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. @CPMers @raissa @Alan

    A bountiful and challenging 2013 to all of us!!!!!

    Section 29 of the Cyber Prevention Act states that “If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect.”

    I hope that those who will speak for during the oral argument on January 15 will be able to convince the honorable justices to declare invalid such provisions of the law which are deemed “obnoxious” otherwise I pray that the SC declare the law unconstitutional and the incoming congress enact a new version.

    As @Alan mentioned in his article “Most of the country’s politicians and leaders neither use nor understand the Internet” incumbent and aspiring aspiring political leaders should enhance their knowledge on internet.

    • Why GDP/GNP increase is a farce:

      BECAUSE SEAFOOD CITY, PACIFIC ISLAND GROCERY PRODUCTS ARE MADE FROM THAILAND, VIETNAM AND SOUTH KOREA. 80% INCLUDING PALANGANA, KUTSARA, TINIDOR AND MOST OF ALL COCO-JUICE

      Why brilliance of Filipinos is a farce:

      FILIPINOS IN AMERICA WOULD RATHER HIRE WHITE AMERICAN LAWYERS than U.S.-Citizenship-card-carrying Fake-American Filipinos graduate from U.P. and UCLA and Harvard.

      Not until I see 80% of Filipino products inSeafood City and Pacific Isalnd and Filipnios consulting with Fake-American Filipino on their immigrant status THAT IS THE ONLY TIME BILIB-NA-BILIB AKO SA MGA PINOY.

      By the way, why are we people debating about cybercrime laws when we have plenty of laws that needing debating because they are not applied. THIS ONE IS GLARING:

      HUWAG UMIHI DITO – Ordinance 666
      BAWAL MAG TAPON NG BASURA – ORDINANCE 69

      If authoritieis cannot impose the two of the above including anti-WANG-WANG, forget about cybercrime law. LET IT BE PASSED. Nothing will happen anyways.

      Isn’t Philippines a fun place ? Or is it a FUNNY PLACE?

  2. This cybercrime law is definitely unconstitutional (Bill of Rights – Article 111) especially the libel section, whereby it is curtailing our freedom of speech and expression. Our lawmakers are trying to superimpose this cybercrime law over our constitution which should not be the case. Why did Sotto insert this section to the bill, what was his motive, is it for his benefit or for the benefit of the madlang people, is the section “just”?

    Before signing the bill into law, are the signatories well versed to the implications and impact of the law per se to the societal’s intrinsic values, did they hold extensive/rigorous research, consultations and reviews about the libel section, with whom with what facts and datas.

    This law will definitely cause untold misery,fear, infightings, confusion and messy life. China style, here we come.

    • @letlet…the journalists in Guangdong province, China, are up in arms for the changing of the editorial in their Southern Weekly newspaper without their consent! In China, as we all know maybe, there is free speech and free press but don’t touch on political issues or the State’s issues, etc.

      And with our Cybercrime law if the SC holds it as constitutional, we are heading into that direction like in China!

      • @Leona, the cybercrime law will be passed in PREPARATION FOR CHINA’S ANEXXATION OF THE PHILIPPINES !!!!!

        Gosh, truly, I am brilliant !!!! I am clairvoyant.

        Am I re-incarnation of the Mayans ?

        • Yes, you were one of those wild-eyed witchdoctors with tall black feathered hats and white paint over the eyes always stoked up on peyote and tossing virgins into the roaring volcanoes. It’s all rather like blogging after all.

  3. It is the end of Philippine Internet as we know it. The Philippines showed be towed to Middle-East where it belongs. We should join Egypt’s Islamist and apply Sharia law .

    Goodbye Philippines. I am moving to Jolo Sulu.

  4. the cybercrime law shall be approved by the members of the congress and the senators, not only by Sen Angara,Sotto and Sy. Tanggalin ang mga items na nakakabuwisit tulad ng Libel na pihadong gagamitin lang ng mga may gusto nito. Ok lang my cybercrime law but please, yun lang mga batas na karapat dapat lang. Hindi dapat kasama sa batas na yan ang pag pigil sa gustong sabihin ng mga tao sa net kung may prueba naman tulad ng mga hyperlink he he he pagmeetingan nila ang nilalaman bago papirmahan kay Pres Noy…

  5. Not wanting this post to be buried in a preceding topic (Alan’s latest humor post: Tales of Doom), I’m making it here. I hope I’m not breaking any house rule.

