Category: cyberlibel

JPE and cyber libel

By Rene Saguisag

THe Inquirer asked: “But didn’t he [JPE] himself tell the public on Feb. 22, 1986, as he and . . . Ramos barricaded themselves at Camp Aguinaldo after the discovery of their coup plot. . . , that the ambush was fake? Together with Ramos and [soldiers] that formed the Reform the AFP Movement (RAM), Enrile, speaking on radio, confessed, among other things, that Marcos ordered the staging of the ambush to contrive a final act by his [foes] that forced him to place the country under martial law. The Filipinos forgave him, and trooped to Edsa by the millions to shield him and Ramos and their troops against an assault by Marcos’ military.” PDI, September 30, 2012, A8, col. 1.

If JPE lies, will son Jackie with his Alfie Anido problem? Fruit does not fall far from the tree? The version in the auto-bio that there was no fake ambush seems to be revisionism by one who has done good, validating that all autobiography is vanity (Durants). Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?

I borrowed a copy of JPE’s auto-bio last Tuesday, but had time only to skim it, with all else I have to do. Kindly repeatedly invited to the book launch by JPE’s staff and the sponsoring Lopezes, I could not go. I was curious on JPE’s takes on certain items. Like 1) JPE’s supposed 1986 shouting match with PCGG’s Ramon Diaz, presumably over ill-gotten wealth. Gutsy of RD as the rest of us had been tsunamied by the JPE-FVR getaway. No mention. 2) How JPE got word on the need to meet Prez Cory who fired him on Nov. 23, 1986, a Sunday, and whether what happened was what he had expected. Page 665. Cryptic. Elliptical 3) Our early post-Edsa meets on freeing all political detainees, etc. In Club Filipino and Camp Crame meets were difficult and emotional. Uncle Jovy Salonga and I were committed to release all such detainees, a battle cry of years, which unimplemented, would put our credibility on the line right off. FVR was taciturn. JPE was against, as to the extreme left. Page 660. JPE wrote about the Ver-Edna romantic rumors. Page 482. What about his own love life? Page 37. GFs, he said in one memorable interview.

JPE wrote that on the night of Feb. 25, 1986: “I met President Aquino in an open area behind the house of Mrs. Josephine Reyes. With her were Jimmy Ongpin, Nene Pimentel, and [ex-]Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Joker Arroyo, Ramon Mitra, Jojo Binay, Ernie Maceda, Rene Saguisag, and others. . . . President Aquino asked someone to call Ambassador Bosworth and she talked to him. All of a sudden, I heard her exclaim, “No! I do not want him here. I want him out of the country!” I was certain her remarks meant President Marcos.” Page 635. “. [S]hortly after her oath-taking, Cory held court at the head of the huge rectangular table in the cabinet room where Marcos had presided. Doy Laurel as Vice President sat normally to her right and I sat next to Doy as the Defense Secretary. To her left was Joker, her first Executive Secretary, who was pretty much the one steering the meeting. The rest of the cabinet members like Nene P, Neptali G, Rene Saguisag, Bobbit Sanchez, Ernie M, and the others occupied the other seats.” Page 656. To those still doubting I was Present at the Creation, belat kayo lahat. But, As Cory, Jr. I could not move freely as I wished. JPE, I was told, would not touch our food in our Cabinet meets. Poison concern?

The book affirms that he was behind forming ACCRA (Page 350) which he would deny at the time, if my memory is true. Ed Angara asked me at Manila Hotel during a Con-Con lunch break to join it; I declined. I dimly recall JPE suing a mag for mentioning the JPE-ACCRA link in he 80’s. In 1972 an ACCRA partner showed me around the ACCRA office in a Philbanking Bldg. on Ayala and pointed to JPE’s room. Another terminological inexactitude?

Another sizzling topic. Did the cybercrime law (R.A. No. 10175) change the notion of libel?

