Inside Philippine politics & beyond

What the Cybercrime Law really means

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

I cannot stress enough the importance of making sure that the present Cybercrime Law does not go into effect.

Ever.

The Supreme Court earlier issued a temporary court injunction which may end by February 6, 2013.

Congress goes on recess by February 9 this year, or three days after  SC’s TRO lapses. Either  Congress radically amends the present Cybercrime Law or the SC declares it unconstitutional. Those are the only choices for me.

Netizens have only this month to make their voices heard on the Cybercrime Law. Oral arguments are set this January 15.

I will be writing several articles on the Cybercrime Law and why the present law – as legislated – needs to be junked.

I will write as well on the Freedom of Information Act, and of course on the coming elections and how we can choose our leaders in a better way.

Meanwhile, I’d like to share this article that Alan wrote on the Cybercrime Law. Please note though that Alan made an error in the date when the TRO expires. January is when the oral arguments will take place.

Nevertheless, Alan is one of the authorities on Internet, Politics and Freedom. I can say that, not because he is my hubby, but because he has lectured on these topics extensively in the International Institute for Journalism in Berlin and has attended the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva and Tunis.

Please take the time to read his piece, which Asian Dragon Magazine published last month. The magazine has allowed me to post it here:

What the Cybercrime Law really means

By Alan Robles

Government is perplexed. President Benigno Aquino says he can’t understand why the public is so angry. After all, what’s wrong with a law that chills free speech online, allows warrantless surveillance of Internet traffic, and promises specially stiff jail sentences for Filipinos who commit crimes using digital technology or a digital device (such as a smartphone)?

A law, furthermore, that allows government to block websites without warning and provides no oversight or accountability of the implementing agencies?

Oh, and did I mention the law’s most repressive provisions were inserted stealthily and without any public hearings?

If Aquino seems clueless — he says he’s read the document at least thrice — citizens are not. Civil society recognizes Republic Act 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Law, as a crude and blatant attempt to censor the Internet and trample the Bill of Rights. The good news: barraged by outraged petitions, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the law’s implementation. The bad news: the TRO expires in January. The worse news: if the law takes effect, surfing the Internet will never be the same for Filipinos. They face a surveillance and censorship state in the making. As Senator Teofisto Guingona III says, the Cybercrime Law is an attempt to dictate what Filipinos may and may not see on the Internet. It’s also an effort to control what they may and may not say online. Plus, it offers law enforcers exciting new possibilities for abuse and extortion.

How could such a draconian law have come into being? Simple. Most of the country’s politicians and leaders neither use nor understand the Internet. Back in the 1990s, Internet visionary Nicholas Negroponte already had a term for these people: the“digital homeless.” He described this as the part of the population that is neither young (who’ve grown up knowing nothing but the Net) nor elderly (who have the time to go online). Unfortunately, according to Negroponte, the digital homeless “tend to be the decision makers, executives, and politicians” despite the fact that they “are really out of it. They are not part of this digital world; they don’t understand it.”

There seem to be three main characters behind RA 10175: Department of Justice (DOJ) Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy, Senator Edgardo Angara, and Senator Vicente Sotto. The law started life in Congress as a bill to fight cybercrimes like hacking, spam, destruction, theft of data, and child pornography. Sy seems to have given identical drafts of the bill to at least four senators, who promptly put their names to their copies and submitted them as their own without bothering to change them much — and apparently without understanding the contents. Angara delivered the sponsorship speech, becoming the bill’s padrino.

The bill was supposed to follow an international agreement on specific cybercrimes, the Budapest Convention (by the way, the Philippines is not a signatory). But, in a fit of creative legal engineering, it looks as if Sy and congressmen went above and beyond what the agreement calls for. To cite an example: the Budapest Convention has a section on safeguards to protect human rights and liberties —the Philippine Cybercrime Law drops that totally. And, where the Convention lists the very specific crime of “child pornography,” RA 10175’s framers invented and added a new vague category, “cybersex”— the “willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.” Looking nervously at the porn stash in your smartphone?

In the final stages of preparation, someone tampered well and truly with the bill’s DNA, producing the patchwork Frankenstein creation sent to Aquino for signing. The Budapest Convention does not at all mention libel as a cybercrime, but apparently Senator Sotto shoehorned it in while his fellow senators (Guingona exempted) nodded or dozed. Sotto’s insertion was neither easily noticed nor subjected to a public hearing. Completing the mutilation, other congressmen threw the entire Revised Penal Code into the bill, wildly changing the bill beyond the Budapest Convention’s intended scope. Nobody objected, least of all Sy. By the way, RA 10175 calls for the creation of a DOJ Office of Cybercrime and an interagency, Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC). Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy will head the first and be a member of the second.