    @leona. At 76.2, you said: “Maybe, just maybe, we got this out of being 300 years ‘slaves’ by the Spaniards here! Our forefathers and before them, handed this pHs down to generations that no matter what we learn in school, this keeps popping out in our traits as HABITS.”

    Thanks for taking time to comment on my post on PFHs: Pernicious Filipino Habits. To me, these are the real “culprits” that brought about the depravity of our nation.

    Your observation is an echo of what two distinguished authors have earlier said in describing the Filipino psyche.

    In the Introduction in her book “Filipino-Americans: Transformation and Identity”, Maria P. P. Root has stated: “Spanning five centuries, colonization ravaged the souls and psyche of the indigenous people of the archipelago dubbed Las Islas Filipinas by Spain in 1565. The traumas associated with colonization that lasted almost 400 years scarred us all, regardless of our nativity, language, class or gender. Trauma fragments and fractures the essence of our being and self-knowledge; it disconnects us from each other.

    For his part in his book “American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 – 1964” William Manchester described the Filipino race as a people who have spent “300 years in a convent and 50 years in Hollywood.”

    We all know how the Spaniards subjected the Filipinos to oppression and humiliation. To them, there were only two kinds of human being: the superior white (them) and the inferior Indios (us).

    I have my own version on how the Filipino psyche was unkindly treated by history. To me, they were more like horses having spent 300 years, not in a convent, but in a corral.

    When the gate of the corral was flung open (1946 Independence), everybody went galloping here and there for celebration. What “rule” they have adopted was not “rule of law”; it was “anything goes.”

    • Though already posted in the other thread, I am reposting it here as another take that points no accusing finger to anyone, just to a metaphorical thing. Here it is:

      If one knows, no one should be FED UP. The theory este
      METAPHOR goes like this. It is CONTAMINATION, then INFECTION
      and finally complete BREAKDOWN of the moral IMMUNE SYSTEM
      of the Elite and the masses. Inevitably as in a culture of impunity,
      It BECOMES GENETIC, it runs in the blood and became pathologic
      stem cells. This is the Darwinian origin of corruption that thrive best
      in a polluted culture. This theory este METAPHOR can be put
      Into a spin of many books, with children of political dynasties as Harvard
      successful business case studies. A Doctor in the Barrio like a Juan Flavier left
      medicine, went into lawmaking, got contaminated, then probably
      infected, got out on time, had been able to avoid complete breakdown of his
      immune system but the corruption vaccine organisms will always be with him.
      Corruption is like a chemotherapy drug, it kills the antibodies until
      the moral resistance is completely taken over by extravagance and luxury.

      • IF I may add:

        The contamination started in the 16th century when the kings of Spain started selling positions in the colonial government. It saw full flower several centuries later during martial law when mentors in business administration held the reins of the executive branch, when governance ceased to be for public service but for PROFIT. The “businessation” of public service had put a price for services already paid for by repressive taxation. Infection became widespread that even non-existent services or projects became sources of untold wealth and power. It could have reached full circle when the present administration took over and some noises and allegations were made that juicy positions were available for a price through the selection and screening committee. Which was really baloney and unnecessary for the mammoth campaign contributors. Power excised of money is benign public service while money as fuel to power is malignant public service.

    • My idea of 1 more day kaputs as Raissa gave us a reminder on this very important cybercrime issue due for a SC decision soon, very soon it’s either we lose writing here or continue to seek and fight only the TRUTH of what free speech and free press are about.

      On No.11 @fed_up, I like to connect initially re

      “xxx When the gate of the corral was flung open (1946 Independence), everybody went galloping here and there for celebration. What “rule” they have adopted was not “rule of law”; it was “anything goes.” It clearly is anything goes curtailing and abridging FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS under the Cybercrime law.

      Pres. Aquino needs or should have been reminded that the Freedom Constitution issued under Proclamation No. 3 was a restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire government system, eradication of graft and corruption, etc. etc. But as @fed_up says “Anything goes.” Is that so?

      So, we all go back to the era of Spaniard’s atmosphere during Dr. Rizal’s time in this country under the Noynoy Aquino Administration. With Cybercrime law we “anything goes” to lose the restoration of democracy! Anything goes to curtail and abridge protection of basic rights, the Bill of Rights under our 1987 Constitution: Free Speech & Free Press!

