What if seemingly defamatory statements are made in Comelec proceedings against a person who intends to run for public office? Will the person who made them be held criminally liable for libel? In one case, the person filed with the Comelec a petition to deny due course or to cancel the nomination of a partylist nominee. In his petition, he allegedly made defamatory statements against the potential candidate, prompting the latter to sue him for libel. The trial court found him liable.

The Court of Appeals, on appeal, affirmed his sentence. But the Supreme Court, when the matter was brought to it for final resolution, had a different view. It said that, “In our jurisdiction, a quasi-judicial proceeding has been defined as the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law.

“It involves: (a) taking and evaluating evidence; (b) determining facts based upon the evidence presented; and (c) rendering an order or decision supported by the facts proved. In other words, it involves a determination, with respect to the matter in controversy, of what the law is; what the legal rights and obligations of the contending parties are; and based thereon and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of the respective rights and obligations of the parties.

“Having applied absolute privilege to statements given during judicial and administrative proceedings, and even preliminary investigations, we see no reason not to apply it to statements given in quasi-judicial proceedings. However, whereas the lone requirement imposed to maintain the cloak of absolute privilege in judicial proceedings is the test of relevancy, applying such privilege in quasi-judicial proceedings additionally requires that they provide procedural protections similar to those in judicial proceedings.

“Thus, we lay down the following four-fold test to determine whether to apply absolute privilege to statements made in the course of quasi-judicial proceedings, or in steps necessarily preliminary thereto: xxx As to the quasi-judicial powers test, we have held that the denial of due course or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy calls for the exercise of the Comelec’s quasi-judicial functions.

“By analogy, the very nature of a petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of nomination of party-list nominees calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Anent the safeguards test, this analysis serves to protect all interests involved in a proceeding.

“While the proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of nomination of partylist nominees are summary in nature, procedural safeguards of due notice and hearing and an opportunity to controvert the charges and submit evidence are not dispensed with. “Parties may also be allowed to cross-examine affiants. As to the relevancy test, courts have adopted a liberal attitude by resolving all doubts in favor of relevancy. It has been held that ‘what is relevant or pertinent should be liberally considered to favor the writer, and the words are not to be scrutinized with microscopic intensity.”

“The allegedly defamatory statements made in the Petition to Deny Due Course certainly pass the test of relevancy considering that they are the very grounds relied upon to cause the denial or cancellation of the certificate of nomination.”

A quasi-judicial proceeding has been defined as the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply.

“Finally, as regards the non-publication test, we have laid down the rule that when a person sends a communication to an office/officer which/who has a duty to perform with respect to the subject matter of the communication, such communication does not amount to publication.”

“Under Comelec Resolution No. 9366, a petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of nomination of partylist nominees may only be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission and no other office.”

“Further, a copy of the petition must be furnished to the respondent. Private complainant admitted that only he and the other parties in the Petition to Deny Due Course were given copies thereof. The foregoing tests having been satisfied, we hold that petitioner’s statements in his Petition to Deny Due Course are covered by absolute privilege, thus, warranting his acquittal.”

The facts and redacted portion of the decision are from Godofredo Arquiza v. People of the Philippines (G.R. 261627, 13 November 2024).