The Philippine Supreme Court has acquitted a woman of grave oral defamation charges for criticizing a barangay official, ruling that statements against public officials related to their duties are not defamatory unless proven to be malicious.

In a decision released recently, the high court overturned lower court rulings that had convicted Argelyn Labargan of defaming Aileen Macabangon, a barangay councilor in Lanao del Norte province.

Labargan had allegedly called Macabangon “dull”, “uneducated” and “ignorant” during a dispute in 2013.

The comments stemmed from Macabangon’s role mediating a conflict between Labargan and another resident.

While finding that Labargan did utter the statements, the Supreme Court said they were related to Macabangon’s official duties and thus not automatically defamatory.

“Offensive imputations against public officers do not constitute defamation if these relate to their discharge of official duties unless the prosecution proves actual malice,” the court said in its ruling.

It added that public officials “should not be onion skinned” and must be “prepared for public scrutiny, and potentially, criticisms inherent in the position.”

The court said that freedom of speech is “indispensable in a democracy” and allows citizens to participate in governance and hold officials accountable.

“Absent these freedoms, authoritarianism—the antithesis of democracy—prevails,” the decision stated.

For statements about public officials to be considered defamatory, prosecutors must prove they were made with “actual malice” – meaning the speaker knew they were false or showed reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.

The court found prosecutors failed to prove malice in Labargan’s case.

“The prosecution did not show that actual malice attended petitioner’s declarations. It was not established whether the defamatory statements were made with knowledge that these were false, or with reckless disregard as to its falsity,” the ruling said.

Justice Marvic Leonen, who penned the decision, wrote that allowing public officials to be “sensitive” to criticism “has no place in this line of service, more so when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public.”

The ruling modifies previous jurisprudence by shifting the burden of proving malice to prosecutors in defamation cases involving public officials, rather than requiring defendants to prove the absence of malice.

Philippine legal experts said the decision strengthens free speech protections and raises the bar for convicting individuals who criticize government officials.