      Anything goes destroying our and the people’s confidence in the entire Aquino Administration, OUR government! Anything goes not to be able to speak and print in order to eradicate GRAFT AND CORRUPTION in our government, this Administration of Pres. Aquino!

      Anything goes! This R.A. Act No. 10175 Cybercrime law violates all the Constitutions the Filipinos had: 1899 Malolos Constitution, 1935, 1943, 1973. the Freedom Constitution and our 1987 Constitution! All these had provisions protecting FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS! But Anything goes?

      The Declaration of Policy of R.A. No. 10175, among others, states: to attain free, easy and intellligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, etc. But, anything goes, it gets back what was restored in our democracy: this law punishes any misuse, abuse, and illegal access by anything goes re conduct or conducts in the use and exercise of FREE SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS with the use of a computer in cyberspace.

      It is not even provided in that “policy” of the law to put or allow THE DEFENSE or exemption from punishment, that any conduct or conducts in cyberspace or cyberspacing for the TRUTH of the matter written, spoken or printed, shall not constitute a crime or violation of this law! This should be THIS GOES into the law!

      This law is in derogation of our Constitution, cuts, curtails and abridges our IMPLORING THE AID OF ALMIGHTY GOD, it chills the people for a JUST AND HUMAN SOCIETY, our IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS as restored in the Freedom Constitution is lost, anything goes, we cannot promote for the COMMON GOOD, we lose and do not have the BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY under a Rule of Law, a REGIME OF TRUTH, justice, freedom, LOVE, equality and PEACE. All these are in the PREAMBLE of the 1987 Constitution! Shall we allow anything goes?

      No! No! No! Let us pray and hope, and keeping hoping, Congress and the Executive will REPEAL this law before more harm comes upon us. Amending it is TOO LATE and the odds are more harms will be committed, or

      our SUPREME COURT, the last bulwark for our freedom under our Bill of Rights, declares en toto the whole law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The “Separability Clause” cannot survive as to allow some provisions to “live” and others “to die” will cause more CONFUSION for the people and our courts! En Toto the law must and should be pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the sooner the better.

      Let us not live anymore under the atmosphere of Spanish conquest nor like under Martial Law of Mr. Marcos. We have regained our rights. Let us preserve them as our DIRECT MANDATE as a people who MANIFESTED in our EXTRAORDINARY ACTIONS during the EDSA 1 Revolution of 1986! [ holistically expressed in Proclamation No. 3, Freedom Constitution during Pres. Cory C. Aquino Administration.]

      Lastly, repeal or destroy this Cybercrime law!

  6. there are so many vague provisions in this law, like the alteration of computer data, you can be sued just by making memes or fanarts using online picutures that you dont own. .The provision on sending unsolicited commercial communication is also vague, they didn’t specify which media the law applies, unlike the US and other countries’ law regarding spam, they do noted that it only applies to email spam. sorry about my English.

  7. INFANTILISM is a stage and a state of human nature before maturation. I have seen it proliferate here, lately as written words. But it will pass as wasted time and space which does not stand still and then CPM will be back as is, but in the New Year, hopefully, BETTER.

  8. The cybercrime law will be junked using the three part test on free speech, an American/International standard that limits govt. interference on free speech: vagueness, overbroad, and unfettered discretion on the part of a government official to determine what constittues cybercrimes. Philippine courts traditionally follow the American jurisprudence. But this is not to say that speech is absolute. It is limited by the issues of public safety, moral, public order, etc. You cannot incite disorder, advertise for the sale of cocaine, post nude pictures (specially of children), nor post articles to damage the reputation of individuals under the guise of free speech. On the latter, (damage to reputation), the standard on public officials subjected to hideous speech, courts have relaxed the standard by including ‘malice’ as additional element. The other elements are provided for in Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code:

    “A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”

    Excised of its verbiage the elements are: “malicious article; publication; identity of the person maligned,” (natural or juridical person) or a derogatory publication against the dead.

    Malice as defined by jurisprudence “is careless disregard for the truth.” So defendant can arguably raised the defense that the publication was made in good faith and that there are no easily verifiable info to consider what had been published as untrue and that it was made in the greater interest of public service.

    If someone called Senator Sotto an ‘obnoxious plagiarist’ it is probably derogatory, and could subject someone for libel, but defendant can raise the defense of lack of malice because the charge that he was a plagiarist, was true, and the adjective “obnoxious is merely the opinion of the defendant.

