By Raïssa Robles
Now expect waves of sleazy libel suits filed by politicians against Filipino Internet users.
Not because politicians think they can win but simply to suppress criticism and keep potential critics terrified — in short, create a chilling effect in cyberspace. And also because, being politicians, they can afford it. In fact they might even use OUR money.
UPDATE as of 11:07 am, Feb 19-14:
In an ambush interview today by reporters, President Benigno Aquino was asked about the Cybercrime Law. ABS-CBNews.com quoted him as saying:
Aquino: “Kapag lumipat ng format (mula trad’l media), dapat ba exempted? Kung tama naman ang sinasabi mo, bakit ka matatakot? #CybercrimeLaw”
To read more on what Aquino said, pls click on this link.
My comment on Twitter to what Pres. Aquino said – Bec truth not a defense in libel.
Unlike US law, Philippine law states that if the aggrieved party believes the statement was malicious even though it’s true, then he can file a libel suit. The best example of this is the libel suit of the former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo who found it malicious to be described as “gordo” or fat.
And just because the justices say that merely reposting or commenting would NOT BE LIBELOUS does not mean that politicians and wealthy individuals won’t file libel suits against those who repost or comment. Their clever lawyers can argue that they are not merely reposting and their comments are equivalent to ORIGINAL POSTS.
Nuisance lawsuits can still be filed with chilling effect on cyberspace.
The Supreme Court today upheld much of the Cybercrime Law including Internet libel, even as lawmakers were issuing assurances that they intend to decriminalize libel – by removing the jail sentences and retaining the fines.
Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te explained that Internet libel could only be filed against “the original author of the post.” It cannot be filed against those “who simply receive, post, react to the [message].”
This seems to mean that retweeting a libelous statement or reposting it on Facebook is not libel.
In other words,
“The Court also ruled on the constitutionality of online libel when it further declared that Section 4(c)(4) which penalizes online libel is not unconstitutional with respect to the original author of the post but unconstitutional only where it penalizes those who simply receive the post or react to it,” Atty. Te said.
And the irony? The decision comes on the the eve of the 28th anniversary of People Power, when Filipinos decided to break the shackles of a dictatorship and chase a despot from office.
The Supreme Court has taken a step towards bringing back that era of repression.
And irony of ironies, the son of the icon of democracy (President Benigno Aquino III) and the widower of one of the major champions of Edsa (House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte) played midwives to the efforts.
To be sure, the Supreme Court tried to curb the effects of libel by stating that only the one who posted the piece can be sued. But given the kind of politicians we have, this won’t be enough to protect legitimate dissent.
We all know how libel suits work in real life. The Supreme Court did not put sufficient safeguards.
This is how a libel suit meant to harass works. First the complainant will usually file the case in a court far from where the defendant lives (the filing fee is P1,000 — chicken feed to politicians grown fat on public funds). This will keep the defendant shuttling around, spending money on travel, wasting time, preventing the defendant from earning a living. The Supreme Court decision will allow libel suits to be filed in the most remote places because politicians can claim that the libel was first viewed in Tawi-Tawi, for instance, or Cagayan or Palawan. The one being sued for libel will have to commute to those remote places every time there is a hearing. Non appearance will result in losing the case, being fined and jailed.
Second, the complainant himself or herself will not show up in court — his or her lawyers will do that — after all, that’s the advantage of being wealthy, right? Big media companies usually have lawyers to take care of libel cases, but what about bloggers, Facebook commenters or citizens who Tweet?
Historically, libel suits in the Philippines are mainly the weapon of the powerful and the rich against those whose only weapons are words.
Remember what the former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo did. Here’s my previous story on it:
Presidential spouse Jose Miguel Arroyo is a natty dresser and a man of many suits. But his critics are finding out his favorite is the libel suit.
Mr Arroyo has sued or is suing six politicians, two publishers, and 12 editors and writers. Two weeks ago, he threatened to sue three more journalists and, this weekend, another congressman.
His critics say he uses the courts as a political tool. But Mr Arroyo, who could not be reached for comment, has claimed his critics have maliciously and falsely accused him of corruption. The claims include vote-buying for his wife President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s 2004 poll victory, money laundering, demanding illegal gambling payoffs and influence peddling.
He has also said they called him fat.
To read the rest, click on this link.
I am not saying that libel on the Internet does not exist or a Cybercrime Law is not needed. I am saying that the Cybercrime Law – which has just been declared mostly constitutional – is so badly worded, especially the section on Internet libel – that it is better to trash it and begin anew.
I am waiting for the wave of sludge to come. Libel suits will clog up the Department of Justice and the court system.
I am posting below the various articles I have written on this topic:
Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?
A License To Snoop: Why the Cybercrime Law is not the answer to child cyber porn
What the Cybercrime Law really means
UPDATE: Implications of the Cybercrime Prevention Law
Fr. Bernas calls Cybercrime Law “frightening”
Is DOJ’s Geronimo Sy blaming lawmakers for botched Cybercrime Law?