Adding insult to injury, rather than brief the public on the act while it was being legislated, the Justice Department only called for “public consultations” after the bill had been signed into law. Fortunately, Filipinos had already been alerted long before that when Senator Sotto, smarting from online mockery of his speeches, taunted his detractors by warning them a law on cyber libel was coming. As a result, much of the outrage has centered on the Cybercrime Law’s provision on libel, which promises to create a mess.

Now, anyone who’s at all used the Internet (and social networks in particular) knows it’s rife with harsh insults, mockery, badinage, and naughty language. It’s the way the Internet has always been. The Cybercrime Law apparently wants to change all that: it empowers anyone and everyone to sue at the drop of the proverbial hat. If you’re among the nearly 30 million Filipinos using Facebook, you see those buttons,“Like,” “Comment,” and “Share”? Start treating them with lots of respect. Wait, maybe “respect” isn’t the right word — “fear” is. Because should you happen to use them the wrong way, those buttons could land you in prison.

What, you ask, is the “wrong way”? The concise legal answer to this question is, “Your guess is as good as mine.” If you post a comment on FB about a celebrity, politician, neighbor, or even total stranger, that person could sue you for libel. It’s conceivable that if someone else makes such a comment and you share it, you could also be sued. What if you neither comment nor share, but indicate you “like” the comment? You could still be included in the libel suit. Senator Angara even helpfully suggested that if enough people “like” a libelous post, they could all be charged with conspiracy. He said on a TV show that “if you agree to destroy the reputation of this person, then that is conspiracy.”

The Cybercrime Law’s libel provision threatens to unleash a tidal wave of suits which could flood a court system already legendary for its backlogs, delays, and corruption. If you’re accused of cyber libel, even if you eventually beat the rap, in the process you’ll still be forced to spend time and money fighting the case, a process that could take years. In the Philippines, libel has always favored the rich and powerful.

Libel aside, there’s also the fact that the Revised Penal Code has been folded into the Cybercrime Law. Should RA 10175 come into effect, any crime committed with the aid of information and communications technology (ICT) will incur a much harsher jail sentence than the same crime committed with no-tech. Charged with theft? Trespassing? Estafa? If you happened to have used digital tech during those crimes (a call on your iPhone? An email?) your possible jail sentence will be increased. Plus, you could face a separate charge for “misuse” of the device. And, by the way, every Filipino, no matter where in the world he or she happens to be, is covered by the Cybercrime Law and can be sued at a low level Regional Trial Court here.

Ironically, the Cybercrime Law will certainly not stop your kids from accessing porn, visiting banned content, or insulting each other. Internet users have a variety of ways to circumvent blocks and it’s doubtful Aquino, Angara, and Sotto know about sockpuppets, fake accounts, proxies, spoofers and tunnels. Even banning websites will not work, not when the contents can simply displace to another site, or millions of other channels (the term for this is the Streisand Effect). Assistant Secretary Sy, in one forum, pointed to sites that give instructions on how to build Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) as pages that could be blocked. A Google search “how to build IEDs” yields 16 million results. Will the government block them all? Will it block Google? If government proposes to give us China’s repressiveness, shouldn’t it at least also give us China’s economic growth?

 

Comments

  1. BAYCAS #40

    I just watched this link below provided by Baycas, thoughts I told you so (see previous posts) comes to mind when anachronisms get invoked here In cyber space and time. Atty TED TE, lawyer of the hour, did not debunk explicitly obsolescence of cobwebs, he did not even say outright the mental legal inadequacies of those involved in the nourishment and passage of the anti-cybercrime law. If this the spirit and letter of this their law is applied to these self-protectors and punishers , all of them should be prosecuted and be subjected to one degree higher penalties. Atty TE mentioned names, the origins of this legal pathology. From there alone and the subsequent adherents the people can have a measure of human dignity that went absent in crafting the law.

    Watching Maria Raissa and TED TE surely made my day.

  2. @saxnviolins and @JoeAm,

    Even The Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.

    • Agreed. And Ben Franklin used to publish pamphlets anonymously, in his youth. Chief Justice Steele was quoting the following lines from Justice John Paul Stevens of the US Supreme Court:

      Justice Black reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.

      On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.

      McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995).

      • That’s one use of anonymity.

        Another is to ensure that canards can be thrown at will without attribution and retribution.

        • “canard” In cooking, a duck intended for food.
          “canard” In aeronautics, an airplane that has its horizontal stabilizer and elevators located forward of the wing.
          “canard” In blogging, a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.

          A canard aimed at a congressman is a libel unless you write under a pseudonym, then it is just edgy writing.

        • Plus anything written under a pseudenym is obviously satire, because the author is not for real. Satire is not libel. It is funny, unless you happen to be its butt.

        • You fight a lie with the truth, not jail time. As quoted from CJ Steele below, one can just as easily post the truth or clarifications on the same blog. It is so untrusting of people’s intelligence, to think that they will fall for the canard over the truth, that one has to stifle the truth, or force an anonymous writer to reveal his/her identity.