    If you call President Marcos a thief, you can be subjected to libel for blackening his memory, but defendant can raise the defense of “truth.”

    But the bottomline is that press freedom must have willing warriors to fight for its cause. The inconvenience of court process of harassment of politicians are too small a price to pay. Rizal and Primitivo Mijares gave their lives to bring the truth. But oh, well, Not everyone can don the armors of Rizal, Mijares, Priam, Hector and Achilles to fight a war that will be remembered for the ages to come.

    • Jcc
      Happy New Year my friend,
      Nice to hear from you again

      Clarification is educational to us.

      Aside from Primitivo, another could suit with the armor of Joan of Arc,
      RR, not that sexy warbler from the Carribean

      He he he

      • hehehe, johnny lin, there are lots of warriors who don the armor of combat in the name of freedom of the press… patrick henry; voltaire; ermin garcia; gomburza; bishop romero; and some 20 or so members of the press in the maguindanao massacre….

    • In Islamist Egypt they have a law that incancerates those that denigrate their religion and the sitting powers. It is vested in Sharia.

      Could Sotto have had change of religion ?

      It appears Republic of the Philippines is an odd country out in Asia. Republic of the Philippines is acting and thinking like Middle-Eastern countries.

      What will happen to me? What will happen to Johnny Lin, Letlet, Praetorius and others? If these fan of Raissa cannot express their opinion, THEY WILL EXPRESS IT IN ANOTHER WAY. Aaaah, No! Not the violent way ! Filipnios are not revolutionary types. They just vote with their passport to Europe, Australia and America. There cannot be coup-de-t’at. Well, we will never know. Coup-de-t’at in the Philippines depends on the phase of the moon. And most coup-de-t’ats were failures. They just wanted publicity to run in the Senate or the country.

      It is scary. After February 6, Philippine technologian contracted by Benign0 Aquino’s government will start scouring denigrating opinion. Then the midnight knock on the door. They whisk you away and will never ever be heard of again.

      You people better say your prayers. I do not need to pray. One missing call to my Americ an government, they will come looking for me. They will send in their troops to pluck me out of this godforsaken place.

      HEre is my proposition. Why not OUTSOURCE THIS GOVERNMENT. Filipinos are not in the business of running a government. Go ask McKinley.

    • In the RPC…some statements (but definitely incomplete)…

      – Libel, considered malicious unless proven otherwise by the accused.

      – Truth may not be a defense.

      DEFENSES:

      In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

      Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

      In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

      It is important to remember that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true; if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed. Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends.

      – abogadomodotcom

      The web link is supplied below.

        • As stated in the abogadomodotcom quote in No. 8.4 above.

          (Two web links given below the quote still awaiting moderation..)

      • Points of clarifications worthy of note, I believe, because “indiscriminate firing” of comments should must never be allowed under the cloak of freedom of speech.

      • The libel law presumes malice. Marichu Lambino calls it malice in law. The abodagmodotcom professor gives a lengthy explanation that misses the point. This is the part that is unconstitutional, and should have been questioned a long time ago – the part that presumes malice.

        Let us get down to basics, as taught by Professor Espinosa, ages ago.

        The accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He used to say that corollary to this presumption, is the burden laid by the Constitution on the prosecution to prove every element of the offense. Now malice is an element of the offense. But if the law presumes malice, the law is unconstitutionally shifting the burden – from the prosecution (to prove malice), to the defense (to prove good faith).

        The Supreme Court has flip flopped on this issue; on the one hand, saying that New York Times v Sullivan applies in the Philippines, but on the other, still maintaining the constitutionality of presumed malice.

        New York Times held that there must be a showing of actual malice. That “showing” is done by evidence being presented by the prosecution. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Later, in Milkovich v Lorain Journal, the US Supreme Court held that “the plaintiff bears the burden of showing falsity as well as fault”, before recovering damages.

        Although the above are civil libel cases, the US Supreme Court applied New York Times doctrine in the criminal case of Garrison v. Louisiana, which has a criminal libel statute that employs identical phraseology as the Philippine libel law.

        In 2006, in the case of Ivey v. Alabama (Sullivan sued New York Times in Alabama), the Supreme Court of Alabama finally struck down the criminal libel statute for being unconstitutional, applying New York Times v. Sullivan.