NEWSFLASH: Supreme Court extends TRO on Cybercrime Law INDEFINITELY
Why I stand by my story that Sotto “inserted” online libel section in the Cybercrime Law
The Cybercrime Law was brought to you by 7 senators & 12 congressmen
Why did four senators file nearly identical cybercrime bills?
The quadruplet bills on Cybercrime
Gov’t TV station invites me to anti-cybercrime law forum
Dear Justice Assistant Secretary Sy: If cyber adultery doesn’t exist, why did you put it in the Cybercrime Law?
How the new technology is reshaping the way we bring news to the public
Do not touch my Internet – “Istanbul (AFP) – Turkish riot police in Istanbul fired tear gas and water cannon Saturday at around 3,000 people protesting new legislation tightening control of the Internet.
Police in Turkey disperse protest against Internet curbs AFP
Turkish police fire tear gas to break up Internet protest Reuters
Turkish PM reportedly sued for for libel by former ally AFP
Alarm over Turkey’s ‘Big Brother’ Internet curbs AFP
Turkey lawmakers adopt ‘Orwellian’ Internet curbs AFP
Police took action to push protesters away from the city’s Taksim Square, a focal rally point, an AFP reporter said.
Protesters responded by hurling fireworks at police, who detained dozens of people, according to media reports.
“Government, resign!” the demonstrators chanted. “Do not touch my Internet!”
“Everywhere is Taksim, everywhere is resistance,” they shouted, echoing a chant often heard during the huge anti-government protests that swept the country in June.
The controversial law came into effect last Wednesday after it was signed by Turkish President Abdullah Gul despite repeated calls for a veto.
Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks to members of parliament from his ruling AK …
It gives the telecoms authority the power to order a webpage blocked if the content is deemed to infringe privacy or is offensive.”
link – news yahoo.com
“This is how a libel suit meant to harass works. First the complainant will usually file the case in a court far from where the defendant lives (the filing fee is P1,000 — chicken feed to politicians grown fat on public funds). This will keep the defendant shuttling around, spending money on travel, wasting time, preventing the defendant from earning a living. The Supreme Court decision will allow libel suits to be filed in the most remote places because politicians can claim that the libel was first viewed in Tawi-Tawi, for instance, or Cagayan or Palawan. The one being sued for libel will have to commute to those remote places every time there is a hearing. Non appearance will result in losing the case, being fined and jailed.”
Such situation has been remedied by R.A. 4363 whereby libel complaint must be filed where private complainant resides or where the libelous remark is printed and first published. For public officials, it is where his office is located or where the libelous remark is printed or first published. Senators and congressmen must file their complaints in Metro Manila or the place of printing and first publication.
Ruling on online libel vis-a-vis traditional libel, the Supreme Court declared in 2010 in G.R. No. 184800:
” The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of determining the situs of its printing and first publication. To credit Gimenez’s premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article on petitioners’ website in Makati with “printing and first publication” would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would ensue in situations where the website’s author or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that the private complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website.”
READ: Supreme Court decision on the cybercrime law
BEFORE the SC decision
Section 7 of CCL allows prosecution of a case of libel both under section 4c4 of CCL and RPC. But libel cannot be prosecuted under section 4c4 of CCL because there is no penalty imposed in section 8. Indeed, libel can only be prosecuted under the RPC in relation to section 6 of CCL which imposes one degree higher penalty than that imposed under RPC.
AFTER the SC decision
SC ruled as unconstitutional section 7 insofar as it allows the prosecution of a case of libel on both the CCL and RPC. Meaning the prosecution has to apply either the CCL or the RPC. In effect the SC rules that libel can only be prosecuted under the RPC in relation to section 6 of CCL which imposes a penalty one degree higher than that imposed under the RPC.
In other words nothing changes with the SC decision insofar as prosecution of libel is concerned. Meaning that section 4c4 of CCL is worthless. Meaning also that the insertion by Sotto of online libel in the CCL is useless. Meaning again that the SC decision did not vindicate him. Meaning further that the taxpayers paid Sotto his salary and allowances for nothing.
Victin Luz says
[email protected]……nakakahilo po … In an ordinary thinking ba ay ,,,kahit wala ang CCL ( specifically 4c4 ) declaring it constitutional or un-constitutional by SC… ay to those original author of a post ( if libelous in nature ) will be prosecuted under the RPC? And because under CCL ..the penalty was not defined? while at RPC , it has a penalty of one degree higher?
In criminal law ba @rene…..a law passed without a corresponding penalty can be declared unconstitutional by whom sir? pweding kasuhan na kami muna and agrue our case sa judge bago i declare na UNSCO… Ganito ba ang mangyayari?
Sabi ng Supreme Court sa page 23, 4th paragraph:
“Indeed, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for committing libel.”
In other words, yung cyberlibel sa section 4c4 nandyan na sa Article 355 (libel in writings and similar means). Yung online libel sabi ng SC ay isa sa mga “similar means.” Kaya nadeklara na constitutional. Ibig sabihin may penalty man o wala ang section 4c4 ay walang nilabag sa constitution. Kung hindi puede sa CCL ay doon tayo sa RPC. Kaya sabi ko naman, kahit wala ang section 4c4 ay may online libel pa rin under RPC basta ginamitan ng computer.
