Was Senator Sotto lying?

197 Comments

Share:
LinkedIn4
Google+1

Exclusive

By Raïssa Robles

This question is being asked of me ever since newspaper reports came out that Senator Vicente Sotto III denied Friday that he was the lawmaker who had inserted the libel clause in the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act 10175).

One commenter name @Anton bluntly asked me:

Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III denied that he was the one behind the insertion of a libel clause in the new anti-cybercrime law, at a Press Media Week forum in Cebu City Friday. So, what happened to the admission of Sotto’s chief of staff Villacorta that it was Senator Sotto who inserted libel as a ‘content-related offense’ in Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Law)? Who’s lying again?

My answer requires a somewhat lengthy explanation. After reading it, I think you can come to the conclusion yourself whether Senator Sotto lied to journalists in Cebu.

To start, I would speculate that Senator Sotto is banking on the fact that people don’t understand how the Senate records the lawmakers’ actions almost every step of the way.

Let me first explain how a bill becomes a law in the Senate (and the House follows the same procedure).

Step One: A senator files a bill at the Senate Bills and Index Section. The bill’s title is read out on the floor and referred to the proper Senate committee for further action. This is referred to as the FIRST READING.

Step Two: The Senate committee where the bill is referred to gathers all the similar bills filed on the same subject. The committee schedules public hearings and notifies various public interest groups about the bill in question. Please note that most bills die in the committee and it is up to the committee chair to decide which bills he or she would push.

The committee chair comes up with an amended bill that takes into account the public hearings, letters and suggestions and what the chair reads in the media about the pending bill. If there are more than two bills on the same subject, the chair consolidates all these bills into one bill which is called the Committee Report. The CR is also given a new number as a Senate bill.

In the case of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, there were 15 separate Senate Bills and three Senate Resolutions filed by various senators. The committee chaired by Senator Edgardo Angara came out with a consolidated bill in Committee Report No. 30 and named this new bill  SB 2796.

Step Three: The CR is again referred to the Senate plenary for deliberations. This is called the SECOND READING. During the Second Reading, any of the senators can suggest amendments or interpellate the Senate committee chair or even try to stop the bill dead in the water (as what is happening to the Reproductive Health Bill). It is up to the committee chair whether or not to accept his colleagues’ proposed amendments. The amendments can be very minor (such as a word or phrase here and there to make the meaning clearer). Or they can be very drastic such as the insertion of entirely new sections. It is this form of insertion that the public has to watch out because no more public hearing is held on such substantial amendments.

Step Four: After the Second Reading or the period of interpellation, a clean copy of the bill is prepared with all the amendments that were proposed on the floor and accepted by the committee chair. The adjusted bill still has the same Senate Bill number. The only way to distinguish it from the bill that was prepared by the Senate committee is by looking at the appended phrase “third reading version”.

Step Five: The bill goes back to the Senate plenary, but this time only for voting. This is referred to as the THIRD READING. Voting can either be viva voce (meaning, Lawmakers merely say “Aye” or “Nay” and there is no physical counting of votes. Usually, though, each senator casts a vote which is recorded next to his name.

Step Six: The bill approved on Third Reading by the Senate is now ready to be reconciled with the similar bill approved by the House also on Third Reading. The Senate assigns who will meet with their House counterparts in a BICAMERAL CONFERENCE. Through the years, it has become the practice of both chambers to introduce substantial amendments that neither chamber even included in their approved versions. This is also where the horse-trading occurs between chambers.

In the case of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the equally controversial Section 6 was in the House version which the bicam conference committee adopted in the final version of the bill which is now a law. Here is Section 6:

SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

Step Seven: The reconciled version goes back to both chambers and a final vote is held to approve or reject the law. At this point, no one in either chamber can object to any section or insert any more amendments. The only purpose is to cast the final vote.

Let’s examine what Sotto said in the light of these Seven Steps

The Cebu-based Freeman quoted Senator Sotto as claiming that it was the Senate committee that handled the bill which approved the online libel rider. Sotto told reporters that the only issue he raised was the issue of cybersquatting during the bill’s plenary discussions.

You can find this in Jojo Malig’s ABS-CBNNews piece entitled Internet Libel? It wasn’t me, Sotto says

Thanks, Jojo, for your quick reporter’s eyes.

Jojo wrote that:

A report by another regional newspaper, The Freeman, said Senator Sotto claimed that the Senate committee that handled the bill approved the online libel rider in the last quarter of 2011.

Sotto said Friday that he only raised the issue of cybersquatting in the bill’s plenary discussions.

Now let’s see what the Senate records actually state.

Yes. Senator Sotto was correct when he said he only raised the issue of cybersquatting during the plenary discussions on SECOND READING.

Page 281 of the Senate Journal of September 12, 2011 bears Senator Sotto out. Below is a screen-cap of an excerpt from that page of the  Senate Journal.