        The above points (with citations) are better explained in the link below.

        http://www.frauslatet.blogspot.com/

    • One person’s malice is another’s good intent. If I ridicule Sotto in a cartoon, I am clearly out to do some kind of damage to him, but in the best interest of the Philippines. In my opinion. The court cases will be interesting to follow, and when the first blogger is hauled before the courts on a trivial political charge, I trust the people will also rise up in that blogger’s defense.

      • justice baycas has provided some definition of “malice”. but malice in Times v. Sullivan is the one that is being followed now… Malicious publication will be malicious only if there “was willful disregard for the truth” made by the defendant. If you called someone a deadbeat because you were angry against his person and called him such to despise him, such is not the malice required by law. he probably could be acquitted of the charge of libel for want of malice and the ‘derogatory’ remark could considered merely an opinion and therefore a protected speech.

        justice baycas should go international because our free speech is identical with the first amendment in the U.S.

        Larry Flynt was sued by Minister Falwell for printing “derogatory” article in Hustler Magazine parodizing the minister as having “sex” with his mother. He was acquitted. Malice as an element of libel was placed in central focus. It is reckless disregard for the truth.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

  9. Check out the new FaceLook…

    Starting February 2013, more and more users will start seeing prompts on their home pages inviting them to switch over to the new FaceLook. The switch will be a MUST for account holders.

    Please study well the new design below.

    Mack Nuremberg

    —–

    The Buttons, Philippine edition
    (complete with annotations)

    Like

    …at your own risk.

    Comment

    …under pain of imprisonment.

    Share

    …if you dare.

    • The specific provisions on Libel in the Revised Penal Code (1932 time) is a carry-Over of Spanish conquests, the Philippine Legislature never bothered to look into for updating acc to time and mandate of the Filipino people. Now, it going to be worst as made worst by the Senators who approved it without the Lower House bothering again to look into what the Upper House did to the original version of the law.

      Even at Facebook, as @baycas gives it: Like = at your own risk; Comment = under pain of punishment; and Share = if you dare.

      There was even that plan [ shelved] prior to Martial Law years by Congress to study revising all the provisions of our penal code as other countries have advanced in their criminal justice system while we deliberately abandoned to carry out that plan.

      So, with Cybercrime law, we continue and worst, inserted ALL THE PROVISIONS on crimes under that Code! Crazy!

      • Now, it going to be worst as made worst by the Senators who approved it without the Lower House bothering again to look into what the Upper House did to the original version of the law.

        – leona

        when you want a speedy*, don’t let the lower hand know what the upper hand is doing.

        —–
        *A bill surreptitiously made into law

        • Anything goes! @fed_up comments. Na sobra han yata si PNoy ng confidence. Remember, Malacanang Legal Staff did not bother to check the bill…errr the law before it went to Congress. Now, Sol Gen will have hot irons defending it at the SC!

        • benign0-the-Turd’s confidence is coming from his Political Capital that ejected my friend, Renato Corona with the help of Mr. Anonymous and Little Lady in Red Riding Hood and typists of Affidavits of guilts. NO FORENSICS.

  10. If I could have the ear of one SC justice what short compelling message shall I whisper that will convince him to junk Cybercrime law?

    Imagine if there are 15 CPMers whispering to 15 justices.

    Are we allowed to attend the oral arguments?
    I wish to be present.

    • You can. But you will be told to check in your cellphone at the door. No cameras or cellphones allowed inside. And come early. First come, first served.

      • Yes I will attend if I know where to go, haven’t been to Padre Faura in decades
        Are you going?

        • Johnny Lin, they have moving camera and spy camera and videos. It is obvious that benign0 Aquino’s Supreme Court will make the TRO lapse. The Supreme Court do not want what happened to Corona. So, whatever benign0 Aquino wants benign0 gets, else, IMPITS !!!! Always remember there will always be 188 non-reading, non-understanding Rubberstamp Congressmen that reports to benign0.

          In this world of benign0, a whisper will do you in, Johnny. No more Affidavits and Witness Accounts. This time they will have EVIDENCES. They’ll subpoena Google and Yahoo! and Yehhey ! and you are totally doooomed !!!!!!!!

          The impitsment of Corona was the watershed. Supreme Court is now afraid to cross benign0.

          So, Johnny, please stay home. Do not do anything foolish. A whisper to justices and your presence itself is dangerous to your health and wealth.

