My thoughts on the cyber libel threat (2nd comment):


1.) We have a legal doctrine called 
**Fair Commentaries on Public Interest**

The video was addressing bloc voting and political accountability. 

By law, honest expressions of opinion regarding how powerful institutions affect national governance **cannot** be classified as criminal libel.

So even if a commentary is slanted, harsh, or heavily biased, it remains protected and unlikely to be considered as libel as it deals with matters of public affairs and interest. 

*Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466 (1999)*


2.) Article 355 of Revised Penal Code:
 libel cannot be committed against an entire organization. Oops.


3.) SLAPP Law Protections:

 Under this lawn courts canthrow out lawsuits concerning Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). 

Basicaly if an influential group/organization files a libel case simply to silence critics and stop public scrutiny, judges can dismiss it as *legal harassment*.

We also have laws concerning "actual malice" but Ill skip that for now. Might become too philosophical. 
Basically this means there is 100 percent disregard for the truth. But they ARE doing bloc voting. So, not 100 percent 😆


3.)  If there is one thing the INCult is afraid of, it's **public scrutiny**

👉there is somwthing we call the *Striesland effect*

If the cult files a high-profile cyber libel like this one, this would only attract unwanted attention on their doctrines, specifically "bloc voting". 

Now people will ask if Dr. Maggay is correct that bloc voting is against the consitution of democracy. 
The proverbial opening a can of worms. 


👉 and my favorite point whenever some cultists online cry "oh we will sue you for cyber libel". 

Legal Discovery <mic drop>

Here's the thing:

Under Rules 23 to 29 of the Philippine Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Filing a lawsuit activates the trap card "Modes of Discovery."   

This gives defense lawyers the legal right to FORCE the INC to yield evidences like internal documents, financial records, digital footprints, even visitor logbooks, and undergo depositions (think 1 on 1 interviews) under oath. 

This is the reason the INC lost their case in Canada against the CBC. 

They refused to yield the said evidences to the the defense. 
If you actually read the case file, AKO NAHIHIYA PARA SA INCult. 
Like the judge got fed up. 😅


If they sue Dr. Melba or Fr. Reyes, their legal teams will file a *Notice to Take Deposition*.


So the church leaders would be legally compelled to sit in a room, under oath, or else perjury and answer intense, adversarial questions from aggressive defense attorneys about their bloc-voting practices, alleged political favors, and internal organizational structures.


If they refuse the Discovery order (rule 29), then the judge can immediately dismiss the case or even rule this in favor of the defendant. 

If they are innocent, they have nothing hide. 





So the video is blowing up...my thoughts on the cyber-libel threat