          True, there is the danger of misuse of speech and anonymity. But

          “[t]he right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”

          Chief Justice Myron Steele, quoting Justice John Paul Stevens.

          Free speech is like a vaccine. You may get nauseated, but its therapeutic value is greater than the nausea.

          I cannot say the same for guns.

        • Perfect example. The Abnoy issue, versus the Villaroyo issue.

          Which is the canard, and which, the truth?

          Which of them was bought by the market?

        • Forgot to highlight.

          our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”

          That is true of the US society. Is it true of ours as well?

          Do we trust our people to have discernment? Or are they all witless nobs? That is why need to shield them from lies and canards. And that is why we need to shepherd the ignoramuses – we from the good schools, we, the college graduates, we the intellectuals (fill in the blanks ad nauseum).

  4. Re 37.

    As promised, baycas2, here is the case: the type Raissa may face, if the cyber libel law is not voided.

    A City Councilman (Cahill) in Delaware sues an anonymous commenter on a political blog for defamation. The judge is requested to force Comcast (internet provider) to reveal the identity of John Doe. Two comments of John Doe are as follows:

    Cahill is a prime example of failed leadership.

    Gahill [sic] is as paranoid as everyone in the town thinks he is. The mayor needs support from his citizens and protections from unfounded attacks…

    The case goes up to the Delaware Supreme Court. My new idol, Chief Justice Steele, writing for the court en banc, had the following choice statements, which beautifully sums up all the issues relative to the petitions before our Supreme Court. There is the issue of democratization of public debate brought about by the internet, the empowerment of commenters with no money to access traditional media, and the reason for respecting anonymity over the internet.

    Hats off Your Honor:

    The advent of the internet dramatically changed the nature of public discourse by allowing more and diverse people to engage in public debate. Unlike thirty years ago, when “many citizens [were] barred from meaningful participation in public discourse by financial or status inequalities and a relatively small number of powerful speakers [could] dominate the marketplace of ideas” the internet now allows anyone with a phone line to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Through the internet, speakers can bypass mainstream media to speak directly to “an audience larger and more diverse than any the Framers could have imagined.” Moreover, speakers on internet chat rooms and blogs can speak directly to other people with similar interests. A person in Alaska can have a conversation with a person in Japan about beekeeping in Bangladesh, just as easily as several Smyrna residents can have a conversation about Smyrna politics.

    Internet speech is often anonymous. “Many participants in cyberspace discussions employ pseudonymous identities, and, even when a speaker chooses to reveal her real name, she may still be anonymous for all practical purposes.” For better or worse, then, “the audience must evaluate [a] speaker’s ideas based on her words alone.” “This unique feature of [the internet] promises to make public debate in cyberspace less hierarchical and discriminatory” than in the real world because it disguises status indicators such as race, class, and age.

    It is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. This protection extends to anonymous internet speech. Anonymous internet speech in blogs or chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.

    Note the highlighted phrase. The internet forces the reader to evaluate only your words (or ideas). It does not come with the baggage (positive) of fame, or (negative) obscurity (some walang tinapos, but with good ideas, who will be relegated to the sidelines by the posturing elite.)

    Read the full text here:

    courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=67130

        • @Rolly,

          I am very hopeful that the petitioners are preparing well for the oral arguments.

          If they need to amend their petitions, may they do them ASAP!

      • In a comment below, it is stated that there is no such thing as a false opinion. That is a key concept here, because Chief Justice Steele distinguishes asserted fact from expressed opinion.

        In deciding whether or not a statement is defamatory we determine, “first, whether alleged defamatory statements are expressions of fact or protected expressions of opinion;

        Earlier, he said:

        a reasonable person reading a newspaper in print or online, for example, can assume that the statements are factually based and researched. This is not the case when the statements are made on blogs or in chat rooms. “When one views…allegedly defamatory statements in context – both the immediate context and the broader social context – it becomes apparent that many of the allegedly defamatory statements cannot be interpreted as stating actual facts, but instead are either ‘subjective speculation’ or ‘merely rhetorical hyperbole.’”

        So there is a difference between stating that “a woman has slept with many men”, as against stating “She comes across as rather slutty.”

        Similarly, stating that “Politician xyz exacts commissions from government projects” is different from “I think politician xyz is corrupt.”

        The first is an assertion of a fact, and the second is an unreliable opinion. Opinions, as ruled by CJ Steele are not defamatory by definition of law.

        • yep, “there is no such thing as a false opinion”.

          the “marketplace” has full “of ideas”…lots of them…

      • As always, there is the axiom that one fights speech with speech, not jail time. Chief Justice Steele puts it as follows:

        Besides the legal remedies available to a plaintiff wronged by internet
        defamation, the potential plaintiff has available a very powerful form of extra-judicial relief. The internet provides a means of communication where a person wronged by statements of an anonymous poster can respond instantly, can respond to the allegedly defamatory statements on the same site or blog, and thus, can, almost contemporaneously, respond to the same audience that initially read the allegedly defamatory statements. The plaintiff can thereby easily correct any misstatements or falsehoods, respond to character attacks, and generally set the record straight. This unique feature of internet communications allows a potential plaintiff ready access to mitigate the harm, if any, he has suffered to his reputation as a result of an anonymous defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements made on an internet blog or in a chat room.