However, the same Senate Journal shows that on January 24, 2012 – still during the SECOND READING – Senator Sotto introduced the online libel rider.

I understand that in Friday’s forum, Sotto did not stay around to be asked questions after his speech. If he had stayed around, he could have been asked the following question:

Senator Sotto, during the period of individual amendments on January 24, 2012 did you state the following things as recorded in the Senate Journal?

Let me tell you one important thing to remember about the Senate Journal. Every plenary session is recorded and transcribed word for word. Then a summary of what each senator stated and how the chamber acted is written in a Senate Journal. The journal always comes out the next day (except when it is a sine die session, which is when lawmakers  ‘stop the clock’ to avoid adjourning.) Each senator has the power to correct any entry in the journal.

Senator Sotto, who is the Senate Rules Committee chair, did not correct this entry about him introducing the online libel rider last January 24.  Therefore we can assume 100% that it is a correct reflection of what had happened.

The publication Sunstar also quoted Senator Sotto as stating in its piece  Sotto on online libel law: Not mine but I’m all for it:

Sotto, who recently received criticism for allegedly plagiarizing other people’s works, denied reports he inserted the libel clause at the last minute. He said that the Senate version of Republic Act (RA) 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, was by Senator Edgardo Angara.

Except during plenary debates, Sotto said he had no participation in the crafting of the law. He added that the bill was passed at the committee level in the last quarter of 2012 [sic – this probably meant 2011], before accusations of plagiarism against him surfaced.

In the light of the seven steps of lawmaking, let’s examine what Sotto told the media in Cebu.

Sotto was correct when he said (1) he had no participation in crafting the law; (2) the Senate version was by Senator Angara ; and (3) the bill was passed at committee level long before he was accused of plagiarism.

However, again, he neglected to say that on January 24, 2012 he inserted the online libel rider.

In short, Sotto’s participation in the crafting of the Cybercrime Prevention Act consisted of

(1) interpellating on SECOND READING about cybersquatting on September 12, 2011 and

(2) inserting a midnight cut-and-paste section on online libel on January 24, 2012, which was still on SECOND READING.

Why did media fail to catch Senator Sotto’s libel rider on time?

I feel partly to blame for not catching this libel rider on time. My husband Alan had warned me about the impending bill but my attention was riveted on the impeachment trial of then Chief Justice Renato Corona.

I did try to look for any rider in the law after Senator Sotto had warned that cyberbullies had better watch out for the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

I tried to look for the latest version of the law. I read SB 2796 and it had nothing on online libel.

Now I realize on hindsight that the Senate website does not upload that version of the bill that is the product of the bicameral conference committee. This version would be the latest and final one, just before it is voted into law by Congress. It would contain all the lawmakers’ individual amendments plus the amendments inserted by the bicam committee.

I would like to suggest that from now on, both chambers of Congress disclose to the public the final bicam version of any bill before Congress’ approval, in the spirit of transparency and fair play.

Comments

  1. Plagiarist Senator Tito Sotto was quoted as saying “Yes, I did it. I inserted the provision on libel. Because I believe in it and I don’t think there’s any additional harm.”

    Sotto owns up to libel clause on cyber law

    ABS-CBNnews.com
    Posted at 09/29/2012 4:58 PM
    Updated as of 09/29/2012 4:58 PM

    MANILA, Philippines – Senator Vicente Sotto III admitted that he is one of two senators who inserted the libel clause in the Philippines’ new anti-cybercrime law, according to a report by a US news website.

    In a September 28 article, cbsnews.com’s Barnaby Lo quoted Sotto saying, “Yes, I did it. I inserted the provision on libel. Because I believe in it and I don’t think there’s any additional harm.”

    Sotto earlier said he supports the libel clause in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10175) to “level the playing field” between journalists and social media users.

    Sotto was involved in a controversy recently for allegedly plagiarizing blog posts of American blogger Sarah Pope and a speech of the late US Senator Robert Kennedy.

    The senator claimed he became a victim of “cyber-bullying” following uproar from netizens.

    But Sotto has said the libel clause, under Section 4-C(4), is not meant to “curtail press freedom” but to protect ordinary people who are “victims of online attacks, character assassination and the like from people who do not observe the standards of journalism.”

    Senate records show that Sotto added the libel amendment on January 24, 2012.

    The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 will take effect October 3.

    SOURCE: www abs-cbnnews com/nation/09/29/12/sotto-owns-libel-clause-cyber-law
    Reference: www cbsnews com/8301-202_162-57522609/facebooks-like-may-land-filipinos-in-jail/

    Reply

    • Sotto still denies till today.

      Sotto insisted on Monday that he did not insert the libel rider on Republic Act No. 10175 that may send an erring Internet user to prison for up to 17 years.

      Sotto, in an interview on radio dzMM, denied Senate records uploaded on the upper House’s website that showed he inserted the libel clause in the period of amendments.

      “Kalokohan iyon,” he said. “Iyung committee (amendments), nasa record ng Senado iyon.”