The penalty therefor was upped by R.A. No. 10175 but the Supreme Court (SC) has been liberal in acquittals and in imposing libel penalties, only a fine in the last decade given more-speech-not-less culture. But, no one should libel whatever the medium; the SC is there to temper. Trial courts may reflect the local power situation. A severe penalty can be nullified as impermissible under the substantive due process and equal protection clauses in a case filed by an actually prejudiced person in a real, not hypothetical, case; particularly so where the media is concerned. The SC strokes and massages the press.

Can Sen. TG Guingona, crying Uncle! make sumbong to the SC after he failed to convince his colleagues? I question too whether a Senator can violate the Consti by being a party. Lawyers-lawmakers are not supposed to appear in courts. What about non-lawyers? May both be circumventive? I prefer the prudential approach of Sen. Chiz Escudero, Sen. Allan Cayetano and Rep. Sonny Angara. They will work to amend and not have the SC do the dirty job. What TG is doing it to show up the executive and legislative branches as constitutional innocents. Given the trio’s initiative the SC should show judicial restraint: give Congress time to “correct” its work. I admire the courage of any Senator going to the SC asserting that close to 300 lawmakers abetted by PNoy’s legal team—do not know the Consti. Is TG the proper party, a lawmaker who lost in the Senate voting? And there is no actual case or controversy involving anyone personally on which he seeks an SC veto via an advisory opinion. Solons may differ but the Cabinet must speak with a single voice.

The Revised Penal Code penalizes libel by six months and one day to four years and two months and a fine ranging from P200 to P6,000, or both, in addition to the victim’s civil suit for damages. Courts may impose a fine, or imprisonment, or both, and award crippling damages.

We redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the the social order. Buatis v. People, 485 SCRA 275, 291 (2006)(libel). In Sazon v. CA, 255 SCRA 692, 703 (1996) (libel) the SC ruled that “ the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that, in lieu of imprisonment and fine, the penalty . . . shall be a fine of [3,000].” Better than having the SC shame the other branches, and immunize those saying what they think of Justices and their ancestors. To doubt is to sustain – Malcolm. The elected can cure the defects. Anyone calling a Justice a rapist online will be out of line and cannot be insulated from suit. But, the Right thing must be done by the Right party at the Right Time in the Right Way and for the Right reason. My Five R’s.

cyberlibel law will “level the playing field” ?!?

before anything else, kudos cheers mabuhays to SENATOR TG GUINGONA for voting NO to the cybercrime act, the only one who dared, cared, on grounds that the libel clause is a prior restraint on freedom of expression, a constitutionally guaranteed right.

so who voted yes to the cybercrime act despite the libel clause?

LOREN LEGARDA
FRANCIS ESCUDERO 
GREGORIO HONASAN II
AQUILINO “KOKO” PIMENTEL 
PIA CAYETANO
RAMON “BONG” REVILLA JR.
JINGGOY EJERCITO-ESTRADA
PANFILO LACSON
MANUEL “LITO” LAPID
FERDINAND “BONGBONG” MARCOS
RALPH RECTO
VICENTE SOTTO III
MANNY VILLAR

so the following abstained, it would seem:

JUAN PONCE ENRILE
JOKER ARROYO
ALAN PETER CAYETANO
EDGARDO ANGARA 
FRANKLIN DRILON
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO
SERGIO OSMENA III 
FRANCIS “KIKO” PANGILINAN
ANTONIO “SONNY” TRILLANES

makes you wonder about these senators.

my first thought was, the ones who said yes must be anti-RH, like sotto.  but wait, where’s enrile?  and what’s RH sponsor pia doing in that list?  ah, so, maybe these are senators who have been criticized, berated, attacked online a la sotto, they know what it’s like, or maybe they haven’t and they don’t want to be and they don’t want to know what it’s like, ever, so yes, regulate blogs, facebook, twitter, news websites.

as for those who abstained, since they didn’t have it in them to say yes, good for them, then why did they not go the whole hog and vote no a la guingona?  pogi points sana.  talo rin lang kasi, wiser to stay on sotto’s good side, the old-boys-club mentality kicking in, kapit-bisig kumbaga, circle the wagons, there’s more at stake than one senator’s reputation?  there’s more at stake than one senate bill?

say ni pia cayetano sa twitter:

My review of the cybercrime bill was focused on child pornography, which falls within my area of responsibility.

a follower asked:

@piacayetano so if you say your review is only on child pornography, then all the other areas of the law you don’t bother to check? 

no response so far.  what kind of senators are these.

and no word from the palace, no explanations.  only this announcement on the president’s website, that the doj, the dilg, and the dost are working on the implementing rules and regulations of the cybercrime act.