        This is also the consummate rebuttal to the right of reply advocates. Why mandate it, when you can just reply? If the aggrieved politician has the meatier morsel of truth, then surely the marketplace will buy his assertion over the alleged falsities of the blogger or commenter.

        • the comments section is as vital as the blog post.

          the reaction, the reply, the message…they are just a click or a tap of the “submit” button in order to convey what needs to be brought up for discussion…

    • [email protected]

      Facts vs. opinion. A very enlightening piece for all including lawyers. Facts are meant to build or destroy. Facts fortify one’s knowledge. Opinion embellishes such knowledge. But facts can also demolish a person. And opinion can likewise resurrect him. Facts can put one in jail while opinion can destine one to oblivion like Tiglao, Doronilla and Olivarez. Following closely are Magno, Pedrosa, Maceda and similarly minded journalists.

      • Oh, yes, @Rene-Ipil dear, FACTS ARE INCONTROVERTIBLE. In 1stworld country WITNESS ACCOUNTS TAKES A BACK SEAT over FORENSICS. In 1stworld witness accounts have to be corroborated by evidences and forensics. Unlike in the Philippines, just because a media personality was critical of Palawanese governor that was already enough to file a murder case against him. AND NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FACTS ….

        Like what I told you, @Rene-Ipil dear Filipnos are doppeldanger, CULTURAL DUALITY. One for 1stworld Law learned in school and one cultural justice system BY PERCEPTION, ASSOCIATION AND WITNESS ACCOUNTS.

        Now you are learning from me !!!! I take you to school I am not even a bus driver. AND IT IS FREE. One comment from me a day makes you a smart boy.

        • That is why I just cannot understand why Filipinos are so agog over Mikey’s hellicopter when all they have are witness accounts. Against Ate Glo all witness accounts. No evidence. Evidence came later.

          Why the PHilippine Media being used by the bureaucrats in demonizing SUSPECTS? JUST TO DEMONIZE and the Philippine Media are happy accessories.

          DONCHA LOVE PHILIPPINES ? No wonder Filipinos are voting with their passports.

      • @saxnviolins: from an article at Philstar entitled “Due Diligence” , Jan. 8th’s issue written by Yoly Villanueva-Ong, she quoted or picked-up an original article (i believe from a blog) entitled “Enriles: Father and Son Act” written by Jet Damazo. My quetion is, if ever the Enriles charge them with libel under this cyber law (granting, the supreme court rules the approval against the petitioners), who may be included on these charges? Jet Damazo, Yoly Villanueva-Ong, who just quoted this article, and the ones who ticked “like” or “share” in their FB Accounts?

        • One who clicks the “like” button is not republishing. To republish requires making the info known to people other than those who read at that site. When I point to my copy of the Tribune, for example, and tell you that I like the article, that is not a republication.

          Share? Neither. Sharing is giving a copy. If I buy two copies of the Inquirer which has a libelous article and give one to you, am I republishing?

          So the rule for the physical world should apply as well, to the electronic world. Sharing is not a republication; neither is liking.

          Will answer the others later. Work is beckoning.

        • Whatever the result of the Supreme Court petition, it will not affect the case filed by Senator Enrile, because he filed a civil case. Civil libel is allowed, even in the US.

          But if I were representing Ms. Villanueva-Ong, or Jet Damazo, I would file a motion to dismiss. The basis would be the points made by Chief Justice Steele, in the final pages of his opinion for the court en banc.

          The link to that case is in my earlier post.

          I hope lawyers, both for the Supreme Court petition, and for other libel defendants will read the case. It can be mined both for substantive law, as well as for procedural (remedial) law. In fact, it can be used as a template for a motion to dismiss most, if not all libel petitions in the Philippines.

          Even if you are not a lawyer or a law student, I recommend that you read the opinion. It is written with superior logic, elegant English, and flavored with downright common sense.

        • Congrats Sax for picking up a legal hero who is also a hero of corporates. I lived closer to you in his territory of Delaware, been following Steele since 2000 until his campaign for CJ due to common personal acquaintance.

          Steele expertise is corporate governance in Delaware, the hub of multinational US corporations because of the state’s lax corporate liabilities. Your creditcards corporations are most probably incorporated in Delaware.

          Superior logic and common sense is his trademark which you hit directly.
          Sounds familiar!

          Promise I wont comment on your post, never again, since we idolize the same legal luminary and good luck, God bless. I meant it

          He he he

        • I have not come across a civil libel in the country, unlike the U.S. where there are States that have statutes on civil libel and also criminal libel. The other libel variant is “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” which is a common law concept.

