An onion-skinned response

In a statement reposted by The FREEMAN on June 17, 2025, the Cebu City Police Office (CCPO) refuted a report by Nicholas Jon Malaga, which stated that there was no police presence at City Central Elementary School during the school opening last Monday. The police called this claim false and misleading, emphasizing that it undermined the efforts of law enforcement personnel deployed citywide.

The FREEMAN, on the other hand, stood by Malaga’s report. In a statement, alongside a post of the CCPO’s statement, the paper acknowledged the hard work of law enforcement, especially during critical times like school openings. However, the paper stood by the work of its journalist who was assigned to cover City Central Elementary School on June 16.

In fairness, the police in their statement clarified that nearly 900 police personnel were deployed under the “Ligtas Balik-Eskwela” program. They stated that 55 Police Assistance Desks were manned by 72 officers near key schools; 238 mobile patrol units were deployed across barangays and access points; and 556 CCPO personnel were deployed for foot patrols and traffic visibility.

Even so, that does not necessarily mean the journalist’s account is false; nor does the journalist's report disprove the broader deployment claimed by the CCPO. Both accounts can be considered accurate within their respective contexts. The CCPO deployed personnel across the city, including

near the school, but the journalist did not see any police presence during his observation window.

What catches our concern more in this matter is the police stating that they are “evaluating potential legal action against Mr. Malaga,” thus impliedly threatening legal action against the reporter for "allegedly “disseminating false information with the intent to malign the police force and erode public trust.” If ever there was erosion of public trust, it could very well stem from the police mishandling its own statement. That is why I agree with this paper’s stance that, instead of the police impliedly threatening legal action, a more constructive response from the CCPO would have been to verify the facts and engage in dialogue.

Yes, there may be matters that needed to be clarified, or perhaps facts that need correction or explanation for the sake of proper context. But police officers, being public servants, should know the “onion-skinned” doctrine, often reiterated by our Supreme Court and originally laid down in 1918 in the case of U.S. versus Bustos, where several residents of Pampanga accused a justice of the peace of malfeasance in office and petitioned for his removal. The Supreme Court said: “Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts.”

The first five paragraphs and the last two paragraphs of the CCPO statement would have been enough: calmly stating and explaining their side, presenting their facts, even pointing out inconsistencies in the report if any, and trusting that the reading public is capable of discerning the truth.

But instead of being tactful and strategic, the CCPO raised the possibility of legal action for alleged false information. The only law against false information I am aware of is Article 154 (False News) of the Revised Penal Code. Article 154 targets falsehoods that create panic, incite unrest, cause damage to the interest or credit of the State, or disrupt peace and order. The newspaper report did none of these. Nor did it attack the State or allege systemic failure. At most, it raised a concern over deployment visibility in a particular location, based on direct observation and interviews with individuals on site.

Even if the police may claim that their reputation was somehow affected by the report, that does not legally amount to "damage to the interest or credit of the State" as required by Article 154. The provision is narrowly applied and cannot be invoked merely to defend institutional pride. Damage to state interest or credit typically involves fiscal panic, threats to national institutions, or actions that weaken state authority on a large scale.

There are pending “anti-fake news” bills in Congress. Now we know that we must be more scrutinizing in passing such bills into law, as they can be used in the future for overreach by state institutions --broadly targeting any online reports or statements not because they're false, but because they challenge the government’s image or authority.