  11. 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? Some research in Pharma invents the drugs before it discover the diseases.

    • Dont’ deconstruct me please as long as blood is red and nature is green. When cyberspace is intangible while Cyber Plaza Miranda (CPM) is tangible space, has its own history, real and have seen blood and saliva of citizens spilled for a cause. No cyber law shall ENCROACH on it when there are more than enough existing Philippine Laws to punish purveyors of lies and transgressors of written truths even in the asphalts of Quiapo’s Plaza Miranda.

      • The net is a real world, information is faster than any newspaper around the world. We need a cyber law to regulate the users. Bad users shall be complained to the site provider or administrator, if not corrected then to the cyber police then to the court.

        Napakaraming bastos sa ibang site, may nagmumura, may nagbabanta at kung anu ano pa, pag nabasa mo nga, mag la log-ut ka agad sa nerbiyos he he he

        cybercrime is required for real criminals but not us, you know what i mean…if i send emails to my wife that is private, if we make sex in skype, that is private. Anything private should not be poke at, if anyone who steal it and posted on social networks, they should be liable, pwede ireklamo sa cyberpolice or cyber-judge he he he darating din yan

        if i post here and say i dont like gloria arroyo because she is corrupt, i should not be charge because it is freedom for me to say.

        but if i post here a hyperlink to site offering bad services such as sex net, on line casino and other bad things such as child pornography, then that is a crime.

        If somebody is stoking my daughters life via email, that is a crime and should be charge.

        cybercrime law should only be approved after deleting the bad laws such as libel and anything that will stop freedom of the press, pag meron nyan tutol ako jan, hayup sila pag di nila inalis yan.

        • CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PORNOGRAPHY OF THE GENERIC KIND YES! YES! YES!

          BONDAGE IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PORN SCANDAL IS A NO! NO! NO!

          LEAKED PRIVATE VIDEOS AND PHOTOS OF COUPLES HAVING SEX IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PRIESTS HAVING SEX . YES! YES! YES!

    • @ Alizarin Viridia . . . Wierd that you would ask this. Are you Mayan by any chance? Check out my blog for today to understand why I asked the question.

  13. oh no! that’s scary! i might never use the internet again if this oppresive law remains!

    • @myrna! dont be scared. dont be afraid. just dont press “LIKE” that contains names.or if you comment someone use acronym. dont use names ( just mam raissa told me) why should i stop using the internet? i am paying my provider, i bought my laptop for my satisfaction. no one can stop me from surfing the internet. NOBODY! if you are wrong you are wrong if you are right i’ll praise you for that, just be alert everytime you use the internet.

      • I will “LIKE” benign0’s facebook for extra measure of safety.

        My Facebook page has “LIKE” “UNLIKE” and “DISLIKE” ? Well, if you hit “LIKE” you are doomed to perdition.

    • @myrna…sure YOU CAN STILL use the Internet but DON’T USE OR TOUCH THE KEYBOARD AT ALL! Throw it away!

  14. Never let your guard down. Be vigilant.

    P.s.

    And i’m sure mariano will come out with something funny to say again :-)

      • I am irresistible. You cannot resist me. You will forever be following my comments. Because from my infantile childish comments are nuggets of truth that you can share to your friends as yours. MINE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. IT IS JUST PATENTED.

        What is the diff between copyright and patented ?

      • You cannot resist me Pelang. You will forever be following me. I am addictive.

      • We’re waiting for him to have some lucid moments and we’ll comment but so far none yet….how long? don’t know…

        • [email protected]

          Let’s have a countdown. I see that the last posting of MRP was timed at 3:06 a.m. today. It is now 8:48 p.m. 17 hours 42 minutes passed and not a whimper from him. I am also waiting.

        • @Leona dear, take child neglect and child abuse for example. I never thoughted that PHilippines has laws to protect children until Yoyoy Revillame carted viewership from ABS-CBN to TV5 he was charged of Child abuse when along EDSA there are plenty of homeless children living off JOLLIBEE’s dumpster. Wasn’t it Jolllibee that pulled their advertisement from Yoyoy Revillame because of child abuse and they cannot even see children dumpster driving for morsels of Chickenjoy ? THAT IS THE LAW FOR YOU LEONA !!!!! I do not waste my time on PHilippine law because it is more neglected than enforced.