Punishable acts under the new law include offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data system, illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, and misuse of devices. Also included are computer-related offenses such as forgery, fraud, and identity theft that are rampant in the Internet.

Also punishable under the new law are content-related offenses like cybersex, and child pornography.

The law also punishes unsolicited commercial communications or cyber squatting, the acquisition of a person’s domain name for profit or destroy reputations.

ang lupit, di ba?  no time-frame, manginig tayo.  at ang weird, ni hindi nakalista ang libel.  which means what?  did they even read it?  did they even know that it contained a libel clause?

and take note, the prez and the senators are leaving it to sotto iii to defend the libel clause.  every one else is silent on the matter, esp the palace communications peeps, two of whom used to be “noted” bloggers, one of whom tweeted non-stop in memory of the declaration of martial law.

rubbing salt into the wound, sotto iii has the temerity to ask : why, what’s wrong with a libel law in cyber space? 

“I can’t see the logic,” said Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III when asked to react to media protests regarding the dangers and possible unconstitutionality of extending libel laws to new social media in the new Cybercrime Prevention Act.

“If mainstream media are prevented by law from cursing and engaging in character assassination, why should those in the social media and in the Internet be exempted from such accountability,” said Sotto, who had proposed the extension of the Act’s coverage to include libel.

“What’s so special about (mainstream journalists) that they have those prohibitions, and that they (social media bloggers) don’t?” Sotto had insisted in a recent interview.

—

The libel clause in the recently passed anti-cybercrime law is meant to “level the playing field” between the mainstream media and the social media, Sen. Vicente Sotto III said. 

he can’t see the logic in the cybercommunity’s protests.  he’s saying that he only seeks to level the playing field between social media and mainstream media, both should be covered by the same libel law, never mind that honasan had filed a bill to decriminalize libel, i guess because honasan must have changed his mind, as he voted for the cybercrime-with-libel law.

but but but it is not the playing field between mainstream and social media that’s the problem – we are co-existing, mainstream media is not complaining that social media is more free; social media, indie political bloggers in particular, are not complaining that mainstream media is profit-oriented, a capitalist enterprise.  it is what it is.  instead, mainstream and social media are feeding off each other, and that is good, for the information of the nation.

in truth, the playing field that needs to be levelled is the one between government officials and the citizens and communities whom they are pledged to serve.  lamang na lamang, llamadong llamado ang ruling class, from one admin to the next, life does not get better, only worse, for the larger population, status quo.

for our part, all that we political bloggers and commenters and tweeters and facebookers have is the internet where, as ordinary citizens mostly, we have the freedom to speak out, share our points of view, take a stand, esp on political developments that impact negatively on nation (and there are many, it doesn’t stop…), if only for the record.

indeed, it is not a level playing field, and an anti-libel law that infringes on the freedom of speech of the cyber community makes the rules even more  favorable for the already powerful ones who have sat on the RH and FOI bills, and who knows what else, divorce? for more than a decade now, manigas tayo.

on facebook there are some who say that we who are so upset by the cybercrime act should have spoken up before the bill became law, that we should have monitored closely the legislative process. ang say ko naman, but, really, there were some who spoke up, and even if more had spoken up earlier, would the senate have listened to us?  the senate has not been listening to 7 out of 10 filipinos who want the RH bill, why would they listen to the cybercommunity, na 3 out of 10 filipinos lang daw (and of that three, i bet only one is interested in politics).

ang problema sa ating elected government officials ay, they believe their own propaganda that they are god’s gift to filipinos, they know better than we do about what’s good for the nation, so na-o-offend sila na bonggang bongga when they’re called out, criticized, cyberstoned for something we think they did wrong or didn’t do right.

what if, sumagot sila nang maayos?  umamin, kapag nagkamali.  magpaliwanag, kung may malabo.  engage with the citizenry in constructive discourse.  but no.  instead of getting their acts together, instead of behaving like honorable statesmen who deserve to be in public office, instead of giving us no cause to criticize and deplore, instead of being men and facing up to public opinion for the good of nation, they slap us with an anti-cyber-libel law.

and this, from sotto pa rin, part of his justification for the libel rider, based on the senate journal of january 24, 2012.