          Libel in the country is always criminal and defined in Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code.

          I would move for the dismissal of the “civil libel” filed by Enrile against Damazo and Ong because its basis is Art. 33 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, (NCC) which requires that a criminal case has been filed against the accused on account of the “defamatory” article, which a separate civil case for damages could be instituted by the plaintiff. This civil case is actually a claim for damages for the defamatory/libelous article, but is never configured as a civil libel. Art. 33 itself does not speak of civil libel. It simply allows a person who had been libeled to file separate monetary civil judgment against the defendant, independent of the criminal libel.

          My theory/reading of Art. 33 (NCC) is that since Enrile did not file a criminal libel, the civil damages that come with the criminal libel does not come into existence even if it could be filed independently from the criminal libel. I would advance the theory that he criminal libel is the anchor for filing the civil damages.

          My approach is to attack Enrile’s complaint on the basis of statutes and not on the opinions of justices from foreign courts. Their opinions have weight but they will come only upon the termination of the proceedings when the parties have been required to file memoranda.

        • A very happy new year ahead of us, @jcc.

          I am so glad to read again from sages of the not-so-distant past.

          While many transitioned to Facebook and Twitter, I still find blogs worthy of propagation…

  5. This RA10175 will always be open to abuse. Authorities will whimsically find or device ways to intimidate people.

    The news below is just one example:

    Slammed on Facebook, cop chief told to do job

    Posted by Jani Arnaiz, Chief Editor on November 18, 2012, 8:06 pm

    By Joey A. Gabieta Inquirer Visayas 18th November 2012
    http://www.maasinreporter.com/southernleyte.php

    TACLOBAN CITY—Do your work and don’t be sensitive.
    This was the advice of Chief Superintendent Elmer Soria, of the police regional office in Eastern Visayas (PRO-8), to Supt. Rico Tome, Maasin City police chief, who invited seven Maasinhons to appear at the city police station after posting harsh comments on a Facebook page, criticizing the police for failing to stop four robberies that occurred in a span of 24 hours.

    “He (Tome) should not be sensitive. Instead, he should work and confront the problem,” Soria told the Inquirer in a phone interview.

    Instead of inviting the residents to explain why they criticized the police on their Facebook page, Soria said Tome should address their concerns immediately.
    He added Tome could improve police visibility in the streets to deter the commission of crimes in Maasin.

    Soria said that based on the article that came out in the Inquirer, he didn’t find the comments of the netizens a personal attack on Tome since these were complaints against the perceived inaction of the police.

    Although he issued a slight admonition to Tome for what he had done, Soria said he would leave it to Senior Supt. Allan Cuevillas, police provincial director, to decide the action to take against Tome.

    “I have issued a directive addressed to the provincial director to take action,” Soria said.
    In an earlier interview, Tome said he didn’t mean to scare the seven Maasinhons when he asked them to appear at the city police station on Nov. 7 after posting harsh comments on Facebook.

    “We would just like to remind them that what they did was not right. We will just give them a warning,” he said.

    “It’s true that we have freedom of expression. Now that there’s Facebook, unlike before that it’s only radio and newspaper, they could just say defamatory remarks against us. You know the law could run after them,” he said.

    But not one of those invited showed up at the Maasin City police station on Nov. 7. The Maasin police didn’t issue a second invite.

    The invitation stemmed from the comments posted on the Facebook page called “You are from Southern Leyte if…” about the four break-ins on Nov. 2 and 3.

    • Most of the time invitation to a Police Station leads to a detention for some 6 hours without being charged of any infraction.

  6. Sorry I haven’t been able to join the discussions, most of my concentration has gone to trying to meet a weekly column deadline, which I haven’t done for a while, but I should get the hang of it again soon. Here’s what I know about Phil libel (back when I was an editor in The Manila Chronicle somebody tried filing a case against me): truth is not a defense at all. It hinges on MALICE, which is a deliberate attempt to lower or demean the standing of a person or entity int he eyes of the community.
    In the UK, libel law is a bit different – the respondent is presumed guilty, and has the burden of proving her or his statements were non-libelous. Truth is a defense. The UK has become notorious as a center for libel tourism — rich people from around the world who file their cases in London.

    • you better read the jurisprudence on the matter. times v. sullivan, and people vs. larry flynt are authorities to the effect that ‘iis reckless disregard for the truth’… not malice to despise the person, nor malice in law (mala en se); as distinguished from malum prohibitum.

      printing the truth is not reckless disregard for the truth because you were factually reporting the events as they happened….. your situation with the chronicle could have happened before the sulivan and flynt cases..

      philippine courts are awed by american jurisprudence because the latter is an epitome judiciousness, probity, and reason.

    • Reputation over free speech.

