In essence, we state that (during the campaign period) candidates, being a public figure, may be severely criticized pertaining

to use or misuse of public funds. This is covered under the constitutional guarantee on freedom of expression. So a criminal case for uttering defamatory statements against candidates regarding possible misuse of public funds should be dismissed due to the primacy of the constitutional guarantee. Further, the candidate during elections should be subject to thorough scrutiny. Severe criticisms bordering on the personal so long as there is possible misuse of funds cannot be a ground for criminal prosecution for grave slander. Article III of the Constitution, Section 4 provides: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. Bolstering this provision, the Bill of Rights also contains in Section 18(1) the following new rule: No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.1 More so when the speech is on a public figure whose functions are imbued with public interest. In Ayers Production Pty., Ltd. v. Capulong, the Supreme Court defined public figure as: "x x x a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and his character, has become a public personage. He is, in other words, a celebrity. Obviously, to be included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional baseball player, a pugilist, or any other entertainer. The list is, however, broader than this. It includes public officers, famous inventors and explorers, war heroes and even ordinary soldiers, infant prodigy, and no less a personage than the Great Exalted Ruler of the lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived at a position where the public attention is focused upon him as a person." Clearly, a candidate during election is a public figure. And in Borjal vs. CA2, the Court declares: To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. [Emphasis supplied.]

Supplemental Information:
At any rate, we have also defined "public figure" in Ayers Production Pty., Ltd. v. Capulong[29] as: "x x x a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and his character, has become a public personage. He is, in other words, a celebrity. Obviously, to be included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public, as in the case of an actor, a professional baseball player, a pugilist, or any other entertainer. The list is, however, broader than this. It includes public officers, famous inventors and explorers, war heroes and even ordinary soldiers, infant prodigy, and no less a personage than the Great Exalted Ruler of the lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived at a position where the public attention is focused upon him as a person." [29] G.R. Nos. 82380 and 82398, 29 April 1988, 160 SCRA 861. In MVRS Pub. Inc. v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Phils., Inc.,[21] we defined defamatory language in this wise: Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the offense of injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff. It is the publication of anything which is injurious to the good name or reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute. Defamation is an invasion of a relational interest since it involves the opinion which others in the community may have, or tend to have, of the plaintiff. It must be stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself. [21] G.R. No. 135306, 444 Phil. 230, 241 (2003). Mr. Justice Malcolm expressed in U.S. v. Bustos,[48] that "the interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the wound may be assuaged by the balm of a clear conscience. A public official must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comments upon his official acts." [48] 37 Phil. 731 (1918).

How do we do the case? First, the freedom of expression is inherent to every individual. Second, freedom of expression is limited in nature.
1 2

Cruz, Isagani, Constitutional Law, 1995 ed., p. 188 G. R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999, citing People v. Velasco, 40 O.G., No. 18, p. 3694

Third, public officials or those running for elective posts in the government should be subject to thorough scrutiny and severe criticisms bordering on the personal. Thus, possibility of misuse of funds cannot be a ground for criminal prosecution for grave slander. There is grave slander when it is of a serious and insulting nature. The gravity of the oral defamation depends not only (1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) on the personal relations of the accused and the offended party, and (3) the circumstances surrounding the case. (Villanueva vs. People, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006) Mr. Justice Malcolm expressed in U.S. v. Bustos,[48] that "the interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the wound may be assuaged by the balm of a clear conscience. A public official must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comments upon his official acts." [48] 37 Phil. 731 (1918). For, concluding with the wisdom in Warren v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.:[52] Every man has a right to discuss matters of public interest. A clergyman with his flock, an admiral with his fleet, a general with his army, a judge with his jury, we are, all of us, the subject of public discussion. The view of our court has been thus stated: It is only in despotisms that one must speak sub rosa, or in whispers, with bated breath, around the corner, or in the dark on a subject touching the common welfare. It is the brightest jewel in the crown of the law to speak and maintain the golden mean between defamation, on one hand, and a healthy and robust right of free public discussion, on the other. [52] 78 S.W. 2, 413-416 (1934). Personal Ideas: Should we inflict fear of prosecution to cloak the evils the candidates may have stealthily done?