Category: cyberlibel

Cybercrime Act extends reach of ‘draconian’, outdated libel laws

By Shaira Panela

It’s a threat to Philippine press freedom.

In no uncertain terms, this is how representatives from local and international media agencies criticized Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which was signed into law last September 12.

Online libel as a crime

Of particular concern to observers is the law’s provision on online libel. Chapter 2, Section 7 states that “all crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code [RPC]… if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by… this Act.”

As defined in the 82-year-old RPC, libel encompassed mostly traditional communications media. Article 355 of the Code specifically spells out penalties for libel “commited by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition or any similar means.”

However, the Cybercrime Law now extends the scope of libel beyond these traditional means of communication.

Worse, online libel brings with it stiffer punishments: the law states that the penalties for such online crimes “shall be one degree higher than provided for by the [RPC for libel committed in traditional media].”

‘Draconian’, antiquated RPC

Media organizations and legal experts agree that the law’s provision on online libel has thus given more teeth to the already “draconian” RPC.

“Pinalakas ‘yung libel… Inilipat ‘yung problema sa old media papunta sa new media,” said Luis V. Teodoro, deputy director of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and former dean of the UP Diliman College of Mass Communications.

Teodoro also said that, even prior to the Cybercrime Law, the RPC’s provisions on libel were already being used against government critics. “Madalas nagagamit ito sa pangha-harass ng mga journalist,” he said.

With the Cybercrime Law in place, Teodoro warned that such harassment could now be extended to bloggers, domain owners, webmasters, chatroom moderators, and even just commenters on third-party websites.

On the other hand, Atty. JJ Disini, UP College of Law professor said, “Online libel was already explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in 2010. The new cybercrime law doesn’t affect it. In fact the SC protected those accused of libel by restricting the ability of victims to choose the place where they will file the case.”

“(The Cybercrime Law) is unecessary. Sa tingin ko, most of what this law penalizes ay nasa batas na natin —tulad ng child pornography,” Teodoro said.

International solidarity

Media organizations in the Philippines and abroad have aired similar concerns over the Cybercrime Law.

In a statement, the CMFR said that the passing of the Act “suggests how restrictive rather than expansive is the mindset of the country’s legislators, and of Mr. Aquino himself when it comes to enshrining in the law those principles—accountability and transparency, press freedom and free expression, etc.—to which he has repeatedly declared he is committed.”

Further, Teodoro told GMA News in a phone interview that the “fundamental problem is that legislators are not committed” to providing laws to promote the freedom of expression, and information.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) and the Burgos Media Center shared similar sentiments.

“Compare the haste with which this measure and the Data Privacy Act became law, compared to Congress’ lethargy on a bill that President Benigno Aquino III has repeatedly declared a priority yet never lifted a finger to help shepherd through the legislative mill – the Freedom of Information Act – and it becomes all too apparent that this president never meant anything he said with respect to our rights and our freedoms,” the NUJP pointed out. (See related report.)

“The presence of the decayed idea of libel in the crimes enlisted in the bill may be used to attack not only the cyberpress members but also to the progressive netizens like activists and political bloggers. Through this law, the Trapos can now easily file charges against ‘critics by claiming that cyber journalist have threatened their life and property,” the Burgos Media Center added in a separate statement.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) also said that the new law —particularly its provision on libel – “poses a significant threat to press freedom and limits freedom of expression in the Philippines.”

“The IFJ is greatly concerned that the inclusion of online content in the Act could be used to curtail freedom of expression online. We are further concerned that the government of the Philippines continues to delay the passing of the FOI bill, which clearly stands against their stated commitment to press freedom,” it said.

Decriminalizing libel

Media advocates have long been calling for the decriminalization of libel in the Philippines.

In October 2011, no less than the the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) declared Philippine libel laws “excessive” and in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which the Philippines is a signatory.

The commission made this declaration in response to the 2008 complaint filed by Filipino broadcaster Alexander “Alex” Adonis, who spent almost two years in jail for libel.

NUJP and CMFR also cited this declaration in their statements against the Cybercrime Law.