      “Mayroon pa silang sinabi, nasa journal daw ng Senate. Marunong pa sila sa journal ng Senate. Sa akin dumadaan iyung journal ng Senate. Ako ang Senate majority leader,” Sotto

      Source: Why Sotto must read Jan. 24 Senate journal on cybercrime law
      by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNnews.com Posted at 10/01/2012 7:59 PM | Updated as of 10/01/2012 8:11 PM

      www abs-cbnnews com/-depth/10/01/12/why-sotto-must-read-jan-24-2012-senate-journal

      Reply

      • Dissecting the paragraph of inferences. fill in the gaps, if you wish.

        On page 6, line 37, as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor, there being no objection, the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph, to wit:

        4. LIBEL – THE UNLAWFUL OR PROHIBITED ACTS OF LIBEL …

        – What Bill or reference material does this point to “On page 6, line 37”? from what document is the source? (Bill ???)

        – the ‘Sponsor’, it is Senator Angara. Right? that Bill stated on the Jan. 24 Senate journal?

        – “the Body approved the insertion of a new paragraph”. Who is this ‘Body’? Who composes this Body? Is Senator T Sotto part of this ‘Body’?

        – By semantics and literal interpretation, Sen T Sotto may be right.
        He didn’t physically or literally insert the Libel Clause or Section 4 to the Cybercrime Prevention BILL.

        That Bill version they refer to. Which one? They have several versions, which Bill version. Double check your Bill docu references…

        Reply

        • BTW, read err re-read (decipher) the phrase used in that journal “as proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the Sponsor”.

          ‘… as proposed’, ‘… and accepted’

          just at the nick of time before some publication?

          Reply

        • Addendum

          Dissecting the paragraph of or for inferences.

          Save, just at the nick of time before a sequel publication?

          —

          I have follow up questions if there are any takers.

          Until then, good pm.

          Reply

        • Sotto to Chiz: rush pending bill decriminalizing libel instead of repealing Sec. 4

          By: Karl John C. Reyes, InterAksyon com
          October 2, 2012 7:36 PM

          MANILA, Philippines – Instead of just repealing one section on libel of the controversial Anti-Cybercrime Act which takes effect Oct.3, lawmakers can achieve the quicker, better effect by rushing a pending bill that decriminalizes libel. Then, they could separately tackle the new cybercrime law and consider amending its other controversial provisions.

          Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III pitched this idea Tuesday, and openly urged his colleagues, notably Sen. Chiz Escudero, to close ranks and work quickly to knock out libel from the statute books. Once libel is delisted from the Revised Penal Code, said Sotto, the effect would be across the board, both for the traditional and so-called new media covered by the controversial law.

          Former Makati Rep. Teddyboy Locsin, the Harvard-trained lawyer who is also InterAksyon.com columnist, had first pitched this idea of rushing the bill decriminalizing libel as an immediate cure to the defects of the anti-cybercrime law authored by Sen. Edgardo Angara.

          Escudero had originally supported libel’s decriminalization and his justice and human rights committee has a pending bill, but for some reason he voted for the cybercrime law that imposes harsher penalties on online libel—and then sought to remedy his “oversight” by filing a new bill on Tuesday seeking to repeal just Section 4 (online libel).

          Sotto explained on Tuesday that he introduced—in plenary, not clandestinely, he said, so that the word “inserted” or “sneaked in” used by his critics is inaccurate—the provision on libel, or Sec. 4, only because it was in the RPC, and therefore it was “only fair” that those covered by criminal libel in the traditional media would be on the same footing as those practicing in online media.

          Sotto and Angara, in an earlier interview, hinted that certain practitioners in print media had wanted “equal treatment” with online media because, they said, they’re the only ones covered by libel.

          But with the decriminalization, libel will be knocked off as a criminal offense across all platforms, lawmakers have said.

          Sotto encouraged Escudero to help pass the pending bill on decriminalizing libel instead of submitting a measure to repeal Section 4 of the Anti-Cybercrime Prevention Act.

          “Mas mahirap pa yung gusto nya eh, ipasa na lang yung decriminalization, meron na nun sa committee nya nun eh [in Escudero’s Committee on Human Rights and Justice]. Mas mahirap pa yun, eh. Wala nang mangyayari dun. Ipasa na lang nila yung decriminalizing libel mas mabuti pa, o kung gusto nila magpa-file ako ng removing libel as an offense ,” Sotto said.

          Sotto also reiterated that he was neither the author nor the sponsor of the newly enacted law and wondered aloud “why [I am] being crucified” for things he had not done.

          “Ang proposal ko, hindi insertion, because I proposed it on the Senate floor, open plenary. Ano bang pinagsasabi nilang insertion? Para bang sinasabi nilang merong sinister? Ang mahirap sa kanila bintang sila nang bintang [My proposal to include libel in the cybercrime law was not an insertion, it was proposed in open plenary, so why do they keep using the word ‘insertion’ and implying there’s something sinister?. The problem with them is they just blindly keep accusing people],” he said.

