. The Supreme Court ruled online libel to be constitutional where it pertains to the original author of libelous content.


Read the full story on Rappler.