          @Leona dear, I know you are not well read, I tell you about drug entrapment of de Lorean owner of de Lorean exotic sports car company. deLorean definitely by evidence purchased drugs from FBI. deLorean went scottfree because it was entrapment. And @Leona dear, that terrorist in the east coast where FBI placed a GPS on his car without a warrant. Again, the terrorist went home free. He also sued the American government and he winned !!!!! THAT IS HOW PREDICTABLE THE AMERICAN LAWS ARE.

          Can you predict the enforcement of cybercrime Law ? I DO NOT THINK SO !!!!

          It really depends when it depends. DUH !!!!!!

        • @Leona dear, I do not delve into PHILIPPINE LAWS and PHILIPPINE POLITICS.

          PHILIPPINE LAWS is weder-weder. Take for example Corona. Please do not get the impression I AM Pro-CORONA DEFINITELY I AM NOT. I am pro-HUSTISYA MATUWID. Mr. Anonymous and Little Lady in Red Riding Hood’s illegally acquired photocopied Corona’s private dollar account. If it were in America, where so-called brilliant Filipinos wanted to study law, these anonymous duo would have been incancerated because of violation of privacy laws. But since this is the Philippines and Impeachmnent is a political process anything goes. But when Bill Clinton was impeached, regardless of its political nature, the Senate followed the law as if it were not a political process so AS NOT TO SET A PRECEDENCE. Not only Bill Clinton but also past impeachment of past presidents and Blagojevich.

          So why bother go to America to study law when America’s laws are culturally different from the Philippines?

          I have helped many legal immigrants file petition papers for their children filling up forms just by reading the back pages of the form itself WHEN I AM NOT A LAWYER AND NOT WHITE. Well, I am just tisoy. Pogi. And goot in englsichtzes.

          I also have advised green card holders that they can come back to America on their 363rd absence abroad as long as they have not gone over 365th days. IT IS WRITTEN IN THE, again, BACKPAGES OF NEWSPAPERS. Just buy reading their newspapers I can know the law. But in the Philippines nothing like that.

        • What about Blagojevich ? No ! dear @Leona !!! Blago is not a Bosnian or Herzegovinian. HE is an American in Illinois solding Obama’s state senate seat. Blago was in impeachment trial for solding a senate seat. Despite its political nature, he is impeached not thru political process but thru judicial process SO AS NOT TO SET A PRECEDENCE and not ABUSE ITS POLITICAL PROCESS.

          Just in case you are Wikieng Blago, Blago was also accused by a WITNESS ACCOUNT with AFFIDAVITS OF GUILT back in the early 2000 something about Health insurance. Of course dear @Leona and @Rene-Ipil, they did not prosecute based on AFFIDAVITS and WITNESS ACCOUNTS not until they have EVIDENCES. Now, they acquired evidences thru bugs and paper trails. THAT IS HOW PREDICTABLE AMERICAN LAWS ARE AND IT IS TOTALLY ABSOLUTE THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE. DUAH !!!!!! you two, @Leona and @Rene-Ipil are just plain clueless. Yeah, you may appear intelligent debating finer points of cybercrime law and defining and redefining each word there is in it BUT WHAT IS THE USE? When laws in the philipines is wishy-washy ?

          YOU MUST BE WONDERING WHY Americans stand in line should-der-to-shoulder on America’s freeway when ever there are road-rage car-to-car shooting. BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO LOCATE THAT BULLET SLUGS AND BULLET SHELL CASINGS. They spend so much time to gather evidences than gather witnesss accounts. IN YOUR SIDE OF PHILIPPINES run by UNDESIRABLE FILIPINOS WITNESS ACCCCCCOUUUUUNTS !!!! HA! HA! HA!

          Marami pa kayong bigas kaka-inin !!!! LOOKIT I AM NOT A LAWYER. I JUST READ THIS THRU THEIR PAPERS AND NEWS WEBSITE. Reading American newspapers informs me. BUT READING PHILIPPINE NEWSPAPERS AND BLOGSITES FROM UNDESEIRABLE FILIPINOS MISINFORM ME !!!!!

        • …. but @Leona and @Rene-Ipil. Keep up the cybercrime debate. IT IS A GOOT EXERCISE FOR BORED IGNORANT MINDS …..

          I always believe in Desiderata ….. “listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.”

          Do not get exhausted with my long winding tra-la-las …… IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH YOUR FUTURE BLOGS AND COMMENTS.