Just when I thought it had been made painstakingly clear by the Prosecutor’s Office that this writer did not commit libel or cyber libel against a candidate for Mayor in Manila, I just found out that he had filed a Motion for Reconsideration insisting on his complaint.

I was not furnished a copy of the motion but I received the Resolution dated 5 March 2025 of the Prosecutors Office denying the complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Since this is not Dean Nilo Divina’s A Dose of Law, I will keep the legal discussion to a minimum.

In essence, the complainant claimed that since the act that was the subject of my allegedly libelous statements was not committed in the performance of his functions as a public official as a partylist representative, then my column was not privileged communication. Therefore, he maintained, he did not have to prove actual malice.

What the complainant does not get is that any act of cheating — if true — speaks to one’s moral fitness to be a public officer, and therefore is a proper subject of inquiry.

The Supreme Court has said in Manila Bulletin v. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, 5 July 2017:

The conduct, moral fitness and ability of a public official to discharge his duties are undoubtedly matters of public interest for he is, after all, legally required to be at all times accountable to the people and is expected to discharge his duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence and loyalty; and to act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives and uphold public interest over personal interest.

In any case, the Prosecutors Office also explained that the complainant was not just a public officer but a public figure, having attained celebrity status.

Said the Resolution: “Being a public figure, it now becomes irrelevant whether the imputation is in relation to his official duties or his personal life.”

The Prosecutor’s Office cited the case of Guingging v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 128959, 30 September 2005) which said that the actual malice requirement applies not only to public officials but even to public figures.

More importantly, the Prosecutor’s Office once again emphasized that this writer did not categorically say that the complainant cheated but that she was merely seeking clarification on the missing splits.

Technically, a complainant can insist on his complaint all the way to the Supreme Court. But, in the interest of saving him time and effort, may I recommend alternative courses of action to the complainant, which are more consistent with his avowed causes: (1) Raise funds for charity quietly and without fanfare; (2) Until such time that he is elected to another post, focus his energies on being a lawmaker; (3) Being a public figure with a valuable platform, actually use such platform to take a stance on matters that actually have an impact on nation building and the public welfare; (4) Not waste the time of his lawyers by asking them to file yet another appeal/case and instead have them render free legal services to his constituents; and, lastly, (5) maybe this time, actually train for a marathon and show respect for the sport.