      It is ironic that the defendant’s burden of proof in England was established to protect people’s honor, as it has now resulted in London’s public disgrace as the “libel capital of the western world.”77 Laws that were initially designed to defend the integrity of the Crown through the courts are now primarily employed to enable foreigners to misuse the English judiciary for their own ends—i.e., to silence the speech of their detractors.

      With serious efforts at libel reform on the horizon, England now has the opportunity to amend its laws and remove the archaic remains of an obsolete notion. The time has come to set things right and make the libel plaintiff prove his case.

      – Elizabeth Samson (The web link for this quote posted below will still be under moderation. Emphasis in the quote mine.)

      Free speech over reputation.

      • One of the most famous libel cases tried in London in recent times was that of Nazi lover David Irving against the scholar/historian Deborah Lipstadt. He accused her of defaming his reputation as a “historian” when she wrote in a book that he was a Holocaust denier. He forced Lipstadt, an American, to go to London and expected he would collect a huge amount in damages. Instead, Lipstadt’s publisher supported her and hired a distinguished panel of historians to give Iriving’s entire body of work the equivalent of a proctoscopy and dissection. They established that Irving indeed was a denier, Nazi lover, fabricator and should not be called a historian at all. Truth WAS a defense. Court ruled against Irving and awarded Lipstadt damages, essentially bankrupting Irving. The hilarious highlight of the case? Irving, who chose to be his own counsel, called the judge “Mein Fuehrer”

      • Your highlighted text is true only in England. In the US, there is precedent that declares

        “a constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages.”

        Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 479 US 1

        Our libel laws were actually copied from state libel laws, which find origin in English common law. The US Constitution, however, is above the common law. Having copied the US Constitution, our jurisprudence should have evolved like the US. But our jurists have stuck to the English common law presumption of malice, contrary to their ruling that New York Times and its progeny applies in the Philippines.

        Next post, I will quote my new idol. A Chief Justice of a State, deciding the case involving an anonymous comment in a political blog like this.

        • The time has come to set things right and make the libel plaintiff prove his case…

          Not only in England but also here in PH.

        • I was posting about the case cited above, but the comment got deleted.

          Will try next time.

        • Yes, he is a brilliant judge. Positively brilliant. I worship the ground brushed by his long and distinguished robes. (See saxnviolins excerpt, comment #39)

        • Already read SnV’s post from Ellenville prior to #39.

          Thanks, SnV.

          Segué from politics…

          @JoeAm, I’m reading now “Corporate Criticism on the Internet: The Fine Line Between Anonymous Speech and Cybersmear”.

  7. Inductive viewpoint RE-POSTED

    Never mind what the trees look like, crimes are actually committed outside the rainforest of cyberspace:

    Cyberspace is not human space, could be extra-human, extra-terrestrial or extra-universal and might have its own laws and automatic punishments no legal human eagles can profess to know aside from the mythical karma. Cyberspace is not Earth where humans get born. dwell and die. It is stupid, gross human imbecility to make cyberspace laws punishing cybercrimes anticipated to happen in a vacuum, a space devoid of physical space. Unless money is coveted as a return for the concoction of cyber laws, IT IS ENOUGH that all laws of any or all country APPLY and may prescribe punishments FOR ANY or most of violations of lawful human behaviour in Earth. Committing libel or child molestation, or murder or corruption in cyber space? Only lawmaking criminals will use cyberspace to protect themselves from being identified, ridiculed and spat upon.

    • I was victimized of illigal recruitment via cyberspace, the recruiter were supposed to be in Ireland, i was contacted by an Oil and Gas company, gave me exam written and i did passed, then he required my certificates in Universities and employer, true indeed, their actions and i was really in their drama, it took a month before they asked me to pay for processing. My salary supposed to be were 10,000US$, free accomodation, free transport to/from oil rig, wow, i was really amazed. And i did send 5000saudi riyal for processing, they said they will contact me within a week….

      They were gone, i search the Ireland police near the place of office those scams. And the police said, “you are victim of cyber crime…”

      End of story,

      Cyber crime does exist, and people as stupid as me are a lot, budol budol in our language.

      You and i are in cyber space. I type this word “I like you” it travels from my keyboard to the CPU then to the hardwire telephone here in Saudi Arabia, then to the Fiber Optic then to Philippine telecom network then to your line and your Screen at the speed of light 300million meters per second, off course you will be able to read it only when you open up this space he he he…

      Salam sadik, whether we like it or not, cyberspace among our children and grand children will be more advance, the will be in great troubles without regulations…

  9. Raissa, in her previous post, asked: ” Can we simply adopt the present law on libel that covers print and broadcasting to apply to the Internet as well?”

    I say yes except that the penalty should be reduced to only a fine. With fine as the penalty, the use of the Internet in committing libel should be treated merely as an aggravating circumstance – not an element of the crime – because of the ease by which online libel is committed and its widespread reach to readers. The imposition of a higher penalty on cyber libel violates the equal protection of law principle. A crime with the same elements should carry the same penalty. Moreover, the power given to the government to block the publication of the purported libelous item is arbitrary and could not pass constitutional standards on freedom of speech.