          InterAksyon com
          The online news portal of TV5

          Reply

              • De Lima: Anti-Cybercrime Law to proceed

                By Ira Pedrasa, ABS-CBNnews.com
                Posted at 10/02/2012 5:00 PM
                Updated as of 10/02/2012 9:15 PM

                MANILA, Philippines (3rd UPDATE) – Amid the protests in and outside the virtual world, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said the Anti-Cybercrime Act will be implemented as scheduled tomorrow, October 3, despite the lack of implementing rules.

                In a text message sent to reporters, de Lima – who will gain enough powers in the law – said: “Effectivity of that law is not conditioned upon the adoption of the [implementing rules and regulations] and the setting up of the Office of Cybercrime.”

                “No legal impediment for the law’s implementation, given the absence of a TRO or injunction.”

                Earlier today, justices of the Supreme Court asked for more time to study the petitions filed against provisions in the Anti-Cybercrime Act.

                The petitions, totaling seven so far, will be tackled again next week. No resolution, including a possible halt order, was issued by the High Court.

                Republic Act 10175 broadened the meaning of libel to cover those found online, such as social media sites. It imposes a higher penalty, which the petitioners said counters one’s right to freedom of speech, expression, and of the press.

                The groups also questioned section 19 of the law, which gives de Lima the authority to restrict or block access to computer data.

                4 justices absent

                The SC Public Information Officer confirmed the news of the non-issuance of a TRO at around 2:00 p.m.

                In a statement, acting PIO chief Maria Victoria Gleoresty Guerra said the full court meeting today was attended by ten justices.

                Those not present were Justices Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Mariano C. Del Castillo. They are all on official business abroad for the Justice Sector Peer-Assisted Network Community of Practice Meetings for Information Systems Professionals in the Justice Sector and for Public Prosecutors held on September 27-28, 2012 and October 1-2, 2012, respectively in the Republic of Croatia.

                Justice Roberto Abad, meanwhile, is on personal leave.

                Source: www abs-cbnnews com/nation/10/02/12/sc-delays-resolution-anti-cybercrime-act

                Reply

  2. Enrile is a scumbag, sleazeeguy,cabronez in the highest degree.
    Faking his ambush to help Marcos declare martial rxactly defined his character. Nothing would redeem him from that obnoxios character.

    Self serving memoir is not worthy of reading at all. It demeans the inquisitive knowledge of Filipino students of historical facts.

    President Aquino will be doing a dissevice to all martial law victims if he attends the book launching of Enrile. He would be degrading Ninoy’s memory and heroism by sporting Enrile. His presence in book launching is like hanging the pucture of Hitler in United Nation’s hall. Aquino must not vow to political pressure. He must stay away from Enrile today.

    Enrile does not deserve forgiveness from his martial law crime. Faking an ambush is a crime under our old and current laws. Reporting a false crime by calling 911 is already a felony, thus Enrile has not been punished yet on his actual fake ambush.

    Reply

    • @Johnny,

      Looks like the President just couldn’t stay away. i just watched a video of his speech (abs-cbn news). He also couldn’t help taking a swipe at the old man and the company he keeps, it seems.

      Loved the Edmund Burke quote towards the end: “When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

      Not quite a fake ambush but an ambush nonetheless.

      Reply

    • Just re-posting. (my earlier comment did not get through, it seems)

      @Johnny,

      Looks like the President just couldn’t stay away. I just watched a video of his speech at the book launching. (abs-cbn news). He also couldn’t help taking a swipe at the old man and the company he keeps, it seems.

      Loved the Edmund Burke quote towards the end, “When bad men combine, The good must associate, else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

      Not quite a fake ambush, but an ambush nonetheless.

      Reply

    • @ johnny lin,

      Tama ka johnny lin at nagtataka nga ako kong bakit nandoon si Pnoy, Para bang nagpapakita pa nang suporta sa senate president enrile gayong sila yong numero unong inapi nang madiklara ang Martial Law noong Sep.21,1972. Nakalimutan na kaya ni Pnoy ang nakaraan paghihirap nang Pamilya nito noon martial law…Ikinulong ang kanyang ama noon at bahagi pa nito ay ang pagpaslang kay Ninoy noong 1983 nang umuwi galing sa america.

