Philippines: Court orders arrest of Baligod, lawyer for Zaldy Co bagmen, over cyber libel case filed by agriculture chief

Manila: A regional trial court (RTC) has issued an arrest warrant against lawyer Levito Baligod, counsel for the group of alleged former aides of fugitive ex-congressman Zaldy Co, after finding probable cause to proceed with two counts of cyber libel filed by Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr.

Baligod disclosed on social media that he received a copy of the arrest warrant only this week, although it was issued by Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 148 on June 15.

The case stems from a cyber libel complaint filed by Tiu Laurel in March after Baligod publicly repeated allegations made by the so-called "18 ex-bodyguards" — or self-confessed bagmen —  of Zaldy Co, who claimed they delivered suitcases containing cash to the homes of several government officials, including the agriculture secretary.

Tiu Laurel has categorically denied the accusations, calling them "pure fiction" and asserting that the statements damaged his reputation.

Atty. Baligod said he was unable to answer the complaint because court notices and subpoenas were allegedly sent to the wrong address.

In a Facebook post, he said he only recently learned that the court had issued an arrest warrant against him.

The lawyer maintains that he was merely performing his professional duty by representing his clients and relaying their allegations, which are also the subject of complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman and other investigative agencies.

It was not immediately clear whether Baligod has filed or intends to file a motion to recall the warrant or seek bail.

The cyber libel case is the latest legal battle arising from allegations made by individuals claiming to be former security aides of former Ako Bicol Rep. Zaldy Co, who remains a fugitive from Philippine authorities.

Co, a former contractor linked to the ghost flyover to nowhere in Albay, is believed to be hiding in Europe, with some reports stating he owns a house in upscale Paris.

In April, President Marcos Jr declared in an X post that Co had been detained in Prague.

The group, through a joint affidavit revealed by Baligod to Manila press, has accused Co and key public officials including former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, of involvement in alleged mega-cash payoffs tied to "budget insertions" and "ghost" government projects.

Co, an ex-representative of Ako Bicol party-list, accused Marcos Jr. and cousin Martin Romualdez of being the primary beneficiaries of massive illegal insertions in the national budget.

Co claimed in a video statement made from an undisclosed location that the Marcos Jr personally ordered him to execute a ₱100-billion "budget insertion" in the 2025 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Furthermore, he alleged that the Office of the President received a 25% "SOP" or kickback amounting to ₱25 billion from these insertions.

Both President Marcos's administration and his son, Representative Sandro Marcos, denied the accusations. Sandro Marcos dismissed Co's claims as "fantastical as they are false," stating that Co is merely stirring up political destabilization to evade his own legal troubles

Co's allegations have triggered investigations by anti-graft agencies but have also prompted defamation complaints from officials who deny any wrongdoing.

Co has consistently denied allegations against him through his legal representatives, while officials named by the witnesses have rejected the accusations and challenged their credibility.

The Department of Agriculture secretary has said Baligod's public statements went beyond privileged legal representation and amounted to defamatory online publications.

Under Philippine criminal procedure, the issuance of an arrest warrant means the trial court found probable cause to proceed with the criminal case.

It is not a finding of guilt.

Because cyber libel is generally a bailable offense, Baligod may post bail while the case proceeds unless the court orders otherwise.

The prosecution will still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Baligod committed cyber libel under Philippine law.

Cyber libel is defined under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which applies the provisions of Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (Libel) when defamatory statements are committed through a computer system or the internet.

To secure a conviction, prosecutors generally must establish the following elements:

Truth alone is not always an absolute defence.

Under Philippine law, the accused may invoke the defence of truth if the statement concerns a public official performing official duties or a matter of public interest and was published with good motives (lack of malice) and for justifiable ends.

Courts may also consider constitutional protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, particularly when the statements involve public officials or matters of legitimate public concern.

Cyber libel carries a higher penalty than ordinary libel because it is committed using information and communications technologies.

Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the penalty is one degree higher than that prescribed for traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code.

Media organizations, lawyers and free speech advocates have long criticized the cyber libel provision, arguing that it may have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, whistleblowing and online political discourse.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the constitutionality of the cyber libel provision in its landmark Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014) decision, while clarifying that liability generally applies to the original author of the defamatory online content rather than to those who simply receive or passively interact with it.

Baligod's case highlights the tension between reputation rights and freedom of expression, particularly when lawyers publicly discuss allegations made by their clients involving high-ranking government officials.

The court proceedings are expected to examine whether Baligod's statements constituted protected legal advocacy and fair comment on matters of public interest, or whether they crossed the line into criminal cyber libel under Philippine law.