Black Tuesday.

Black Tuesday. No To Cyber Crime Law

Republic Act No. 10175 on a quick glance seems a laudable piece of legislation. The Act, dubbed as “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”, punishes cybercrime offenses including illegal access, illegal interception, computer-related forgery, and content-related offenses like cybersex, child pornography, unsolicited commercial communication.

We have always been bombarded with highfalutin laws and legalese, but its execution has oftentimes been shrouded in dismay. We have thousands of laws without fangs, let alone sharp teeth to sink into the veins of the offenders. However, we still rejoice on certain laws that are passed, and continuously fight for certain piece of legislation that has been under the drawers of our good representatives. Chief among them would be the FOI and RH Bills.

And so suddenly, as if inserted on a gloomy Saturday night, the provision of Libel was inserted. Theoretically, the Libel provision may have been acceptable provided that the parameters have been defined. In the past, there were issues up until the Supreme Court wherein irresponsible people post hate messages on the Internet with an obvious intent to defame a person, or put his statute into public shame without regard for the provisions of Libel under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (“RPC”). The trick is simple: Online publication is not covered by the provision of the Libel under the RPC.

To appreciate our growing clamor from the public, let us dissect Article 353 of the RPC. Libel, under Article 353 of the RPC, Libel is defined 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 discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. In the case of Daez v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 47971, October 31, 1990), the elements of libel are as follows: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.

In the case of Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court (1988), the Philippine Supreme Court (“SC”) had laid down the test to determine the defamatory nature of the words to be classified as libelous. The SC held, “Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false charges directly made. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.”

Thus, an allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstances which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. (Paragraph lifted from www.abogadomo.com)

So, why is it very crucial to cyber citizens, including myself? Quite simple, really. The Internet and entire blogosphere provides us with a stamp of expression particularly to celebrities, actors, politicians, or public characters. We provide comments, commentaries, and opinions from the celebrity’s look, fashion sense up to the way he speaks. We comment on politicians’ inefficiency and lack of available resolve to provide lasting solutions to perennial problems. And our actions are shielded both by the Constitutional provision on freedom of speech and the unavailability of a law that punishes cyber Libel.

With the passage of law, netizens might be subject to an offense depending on the gravity of the statement. For instance, these Twitter statements were published: “XYZ looks like a lesbian in that attire”, or “She talks and cries as if the contestant is her lover.” Such might already be considered as libelous since they refer to a condition or status that tends to dishonor or discredit the person. Of course, the whole blogosphere is suddenly shaken because the line between fact and libelous becomes dim, even made dimmer by the lack of clear guidelines on the matter.

So, why are we protesting again?

We are protesting because we have been robbed of the right to participate in the discussion. If our noble representatives really want to equate blogging, Tweeting as publication, then why would the penalty be one degree higher than that of ordinary Libel? That alone is dubious. The mere fact that it was just inserted during the last amendment, where no one cared to read or compare the paragraphs from the previous draft/s leads more credence to its highly doubtful passage.

Freedom is earned, but freedom including that of speech is something that we have to continuously fight. If we blink, we might lose it in an instant.