      Sinuwerte lang itong matandang enrile at nagbalimbing dahil kong hindi ay tiyak ipapaligpit din ito ni marcos sr. noon. immagine may plano pala silang iligpit si marcos sr. noon kaso nabuking kaya nagbalimbing at mabuti na lamang ay tinulungan nang mga Pari/Obispo at mga TAO kaya nagka peoples power….at Napalayas/napatalsik si marcos sr. sa hawaii…

      Sinasabi ni matandang enrile na traidor si trillanes pero sa totoo lang matagal nang traidor si enrile dahil katraidoran yon sabihin mo sa publiko ang tungkol sa backdoor meeting si trillanes sa china, matagal si enrile sa DND at alam niya ang nararapat itago kaso tumatanda na at ayaw mapahiya kaya inilihis ang esturya/topic dahil ayaw umalis sa puwesto bilang senate president, laki kasi nang pakinabang diyan? Lalo na ang pakinabang galing kay GMA. Sana matoto na ang bawat Tao na pumili nang nararapat na senador sa darating na halalan. Ayoko na kasi sa TRAPOs. Higit sa lahat huwag nang ibento ang sagradong BOTO nang makapamili nang Kandidatong Maka Diyos at Maka TAO at handang maglingkod nang Totoo tulad ni yumaong Jesse Robredo….

      Reply

      • Enrile said during his book launching that he was also a victim of Marcos martial law bY “agreeing to be used as an instrument thru the fake ambush”. Hs son Jackie was prominently displayed as opening speaker.

        Decent Filipinos must not forget and teach their children that Enrile was a partner and implementor of Martial law.

        Releasing his memoir by attempting to change historical facts to his favor is another insult to martial law victims and their descendants.

        Here is another reason why an Enrile should never be elected to any government position.

        DO NOT VOTE FOR JACKIE ENRILE.

        Pass the message thru social media to your friends and relatives.

        Reply

        • Enrile endorses Binay presidential aspiration

          By Nestor P. Burgos Jr.
          Inquirer Visayas
          9:03 pm | Saturday, September 29th, 2012

          ILOILO CITY, Philippines—Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile on Saturday openly threw his support behind Vice President Jejomar Binay for the 2016 presidential election.

          In an impassioned 10-minute speech at the Iloilo provincial and city convention of the United Nationalist Alliance , Enrile said Binay would bring genuine change to the country.

          “I have been in politics for almost 50 years and I have seen all kinds of leaders from (President Manuel) Quezon until now. I am sure that if (Binay) will lead the Philippines, the country will develop and become respectable in Asia and the whole world,” Enrile said.

          Read the whole story at newsinfo inquirer net/279664/enrile-endorses-binay-presidential-aspiration

          Reply

          • “Enrile endorsed Binay”

            This is good news based on Enrile’s reputation in supporting presidential candidates.

            Enrile supports CORRUPT candidates only. Binay is the poster family of corrupt political mayoral family.

            Enrile opposed Cory and Noynoy.

            Enrile was a partner of Marcos
            Enrile supported Estrada twice and Gloria Arroyo.

            Reply

            • Ayos,

              You’ve reminded us where JPE’s endorsement is leading to.

              Hopefully, he’ll keep on babbling, the antonym of his speeches are at the opposite end of the tunnel where the light rays casts a shadow before him.

              Sen Trillanes has a ray of hope of being re-elected come May 2013.

              Reply

  3. Sorry about this Raïssa, can you please delete this #59 comment of mine.

    na-double entry. na duling ako… THANK YOU.

    I hope you are feeling better now. Regards.

    Reply

  4. Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero was “Asked why Senate Majority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III reportedly inserted the provision on online libel, Escudero said, “’Di ko rin alam at wala akong personal knowledge kung siya nga ang naglagay doon.” (I also don’t know and I don’t have any personal knowledge if he is really the one who inserted that.)*

    In the same interview, “Escudero admitted there was an oversight on his part when he approved and signed the committee report of the measure.”** He didnt’ see nor read the Libel Clause at which stage, but voted and signed it anyway.

    Escudero is a lawyer and the chairperson of the Senate Justice Committee.

    “Nakalusot sa amin iyon. Hindi ko nakita iyon nung kami ay bumoto at pumirma sa committee report pero maliwanag ang posisyon ko, kaugnay sa bagay na iyan. Isa ako sa principal author o hindi man unang nag-file para idecriminalize ang libel sa ating statute books,” Escudero said on Thursday, September 27. (We did not notice that provision when the bill was passed. I did not see that when we voted on the committee report but my stand is clear about this. I am one of the principal authors or those who first filed a bill decriminalizing libel.)*

    The comedian, Senator Tito Sotto, has done a Hocus Pocus on the Cybercrime Prevention BILL. He denied inserting that Internet Libel Clause, yet in this article of RR quoting from the Senate Journal of January 24, 2012, it disproves that big lie.

    What does Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero mean when he said “Nakalusot sa amin iyon.” Ilan ang ‘amin’ Senators? Na SayChiz ang ilan pang Senators? When will they voice and come out of their closets to speak up?

    Or is it ‘keep quiet’ without naming names to have peace with your Senate peers?

    At least, a chiz oversight means hindi nagbabasa ng Senate Journals or bill updates before casting his vote and signing it off.