…there are numerous abuses in technology, particularly the video and photo uploading and unnecessary write-ups and comments in social networking systems. 

unnecessary in what sense?  who is to decide about necessity?  what might seem unnecessary to sotto would not necessarily be unnecessary in the filipino’s long-term struggle for a true, informed, and working democracy.  everything being done and being said in the freewheeling ether of cyberspace today, day after day, from the inane to the cruel, from the gross to the sublime, and everything that government does and does not do, documented for cyber-eternity, has historical value and significance for the future.

i’m a writer of history, and this is an indie non-profit blog where i share historical and political notes, and call a spade a spade, in aid of nation-building, if not for my children’s generation, then for their my grandchildren’s, and yours.  don’t tell me i have to mince my words now and live in fear of sotto and his ilk.

AMEND THE ANTI-CBYERCRIME ACT!
DECRIMINALIZE LIBEL!

Amend the Anti-Cybercrime law

Editorial, The Manila Times

The Anti-Cybercrime Law may have been crafted with the best of intentions, but the final version of the bill poses nothing less than a most serious threat to our freedom of speech.

The full name of the law is the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. What it does is expand the coverage of libel.

The biggest mistake committed by the law’s authors was the last-minute insertion of a libel clause, which was not in the original version. That version received widespread support from concerned sectors who recognized that cybercrime is a growing phenomenon that must be arrested. But no one ever thought that the authors of the bill would go as far as to include online libel to the coverage of the law.

It should not be lost on anyone that the Philippines is one of the few countries in the world where libel is considered a criminal offense, and not the civil offense that it should be.

It is incredible that in a country that prides itself as having one of the freest presses in the world, anyone can still be imprisoned for writing his or her thoughts. While no one can disagree that to intentionally ruin another person’s reputation is libelous, the punishment should be commensurate to the gravity of the crime.

For the longest time, local media has been asking, begging, cajoling and demanding that Congress rewrite the country’s libel laws, and many a senator and congressman have said that they would do what was necessary. Instead, the situation has been worsened for media practitioners who are active in cyberspace via their blogs.

It is not just media that is under constant threat by the country’s archaic libel laws. Ordinary citizens who write their opinion in any media are also subject to the extreme penalties of those laws.

Look at the backlog of the country’s court cases. There is a fair percentage of one party accusing another of libel, thereby seeking to imprison that offending party. Were these cases civil suits, judgments would have been rendered quicker. Guilty parties would have to pay civil damages. Imprisoning anyone for writing any falsehood would hurt the guilty party where it hurts most—his or her pocket. But no one need spend so much as a minute in jail for a crime that causes no physical harm.

In Vietnam this week, three bloggers were jailed for “anti-state propaganda.” Is this what the country’s lawmakers want to happen here? If the law is not amended ASAP, that most sacred freedom of speech will be curtailed to the point that the Philippines may as well declare itself a communist or fascist state where no one is allowed to speak his or her mind.

They may deny it until hell freezes over, but the new law actually increases the legal punishments for libel. Where before the penalty for printed libel was six months and one day to four years and two months’ imprisonment under the Revised Penal Code, the new law would imprison anyone convicted of committing libel in cyberspace to six years and one day up to 12 years.

The law as it is written will have a chilling effect on the country’s growing number of bloggers who are also considered as citizen journalists. The situation will be worse than the martial law era when only “the true, the good and the beautiful” could be written about the Marcoses.

Take the anti-cybercrime law to the extreme. Imagine a young man who has just turned 18. He is now legally an adult. In a fit of anger, he blasts his neighbor in his Facebook page, calling that person all sorts of names. Under the anti-cybercrime law, he can be imprisoned and may not be released until his 30th birthday.