    • @Rene-Ipil…maybe good but the as some of the lawmakers planned, they prefer to make libel as only a civil obligation and not a criminal, no penalty! This is a better alternative.

      • [email protected]

        Agree. A case civil in nature maybe better. The downside is that “guilt” is proven by mere preponderance of evidence. Whereas in a penalty of fine, guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

  10. Mukhang effective yung pag bigay ng TRO sa Cybercrime Law, yung mga tao malamig na sa issue na eto.

    Ang bottom line- pag ayaw ni PNoy na ang isang bill ay maging batas, hundi mangyayari yun, pero kung gusto nyang ituloy then nagsusugal sya dahil karamihan ng mga Netizens ay aalma at sya ang sunod na target sa mga puna at mapapatunayan ang mga lumabas a black propaganda na may agka Abnoy sya.

    Kung talagang seryoso si PNoy na linisin ang gobyerno, bakit nya bubusalan ang mga tumutulong sa kanya na mga kaaniwng tao na ang hangad lang ay mabawasan ang kurapsyon at katiwalan sa gobyerno?

    Etong sila Angara, Sotto at mga PU ay gusto kang nilang protektahan ang kanilang Tribu dahil hindi nila makontrol ang mga reaksyon ng mga Netizens na meron ng paraan kung papano bukuhin ang mga tiwali sa gobyerno.

    Assuming na matuloy ang Cybercrime Law, parang nakikita ko na na ang unang biktima ay itong blogsite na ito. Hindi dahil ang mga puna rito ay libelous kundi mga makatwiran at dahil may kredibilidad na parang boses ng karamihan ng mga Pilipino. Kumpara sa mga komentaryo sa baba ngmga columns ng mga columnists sa Inquirer, Star atiba pang mainstream na dyaryo, mild pa ang pitik dito sa CPM. Pero dahil may kredibilidad ang CPM, mas mabigat ang dating ng mga karamihan na ma opinyon dito.Siempre marami rin makulit na parang bata, pero minsan nakakahalata din dahil iba ang dating, yung parang langaw…

    Mas maigi sa gobyerno na ang kanilang mamamayan ay may venue na mailabas ang kanilang ma reklamo sa civilized na paraan. Pag binarahan at binusalan, ang iba ay nagigiing bayolente at hindi na dinadaan sa pagdebate kundi sa karahasan.

    Na kay PNoy ang bola, abangan kung sya ay may pusong Pinoy o may utak na Abnoy…

    • @Parekoy’s anticipatory statements, etc., just in the event that cybercrime law is sustained by the SC as to the Libel provisions, etc., , I proposed that any CPMer or CPMers, certified by Raissa, who are charged and prosecuted for violations under it, a free legal Defense Team be established for such purpose, with assistance from our other “technical experts” here in the field of computer/cyberspace, etc. I will extend my criminal legal practice experience of 40 years, and I, for one, with others among us, can handle the defense.

      If you reside in NYC, London, Paris, Hongkong, Singapore, atbpa, charged under Cybercrime law, wanting a defense team, just provide plane tickets,hotel accomm, restaurants, places of amusements, etc. and for our interviews with you for preparations, etc. If you reside in ‘Pinas, we’ll see how you can get away with the charge/prosecution, or bring you into those place. No kidding.

      Raissa can start the formation of the legal defense & technical panel on this matter from our CPM here. All for One ‘n One for All!

      What say you?

      • Shall we require at least 50% approval from all CPMers here or what? Where’s our HQ? Funny….iSS…up there? Where? We can plan it later of course. Plant the seed!

        • @chit…shall we now add video cams and headphones to our PCs so we SEE and HEAR each other ONLY DURING PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEWS for the purpose? With CPMer(s) defendants?

          How do we do it btw? Experts, do we hear see YOU? With or NO masks? Pangit ako! “what the f…k you’re so ugly!’ [Arnold Swarzenegger, Predator]

      • Bless your heart, leona. I’m sure many will heed your call. As we say here at CPM, “walang iwanan.”

        • @Aliz…help? eh…when one CPMer gets docked, the whole CPM is docked, we’re all defendants under Cybercrime law! hahaha…and you & us areall in the frontline of the skirmishes to our last and final pulses!

        • @Aliz…the strategy is: we make “CLICKS, SHARE, LIKE” and Comments by ALL CPMERs [ how many are we Raissa – 500 or 1000+] to “own” the libelous remark of one docked CPMer…the gov’t has to accused all I mean all of CPMers in court, like they call “class suit,” here it will be “CLASS ACCUSED!” including the satirist here! hahaha.

        • further…the investigation by the DOJ will fill up the whole DOJ building with us; for trial it will be inside a gymnasium to accommodate all of us! How it will go, your guess is as good God’s and mine!

