Cyberlibel, prelude to a silenced media?
Lady Glorynne C. Fontamillas
The Journalese
Photo by Pixel Offensive
"Many writers and student publications today, due to lack of funds and convenience use the internet to promote their issues and articles. Even they will be subject to what the DOJ and government deems acceptable online literature."
As tropical storm “Marce” approached and hit, the country was inundated not by raging flood but by raging memes.
President Benigno Aquino III signed Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which allows law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute individuals committing internet-related crimes.
The law has been effective since this October 3.
On its declaration of policies, the law cites the need to protect confidential information in the internet from misuse, abuse and illegal access.
But despite promising statements, its provisions drew flak from various groups and individuals. The most controversial part is the inclusion of the libel clause, which would mean tighter security in the cyberspace that media and rights groups say is at the expense of freedom of speech and expression.
One of the worst things about the law is the libel clause, coupled with the lack of due process, it is a clear violation of our civil rights. Anyone is vulnerable to what the government considers libelous and having your website taken down, or worse, arrested," said Pauline Gidget Estella, National President of the College Editors Guild of the Philippines.
"Many writers and student publications today, due to lack of funds and convenience use the internet to promote their issues and articles. Even they will be subject to what the DOJ and government deems acceptable online
literature," she said.
Libel in the Philippines was first introduced by the Spanish colonizers as a civil offense, before the American colonizers turned into a criminal offense. The power of the media used for propaganda against imperialism alarmed the American government, thus the criminalization of a law that would sanction those who would commit libel.
Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as “a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. It is a form of defamation which pertains to the offense of injuring a person’s character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements.”
While slander or oral defamation is committed in verbal form, libel is a defamation committed through writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or cinematographic exhibition.
Proving a person to have said something libellous, can be difficult because of the need to prove the presence of malice, which is a requirement of the law. But in any case, a journalist involved in a libel offense could lose his or her credibility.
Palace defends the law
Despite growing public disapproval of the law, Malacañang defended the Cybercrime Prevention Act saying freedom of expression comes with responsibility and that libel law in print must likewise apply online, to people who post and comment on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
“The position of government is, look, we already have responsibilities attached to print, TV, and radio, so what the Cybercrime Act does is to also attach responsibilities in cyberspace. You’ve got freedom to report – the freedom of expression is always recognized but freedom of expression is not absolute. We know that for a fact,” Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said in a press briefing, as quoted by the Philippine Online Chronicles, the Philippine Star, and GMA Network.
The Palace added that they respect the decision of those opposing the law to question it before the Supreme
Court, as much as they are convincing them to wait for the implementing rules and regulations.
The law sanctions cybercrime offenses including those against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems; computer-related offenses such as forgery, fraud and identity theft and; content-related offenses involved in cybersex, child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications and libel.
However in Congress, the youth sector Kabataan Partylist said that the Cybercrime Act can lead to censorship
“once an activist of reform advocate has been labelled a cybercriminal.”
“If for example, an online article is said to be libellous, DOJ may order the total shutdown of its host domain, effectively censoring not just the article in question, but also other articles in that site – a clear violation of the constitutional right to free speech,” Kabataan Partylist Rep. Raymond Palatino said.
He is referring to Sec. 19, dubbed the “takedown clause” of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, one of other provisions which drew flak such as Sections 4 (4), 5, 6, and 7.
These four criminalizes libel and intensifies its punishment a degree higher, while Section 19 gives power to the Department of Justice to shut down websites containing harmful content upon prima facie evidence.
So far, nine petitions to declare the said law unconstitutional have been submitted to the Supreme Court.
There is disagreement whether to abolish or amend the Cybercrime Law among ordinary individuals, celebrities, and political parties from rival blocs.
The Palace added that they respect the decision of those opposing the law to question it before the Supreme
Court, as much as they are convincing them to wait for the implementing rules and regulations.
Justice Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy said in a news interview that allegations regarding the unconstitutionality of the law is not true.
“Whether there is cybercrime law or not, there is still libel in the Philippines because it was just taken from the revised penal code. So, it’s all the same, it’s just that, the penalty is higher if committed online,” he said.
Act heightens protests
However, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) had long rendered the Philippine libel law outdated.
