lighten up. you are only judging based on what you perceive to be the Catholic Church. the pastoral care of the Roman Catholic Church is where you see the difference. if you have not tried to drive down a single nail for a GK house, just try holding back the venom until you have actually pissed blood just so the next house will be built early enough for a family to move in.

just try.

lighten up. you are only judging based on what you perceive to be the Catholic Church. the pastoral care of the Roman Catholic Church is where you see the difference. if you have not tried to drive down a single nail for a GK house, just try holding back the venom until you have not actually pissed blood just so the next house will be built early enough for a family to move in.

just try.

“The biggest atrocities in history have been perpetrated by people and societies who have traditionally believed in a higher power but rejected it in favor of the ultimate authority of the State.”

u speak the truth.

Oh,look: it’s automatic (the linkie, I mean). Asteeg ^_^

I found in Chan Robles (www.chanrobles.com) an SC decision that, among other things, enumerated what constitutes libel. I’m sorry if I don’t know how to manually put in the link here, but copy-paste this: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralawgrno141332december112003.html

Anyway, here’s how the decision defined malice: “There is malice when the author is prompted by personal ill will or spite and speaks not in response to a duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed.”

Libel also requires publication: “In libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written.”

Those are from the SC decision itself.

I saw a post above that insists on the Freedom of Expression as a counter to libel. I wish to remind you that Freedoms have corresponding Responsibilities.

amending the libel law is way overdue.

but our bright legislators have more important things to attend to. like the perpetual NBN-ZTE hearings

One thing is that those that are in power can not abuse and utilize the office of the Public Prosecutors for other than truly a meritorious cases.

Secondly, journalists and individuals will be very discerning as civil suit will be very expensive and may require insurance on most journalist to practise their profession. Yet, the public can trust the publication and news as mostly would carry the TRUTH as the threat of Libel would make it possible..

all the prosecution needs to do is (1) identify the publication where the defamatory statement is printed, (2) identify who wrote the statement (included here is the writer’s editor and publisher), (3) identify the object of defamation, and (4) prove publication

theres no violation of the constitutional presumption of innocence. take note, the accused in a libel case is still presumed innocent, its just that he has the burden of showing that his remark wasn’t made with malice. the prosecution must still prove the enumeration above, for the presumption of libel to attach. if the prosecution fails to establish the enumeration above, then the presumption of libel does not attach.

what if there was no publication, so no third party was able to read the defamatory statement? or what if the remark was made by someone other than the accused? what if the object of the defamation was not sufficiently identified (like in blind items)? all these defeat the libel case, without the accused ever having to overturn the presumption of malice

in short, the prosecution still has work to do.

but the crime of libel is still have to proven by whom? the accuser or that the accused is presumed guilty and the Onus is on the accused to prove his or her innocence and that would be contrary to the provision of Bill of Rights that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair and public trial.

there are instances where a statute will specify a reverse onus in cases on Bail Application in specific crime, but I still have to find one on specific Crime the presumption of guilt…

a defamatory statement is presumed to be libelous. the law prescribes that presumption