Currently, Senate Bill No. 3244, filed by Senator Gregorio Honasan, seeks to decriminalize libel. But as of August 6, it is still pending in the Committees on Public Information and Mass Media, and Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws.

However, Teodoro believes that the passing of this bill comes with a price.

“(Parang) may ibibigay ‘yung right hand, but the left hand takes away something,” Teodoro said.

Teodoro said that the proposed bill seeks to make the media organizations register before the Securities and Exchange Commission, “in effect, licensing.”

However, Teodoro said that it is “unlikely” that the congress will pass this bill into law in light of current legislation. — TJD, GMA News

A Restrictive Mindset: First Law Since 2000 Affecting Cyberspace Communication

STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR MEDIA FREEDOM & RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PASSAGE OF THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

The successful passage through the legislative mill and their immediate signing into law by President Benigno S. Aquino III of bills affecting the media and their fundamental task of gathering and disseminating information, among them the Data Privacy Act (Republic Act 10173) last August, and the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) this September, suggests how restrictive rather than expansive is the mindset of the country’s legislators, and of Mr. Aquino himself when it comes to enshrining in the law those principles—accountability and transparency, press freedom and free expression, etc.—to which he has repeatedly declared he is committed.

RA 10173 and 10175 breezed through both houses of Congress within months after they had been introduced in 2011, and apparently were in no danger of being vetoed once they reached Mr. Aquino’s desk.

The Data Privacy Act, among other provisions, penalizes those in government who release information of a personal nature, which seems a reasonable enough restriction in behalf of the right to privacy—until one recalls that information on the personal lives of government officials often has a bearing on their performance as public servants accountable to the citizenry, and is therefore among the legitimate concerns of the news media.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act, meanwhile, incorporates the 82-year old libel law in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in including libel among the crimes that may be committed through the use of computers. Under the provisions of the RPC on libel, the penalty for violators is imprisonment of six months for every count of libel committed. Libel as a criminal offense has been used by past administrations as well as local officials today to harass and intimidate journalists. The outstanding example of its use against journalists was the filing by Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo of 11 libel suits against 46 journalists during the disputed presidency of his wife Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. And yet Congress has through the decades ignored the demand from journalists and human rights groups for the decriminalization of libel.

Compare the speed with which RA 10173 and RA 10175 were passed—in both instances with only perfunctory public hearings—with the difficulties Congress is having with passing a Freedom of Information Act (FOI), and with Mr. Aquino’s by now obvious aversion to it.

And yet certain honorable members of Congress have not been miserly with their lip service to the alleged need for an FOI. As for Mr. Aquino, since he became President he has stopped talking about the need for one, after pledging during the 2010 campaign for the Presidency that he was all for it in behalf of transparency and as a means of insuring government accountability. The bottom line, apparently, is that neither Congress nor Mr. Aquino want an FOI act passed, period.

The passage of the Cybercrime Prevention Act also suggests among other possibilities that both Congress and Mr. Aquino have chosen to ignore the 2011 declaration of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) that the Philippine libel law is excessive because it penalizes violators with imprisonment, contrary to the human rights protocols to which the Philippines is a signatory, and therefore must at least be reviewed towards decriminalizing libel. Either that, or the authors of the bills, and Mr. Aquino himself, are unfamiliar with both the UNHRC declaration, as well as with the long-standing demand to decriminalize libel in order to put an end to the use of the libel law to intimidate and silence journalists. Apparently there is little hope that libel will ever be decriminalized, RA 10175 having in effect further strengthened it by widening its application.

Finally, a word of caution. RA 10175 is the first law affecting communication through cyberspace that has been passed in this country since the eCommerce Act of 2000. Prior to its passage, the Philippines had been distinguished among its Asian neighbors for the absence of regulatory legislation affecting the Internet. It can signal the opening of the floodgates of Internet regulation that will affect Filipino netizens, given the restrictive mindset of the country’s leaders. It is a distinct possibility to which journalists and bloggers, ordinary citizen and anyone committed to free expression through whatever medium, should be alert, and must be prepared to combat.