    —

    Reply

    • * Source: http://www.rappler.com/nation/13174-senators-move-to-change-cybercrime-law
      ** Source: http://technology.inquirer.net/17304/anti-cybercrime-law-a-mistake-escudero

      Reference:
      – http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/273904/lawmakers-defend-libel-provision-in-cyber-law
      – http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/09/18/12/sotto-added-libel-anti-cybercrime-law
      – http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/09/27/12/senator-files-complaint-vs-cybercrime-act
      – http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/13041-gagging-the-computer-user-cyber-libel-the-right-way-to-go
      – see Comments #45, 37

      Reply

    • @Mel,

      I don’t know what’s worse, that the hugely popular Escudero basically just admitted that the senators have just helped pass into law a provision they were not aware of was there (tawag natin diyan sa tagalog, natutulog sa pansitan) or the possibility that this is all just palusot kasi nahuli sila sa akto.

      Reply

      • “Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano lamented that the inclusion of a libel clause in the Cybercrime Act went unnoticed during the deliberations of the measure in the plenary.

        “To be fair to the author, to Sen. (Edgardo) Angara and the others, these reactions weren’t all brought up, at least not this passionately when it was being discussed,” he said.”

        Source: www philstar com/Article.aspx?articleId=853950&publicationSubCategoryId=63

        G’day @Cha

        For other Senators not to know or been keep at the dark (aka bypassed) in regards to this Libel Clause insertion for the Cybercrime Prevention at BILL for amendment or bicameral phase is truly alarming.

        Senator T Sotto and cohorts must be held to account. Why and where is he now? Tahimik in all these controversies.

        For the Yea Senators’ excuse not to notice or unmindful is Mind bloggling. If they were deliberately with intent to be misled or blindsided is a breach of protocol, their legislative process … and downright deceptive of this rogue Senator. Not only he is the Senate Majority Leader but heads the Ethics Committee. Very unbecoming, UnSenatorial like. Least of all peers who espouses Ethiquette but lacks it.

        They must have different versions of the bill passed between Congress and Senate during the amendment (readings) period. Some just lost track of the headers and document versions.

        What about the third ‘House’? The Bicameral Committee, it was obvious they were not that transparent.

        For sure, the Corona Impeachment Trial during those weeks could have taken some of the publicity gloss and attention of the Legislators on that Cybercrime Bill. Still, IT WAS GOOD OF SOME SENATORS (2 and counting) TO ADMIT THEIR MISTAKE. And are willing to make amends to wit.

        If the other Senators concerned still play fiddle, they should ask a basic question, are they independent, objective and credible to be sitting as a Senator?

        Reply

        • @Mel,

          Siguro ito ang isang halimbawa noong sinasabi ni Trillanes na style, “pag gusto ko isasagasa ko…” ? Mukhang nasagasaan sila lahat ni Sottocopier!

          Reply

          • Do you recall during one of Sotto’s “turno en contra” speeches. He requested that the Senate Journal be updated or corrected to wit –

            “Mr. President, with the permission of this body, I move that the paragraph containing reference with the study of Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride which can be found in Journal No. 8 page 162 dated August 13, 2012 be stricken off the record in order to lay this matter to rest.” – Senator Tito Sotto

            As for that monumental Libel Clause err Section by midnight insertion to the Cybercrime Prevention BILL, was the document’s creation date for the Senate Journal of January 24, 2012 reflect as true and correct, and not modified days or weeks after to suit? Just asking…

            Reply

    • tama ka, mel. ni hindi man lang binasa ulit bago pinirmahan. what does that say about them? that they cannot be bothered to read something before they sign? ilan pa ang nakalusot na ganito? laws / bills lang ba, o baka pati mga vouchers, checks and other documents that signed of taxpayers’ money towards the pockets of thieves and corrupt personalities? nakakatakot ang ganito!

      Reply

      • @filipino_mom.

        “… what does that say about them?” Kung petty o maliit na kamalian, pupuwede pang palampasin.

        Pero kung trabahong gagawa ng batas? Sukdulan sila ng katamaran at katang_han. Biro mo, sa pinirmahan nila – hindi nila gaanong naintindihan ang pang-angkop ng [Revised] Penal Code on all ‘Crimes…

        “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″
        CHAPTER II PUNISHABLE ACTS

        SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.

        A simple Smartphone with an App, hacked or not, when used as a tool to commit a crime includes breaches to the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”. Penalty? One degree higher… Whether the crime committed involves libel or not (ordering a pizza online w/o paying for it).

        Based on the forum interactions, RR says even if the Libel Clause is amended and crossed (deleted) out, still Section 6 covers “All Crimes”. At the moment, Libel in the Philippines is not decriminalized (See Escudero’s Senate Bill 2162 decriminalizing libel).

        Reply

  5. ON JOHNNY ENRILE’S MEMOIR

    Just watched the book launching of JPE’s memoir published by ABS CBN.

    I remember shaking his hand at Pepe Diokno’s wake in New Manila in March 1987. When Enrile arrived, the large group of street parliamentarians who were there – moved away, silently and swiftly. Cory Aquino had retained him as Defense Secretary. He was still months away from mounting a series of coup de etats against Cory Aquino.