Ridiculous perhaps, but it’s the law.

The Supreme Court to hear challenge

Of the country’s lawmakers, it appears that only Senator Teofisto “TG” Guingona recognizes the dangers inherent in the libel clause of the anti-cybercrime law. He has therefore promised to challenge the new law before the Supreme Court.

There may still be time to take corrective measures since the bill was signed into law by President Aquino only last September 12. Its implementing laws and guidelines will be drafted by an inter-agency body within 90 days from that date.

Under a worst-case scenario where Guingona’s contesting of the law fails to bear fruit, then media can only hope that the guidelines be most specific about what constitutes online libel. Muzzling anyone from using the electronic media to speak his or her mind is the worst thing that can happen.

For the record, The Manila Times does not condone the wanton destruction of a person’s reputation through the use of print or electronic media. Anyone who spreads lies and half truths about other parties should receive reasonable punishment. But even a minute in prison is already unjust and unreasonable punishment in our book.

Draconian measure

By Bong Austero

On the same week that people of a certain age went into reflection mode to remember the horrors that befell this country 40 years ago, the President of the Republic signed the Cybercrime Prevention Law.

On the same week that people swore “never again” as they relived the dark years of the dictatorship when citizens were denied civil liberties—when freedom of expression was reduced to a theoretical concept that people pined for because speaking about or criticizing the excesses of government could mean summary execution or detention—the electronic version of martial law went into effect in the country.

How did this happen in a country that is supposed to be a bastion of democracy and at a time when the prevailing order rose to power on the strength of its much avowed defense of civil liberties?

The law sneaked through both houses of Congress surreptitiously.

Netizens and civil rights activists were caught flatfooted —they, along with everyone else in this country, simply woke up middle of last week to learn that their right to privacy has been whittled down. Worse, one can now be charged with a crime called electronic libel, which carries a penalty more onerous than ordinary libel. Under our current penal code, a writer, editor, or publisher who is found guilty of ordinary libel could be meted out a jail term of six months and one day to four years and two months. Thanks to the new cybercrime law, anyone who makes a comment in Facebook or Twitter or on a blog that is deemed libelous could be jailed for a minimum of six years and one day up to 12 years. This makes the person ineligible for parole since the minimum penalty is beyond six months. The proponents of the new law have made sure that anyone who would be convicted of the crime of electronic libel would have to serve a jail term.

This happened under the reign of the son of the mother of democracy in this country.

I am at a loss as to how something like the cybercrime law could be passed into law given this administration’s supposed staunch commitment to upholding civil liberties. The President is supposed to be surrounded by people who know better when it comes to these matters—there are quite a number of cabinet secretaries who are active netizens; for instance, Secretary Ricky Carandang and Undersecretary Manolo Quezon used to be very active bloggers. Most Cabinet members use Facebook and Twitter a lot. In fact, this government has practically endorsed the use of social networking sites as a means for citizens to get updated on government advisories during calamities and disasters.

There is also the matter of the law being impractical. Do we really want our justice system to be saddled by cases spurned by commentaries in blogs and social networking sites including the frivolous and trivial? Do we really have the means to prosecute everyone who commits electronic libel? If even just a fraction of Filipinos who think Vicente Sotto is unfit to become senator decides to deliberately commit mass electronic libel by maligning the senator in social networking sites, do we have enough resources to make millions accountable? What is the point of having a law if it cannot be implemented anyway?

The timing of the signing of the bill sucks. I don’t think that the senators who voted in favor of the bill did so out of fear that what happened to Sotto would also happen to them. Still, you can’t stop people from speculating that the two events are related.

I agree that there should be a means to police malicious and immature commentary in the Internet. I agree that there are far too many people who seem to treat social networking sites as nothing more but repository of their personal rants and complaints. But we don’t need to hold a gun against everyone’s temple just to make a point. The cybercrime law is just too draconian a response to a relatively minor social problem.

I have been informed that certain civil rights advocates will take the issue to court. I support this move. We must not allow what happened 40 years ago to happen again in this country.