      • mam leona, i’m sure i will need that defense if i cannot control my fingers when i am sooooo mad or scared. these actions of our TRAPOS really makes my bp rise up.i just be very very cautious before hitting the “submit ” i will read it 5x. really scared. no more expressing one’s pagiisip freely.

      • It is getting complicated, pero ang target ay hindi tayong mga commenters dito sa CPM, kundi itong buong blogsite. Therefore si Raissa ng uunahin dahil sya ang admin, and command responsibility ay sa kanya kahit na yung mga ” libelous” statements ay hindi galing sa kanya.

        Ang intention ay busalan, so pag yung mismo mayari ng blog ang target, di parang na strike!

        Magkakaron ng problema ang mga admin ng blogsites dahil sa kanila isho-shoulder ang responsibility ng filtering kung ang mga comments ay libelous in nature, so pahirap ito sa mga mayari ng blogsites dahil kailangan para nab rin silang pseudo newspaper na may editor at legal counsel kung ang lumalabas sa blogsite ay pwedeng libelous. So ma tetechnical ng gobyerno ang mga blogsites dahil alam nila na wala at kulang ito sa resources to hire a legal counsel, so yung freedom ng Netizens ay biglang mawawala dahil yung provuder ng popular na venue ang syang target. Yjng mga fb accounts ay balewala yan dahil yung number of followers ay konti, so di yan pakikialaman ng gobyerno o pulitiko. Ang effective although evil ay yng targetin ang mga mayari ng popular at influential blogsites kasi paang gagawin na similar ang kategirya sa nga mainstream newspaper. So pag ganito ang ginawa, kawawa talaga ang Netizens dahil pilay tayo.

        So Conflicted talaga ang PNoy administration kung ituloy nila na kasali yung libel provisions sa Cybercrime Law dahil pinapatay nya ang tunay demokrasya. Sana hwag sana nyang magpaka Abnoy, dapat sya ay magkapa Pinoy!

  11. From today Inquirer news…

    “Charges dismissed, P1,000 bail

    But even as Petrasanta and Valte spoke, Agus and his three friends were getting a reprieve from the Caloocan prosecutor’s office.

    Nida C. Gravino, senior assistant prosecutor, on Friday dismissed charges of illegal discharge of firearms and negligence against Agus and his drinking buddies, Arcadio Gulmatico, Eddie Magtubo and Feliciano Cercano.

    The four men were detained on Thursday and were subjected to inquest proceedings on Friday, where Gravino dismissed the charge of illegal discharge of firearms for lack of evidence, approving charges of alarm and scandal only.

    “There was no proof to the effect that when the gun was fired, it was aimed at a person. There was no witness who declared to the effect that these people fired the gun,” Gravino said in a telephone interview.

    She also dismissed the charge of negligence against Agus for letting his drinking buddies take turns in firing his .45-caliber gun.

    A P1,000 bail was recommended for the temporary liberty of the four suspects, who remained in the custody of Caloocan police as of press time on Friday. ”

    This is relevantly only about law enforcing and prosecuting that Cybercrime law may also face in the very near future. How can this dismissal of the proper charges be made against the suspects?

    This news refers to guns…Nicole girl killed in Caloocan City. Is there some utterly defective legal procedures or law procedures in our criminal justice system overall? The Invvestigating prosecutor should have filed all the police charges against the suspects!

    Law violators gets away scott free. How about the coming procedures to enforce the Cybercrime law? Will it be like this also? Or a cycle for errors and injustices?

  12. Ma’am Raissa,

    It appears there are several comments downstairs (below Comment No. 1) that are in limbo, meaning no parent comment numbers.

    Does it mean there are comments still awaiting moderation or are dumped somewhere waiting to be retrieved?

    • I am kind of waiting for the comment of the eminent lawyer saxnviolins to appear.

      Anyway, Ma’am Ellen (Tordesillas) already linked SnV’s blog post on the matter at hand.

      I fully subscribe to his legal opinion because what the Cyber Libel Law really means is to revisit the antiquated law on libel (the parent provision of law in the RPC) and perhaps strike it down as unconstitutional.

      As pointed out in abogadomodotcom and marichulambinodotcom, the general rule in libel is that presumption of malice exists where burden of proof of the contrary lies on the defendant. “Kabalintunaan siya.” The accuser must prove the guilt of the accused…not the accused to prove his innocence.

      Presumption of innocence must be preserved even in cases of libel…

      • @baycas, YOU’RE VERY RIGHTLY RIGHT ON THAT! It just entered my gray matter but saw your last sentence! That point is crucial and constitutionally superior, and is in the fundamental law at that, while the ‘presumption of malice’ is by statute or procedure, and is inferior. There we, saxnviolin is I.D. a lawyer, imminent pa! Any more? The experts on cyberspace/Internet? Pls see my No. 29.1 comment.

        • We’ll even form a ‘Cheering Squad’ in cyberspace for this important matter! ‘Til in space do we all meet!