    Though we still have to read the book, it must be made clear that it his view of history; though Enrile really is a complex man, very intelligent and capable, he struggles within himself to do the right thing; and it is not always priniciple that motivates him in his decisions.

    His stories of survival in his younger years may have taught him this lesson early on: resiliency is an end in itself, and surviving is the number one goal.

    You cannot compare him to a Robredo or a Pepe Diokno; he will fall miserably short. He is first and foremost a survivor; fighting for one’s ideals is secondary.

    His version of history must be challenged, for the sake of our country.

    Cant wait to read the rest of the book, after getting a preview of it in the book launching.

    Reply

    • I was once following a garbage bin truck on another lane along a motorway, a big sign was plastered behind it.

      “All we leave behind are just memories.”

      This truck was on its way to the garbage tip, after sometime its contents will be recycled as good as fertilizer, or back to whence it came from.

      @Andrew, you wrote, “His version of history must be challenged, for the sake of our country.”

      I think Raïssa has some materials or books about some personalities during the Martial Law years of former President and deposed dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

      As for JPE’s service to the dictator, I think it is fair to say that he clung to Ferdinand Marcos because of what Power offered him, he reneged at a time when that Power was about to be castritated from him.

      As a politician, he did what he had to do to survive, and to live for another day.

      (Any pdf version or Scribd anyone?)

      Reply

  6. Wala nang pag asa ang Pilipinas. Parang sinabi na nila na bawal magsalita laban sa sino man dito sa cyberworld. Is Philippines still worth dying for?

    Nakakainis, nakakabwesit at nakakapanghina. Tama cguro sabihin ngayon na the Philippines is a country only for the rich and powerful… very SAD!!!! Get out while you can……. :(

    Reply

    • Why worry so long as you won’t post libelous messages in the cyber media. Freedom of speech is not absolute, you cannot say, print or post messages that demean or bring down the reputation of a person.

      I’ve lived for almost 30yrs in the US and honestly there’s no place like home. I won’t trade our country to any other country in the world. Once a Filipino will always be a Filipino thats the reason why thousands of Filipinos come home to spend their Christmas holidays here.

      Reply

      • Not so for so many journalists and digital writers who have to write and may “hit” other personalities – mostly public officials, and all internet companies connected to these classes of professionals. Short to say IT KEEPS THE FUN IN ‘PINAS ALIVE! Maybe, amateurs bloggers, o.k. they can follow that advice but I doubt it. They like to join the fun too…IT KEEPS ‘EM VERY ALIVE TOO!

        Reply

        • right!! keeps the brain works to get rid of alzheimer or dimentia. good brain exercise to read and write some commets. ang someetimes makes blood rise, just drink lots of water,

          Reply

  7. My further blog here…

    Let us point this out: Cybercrime on Libel…states “xxx as defined in ART. 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended xxx”

    ART. 355 does not “define” libel. It is ART. 353 [which is not specifically stated]. What ART. 355 says” xxx a libel committed by means of writing xxx” but how committed? What is the nature of the act? What acts are “covered”? Against “whom” or “who” are the victim or victims ? [ it is in ART. 353 ]

    ART. 353, the definition of libel says: ” A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect,real or imaginary, or anyact, omission, condition, status,or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or cintempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.” But this Article 353 is not stated in RA No. 10175. So, how can libel be “defined” when this ACT R.A. No. 10175 does not define the act of libel?

    Is RA 10175 the Cybercrime law on libel clear and not vague? No. It is not only vague but statutorily & substantially defective to inform those intended to be subject of punishment.

    1st. Libel is defined in ART. 353 and not ART. 355. If ART. 353 is excluded as the definition of libel, what is the definition of libel in ART. 355? None. There being “none” the law is vague.

    If it was intended to punish libel, RA No. 10175 should have stated clearly to include ARTICLES 353, 354 [ requirement of publicity], 356, 357, 358, 360 [ persons responsible ], 361 [ Proof of truth ] and 362 [ Libelous remarks on privileged matters ], all of Title THIRTEEN Crimes against Honor, Revised Penal Code, as Amended. as these Articles are parts of the whole libel law in the Code referred to.

    2nd point: To raise the penalties under this ACT for libel, violates SEC. 19 ART. III Constitution on “cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment” clause. It is utterly with excessive penalty contrary to ART. 5, Revised Penal Code, as Amended, which the courts are bound to repress.

    3rd. Procedurally & substantially, R.A. No. 10175 violates the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” [ SEC. 14, (2) ART. III Constitution, being that only ART. 355 of the said ACT is stated without all the other ARTICLES on libel [ as given here ].

    4th. The ACT also violates SEC. 1 the right not to be deprive of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law. ART. III Const.