In October last year, the UNHRC said that imprisonment upon conviction of libel is “excessive,” and called for the decriminalization of libel after it found that the libel law violates human rights protocols.
“I think, more than anybody else, the journalists are very responsible when it comes to writing articles, they know the parameters,” Lacierda said. But he added the possibility of publishing “very negative” articles and comments that could destroy someone’s reputation cannot be denied.
It can be recalled that Aquino lambasted what he called negativism or negative comments on the government during his speech at the 25th TV Patrol anniversary last July, and told the news media to report “good” news.
The Council for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) said that the creation of the Cybercrime Law questions the government’s commitment to accountability and transparency, and added that it “ignored the demand from journalists and human rights groups for the decriminalization of libel.”
And even as the Palace expressed trust on their sense of responsibility, journalists find libel laws repressive and oppressive. “It (libel) ties up a reporter’s time, run up an editor’s legal fees, and discombobulates a newsroom,”
an editorial in the Philippine Daily Inquirer describes libel as a form of harassment.
Libel is a test to media’s power as the watchdog of democracy. For 80 years since its first implementation, the media have been raising their concerns and demand the government to decriminalize it, if abolishing it is impossible.
Right now, media groups are in solidarity in saying that the Cybercrime Law curtails freedom of speech and expression, as it could be used to stifle opinion and tame the Press.
Other non-media groups have also expressed the need to protect freedom of speech and expression. People from various sectors joined a rally in front of the Supreme Court last October 2, while netizens, both young and old, changed their FB default pictures to total black in a symbolic protest against the law. Even they seem ready to take it to the streets.
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) said that it broadens the scope of a libel law that is “so antiquated and draconian,” citing the UNHRC. “We are certain bloggers, netizens and all those who value freedom of expression share these sentiments, whatever the Cybercrime Prevention Act says,” the NUJP said on its site.
'E-Martial Law'
Even before the law’s implementation, groups and netizens expressed and strong opposition to the law, heightened compared to previous issues. Some reposted pictures and joined pages which say No to E-Martial Law.
“’Yung cybercrime law kasi…napakahelpful sana to solve crimes na nangyayari sa cyberspace pero hindi. There are provisions in the said law na magva-violate sa freedom of speech at right to privacy ng maraming Pilipino,” Ehmz Castro, a senior Journalism student said.
The Burgos Media Center, a group of press freedom advocates, described the approval of the Cybercrime Act as reminiscent of dictatorial rule.
It said that the new law, signed a week before the 40th anniversary of the declaration of Martial Law, “could lead to the invasion of the Filipino netizens’ rights to privacy as well as the takedown of websites without a court warrant.”
The group further said that the law could be used to attack journalists, activists and bloggers who are
critical of the government and of issues. But Filipinos are unfazed and even created Pages calling to junk the Cybercrime Law.
“Can I just say that the more they try to silence us, the more we gain our ground?” Hanz Malgapu, another senior Journalism student, said with a laugh. “But seriously… asikasuhin muna nila ung mga taong walang bahay at makain bago patahimikin ang mga tao na nagmamatiyag sa kanilang pamumuno,” he said, questioning why of all other bills, the Cybercrime Prevention Act was easily signed.
“Mas maganda kung magko-concentrate lang ang batas na ‘to para hulihin yung mga tao na nagpapasimuno ng cybersex, pornography at online scams, hindi yung lilimitahan nila ang mga tao online na magpahayag ng mga nararamdaman at mga saloobin nila,” Castro added.
But while senators have been showing regret for signing the law for "overseeing" the controversial provisions, the Palace does not want to bulge and the Supreme Court has not issued a temporary restraining order which could be a challenge for the new Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno, an Aquino appointee.
The media’s struggle to contest existing laws on libel as a criminal offense remains one fought in tough terrain; and all the more because the Freedom of Information Bill is still pending in Congress. The bill would act as anenabling law to the Freedom of Information clause (Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution’s Bill of Rights) and aims to provide people access to needed public information.
Journalists are also faced with a culture of impunity. Next month, the nation will commemorate the Maguindanao Massacre, where more than thirty journalists were killed. Until now, families of the victims cry for justice. J