    5th. The ACT as provided, constitutes DOUBLE JEOPARDY, to be prosecuted under this ACT and also under the libel law or other provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended. [ SEC. 21, Art. III Const. ]

    6th. it violates FREEDOM OF SPEECH, expression, or of the press. ( SEC. 4, ART. III Const. ]

    7th. The ACT violates that “no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law” [ SEC. 14 Art. III Const. ] in relation to Points 1 to 6th above.

    It is good to know that there are already three (3) Cases filed in the Court.

    This article here states that this libel clause in this ACT was “inserted.” A valid rider? Maybe this point can also be discussed for everyone’s information.

    Reply

    • sir/mam leona, kung gagamit po ng pangalan yung hindi tunay na pangalan ng tinutukoy sa comment ,libel din po ba ang dating? halimbawa kung sinasabihang magnanakaw si xxx gamitan ng cartoon character hindi na po libel?

      Reply

      • @pinay710… under your “facts” given if the victim is identifiable and complains, the “untrue” name of the writer will be “searched” to find out the true name, or in whatever blog owner it is found, the blog owner maybe liable [ investigated, charged and tried in court ], or both of them, but maybe not yet under this new Cybercrime law [ it is being questioned now ] but under the regular libel law in the Revised Penal Code, as Amended. Thanks for your asking for my 10 cents worth opn.

        Reply

    • Just to add…SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy never mentions libel or libelous acts. What is delcared, among others:

      “need to protect and safeguard computers”; “computer and communication systems”; “networks and data base”; “confidentiality,integrity, availability of information data”; “broadcasting, electronic commerce”; “information & communication, content productions”; “data processing”; “all forms of misuse, abuse and illegal access.” These are all what are declared as the policy. Nothing about libelous acts! This law really, as inserted and not discussing at all libelous acts, violates SEC. 26 (1) “Every bill passed by the Congress shall, embrace only ONE SUBJECT which shall be expressed in the title thereof” if not in the “title” at least in SEC. 2 on declaration of policy.
      (caps. supplied)

      Libel or libelous acts are not there. The public or even many of the legislators did not know about the insertion of libelous acts and its punishment.

      Reply

  9. BSP and MWSS sites hacked:

    Anonymous Philippines

    The Philippine Government has just passed a bill that effectively ends the Freedom of Expression in the Philippines.

    The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the most notorious act ever witnessed in the cyber-history of the Philippines,
    and the language of the bill is cunningly designed to make you think it only applies to individuals who are deep in
    cyber-technology and doesn’t apply to everyone, but some part of the bill basically says it can imprison anyone who
    commits libel either by written messages, comments, blogs, or posts in sites such as Facebook, Twitter, or any other
    comment-spaces of other social media in the Internet.

    New technologies give us new opportunities to connect with a lot of people not only in this country but all over the world.
    They can also provide us with a medium through which our political, public and even private views can have an immediate and
    direct impact on individuals, communities and even countries. It is just so disappointing that our government, in adopting
    our 80-year-old antiquated libel laws to the Cybercrime Law, again seems to have retarded our march with the rest of the world
    with respect to giving full force to the people’s freedom of expression.

    We ask for a revision of the said bill for the betterment of the Filipino denizens.

    Protect our Right to Freedom of Expression!

    #OccupyPhilippines | Anonymous Butuan | PrivateX | #pR.is0n3r
    Lo0p th3 Lo0p | l4stl00k | Blackrain | Anonymous Manila

    Reply

  11. Maybe related…Philstar newspaper reports SC issues TRO showing movie “Innocence of Muslims” ordering MRTCB not to allow showing the film anywhere. Muslim petitioners’ counsel overlooked impleading “internet providers” like youtube, etc. So, there’s TRO on these cyberspace elements.

    Reply

  12. OFF TOPIC: this site, ms. Raissa Robles, the CPMers and their researches during the height of the corona impeachament trial were acknowledged and mentioned on chapter 20, page 249 of Ms. Marites Vitug’s Hour Before Dawn. Chapters 4 and 5 painted the real, ugly picture of Cristina Corona. Read with a digital bp reader by your side…

    Reply

  13. Off topic:

    Another pressing issue than Cam Sur.. inaction will be a cause of concern.. Please put value on our tax money dear congressmen… I suggest putting some responsibility on their parents. Also lower the age ceiling relative to the frequency of offenses e.g. first offense 18 yrs old where we can implement DSWD intervention else jail time.. second offense 15 years old and so forth ,, We also need to take note the how severe the crime is,, especially for murder or rape cases,, This is for their own good.. this is also related to RH Bill…

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/232557/news/nation/cops-working-with-congress-on-hamog-boys

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/09/25/12/batang-hamog-robbers-maul-girl-qc

    Reply

    • An excerpt to the above link…

      “If I am not mistaken, I believe this is the first libel case filed against a blogger because of their blog entry. Another blogger survived a libel case but it was not about an entry he wrote but as the webhost of a libelous entry. The latter case was dismissed.”

      – Noemi, momblogger

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.