Ang tingin ko hindi naarok ng isip ni Sotto na balewala yung insertion nya. Hindi rin naisip na lagyan ng sariling penalty para sa section 4c4. Yung cybersex nga may penalty na sa Article 201 ng RPC pero nilagyan pa rin ng penalty sa section 8 kasi hindi si Sotto ang naglagay ng cybersex (section 4c1) sa CCL.
Victin Luz says
Copy [email protected]….malinaw na po he he sayang ang effort ni Sotto o effirts ng mga staff nya he he na peoples money nga ang nagamit nila ” similar means ” dapat linagyan ng penalty… KLARO na po @rene..
Victin Luz says
Basta nalang nag ride-on si SOTTOng Escalera he he just to be recorded that his name will be included in the BILL that became a questionable LAW …he he kaya lang ang mga STAFF ni Sotto ay mga lawyers i supposed… Sayang ang pera natin Filipino pag ganyan ,,dapat mag resign sya nakakahiya na talaga ei Sotto he he.
simon olivares says
Itanong nyo na lang dun sa mga taga PEP (Parents Enabling Parents) kung ano ang kinahinatnan nila nung tinawag nilang mandaraya yung Pacific Plans nang hindi bayaran ang mga educational plans ng mga anak nila. Dinemanda sila ng Libel kahit na totoong nadaya sila. Ewan ko na lang kung ano na nangyari dun sa mga dinemanda ng libel, pero perwisyo sa mga magulang yung kelangang pag attend sa mga hearing na madalas narereset naman. Kwento ng kaibigan kong nakasama sa kaso na yun.
simon olivares says
Yun yata ang unang kaso ng internet libel na nasa libro dito sa Pilipinas.
vander anievas says
ung CAP kaya, may naihabla na? just a thought…
Victin Luz says
Ang CAP hindi na nagbayad….i remember one time 8th payment lang ang nakuha namin sa anak ko na may 2 years to consume the PLAN to any exclusive schhool sana . She took up nursing b4 at a Baguio University and we had shouldered the remaining 2years of her course…BWISIT na CAP and Pacific Plan, who reimbursed 41th only of the remaining 2years consumable also to my other daughter who took up also nursing at FEU….mga gago at mandarambong na kinatigan ng mga gagong RTC judges…
Itong mga Familya nga majority owners ng CAP at PACIPIC PLANS sana ang dapat execute ng NPA or patriots na mga Filipino….matututwa mga tao sa kanila…
vander anievas says
we have common experience pala.
my 2 daughters graduated without any single peso-availment for their 4 yr course plan.
meron namang pabalat-bunga kaming natanggap.
last nov.2012 we were issued 2 termination checks in the sum of about 10% contribution.
that’s all until today…
The libel case was filed in 2005 Malayan insurance against the parents in Makati RTC. The Supreme Court ordered the Information quashed and the case dismissed in 2010 for lack of jurisdiction (improper venue) by Makati RTC. It was mainly because the defamatory statements were issued via the internet. It was not alleged in the Information or charges where the defamatory statements were printed and first published. Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales wrote the decision.
In other words, the case could have prospered if the venue of filing the case was correct. Meaning also that for online libel to prosper the cybercrime law is not necessary.
Simon Olivares says
And from 2005 to 2010, the respondents had to attend hearings in Makati which interfered with their livelihoods. All for calling their education plan providers cheats. That is the aim of the libel suit, to inconvenience you so much you just shut up.
Martial Bonifacio says
For those OFWs that missed this news. Much respect to AFP and Sir Chief hopefully the future soldiers and politicians (Ex. current Mayor of Makati) will follow your kind of leadership.
‘Manny the sundalo’ delivers
Defamatory statements made about a public person (political candidates, governmental officeholders, movie stars, author, celebrity, sports hero, etc) are usually exempt (Sec 354(2) of RPC), even if they are untrue and harmful. However, if they were made with malice – with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm with reckless disregard for the truth – the public person may have a course of action.
A case in point is the celebrated libel suit filed by then President Corazon Aquino against Star columnist Luis Beltran for his published column in the Star alleging that Pres. Cory hid under her bed at the height of gunfire during the 1987 coup attempt led by gringo, “which was definitely not what the public expected of the President of the Philippines and Commander In Chief of our armed forces.” Upon publication, Pres Cory immediately filed the case and brought reporters to her bedroom, lifted the bedcovers and showed that she couldn’t fit under the bed even if she is a midget.
The lower court and later on the Supreme Court ruled in her favor.
jorge bernas says
Tama naman ginawa ni Cory noon dahil napaka iresponsabling pagbabalita ang ginawa ni luis beltran sa pagsasabing/pagbabalita na nagtatago ang presidente sa ilalim nang kama noong 1987 coup attemp led by gringgo, Samantalang dapat nitong ihayag na walang saysay at mali ang pamamaraan nang mga sundalong rebelde laban sa Pamahalaan ni Cory na inihalal nang TaongBayan. Anong klasing columnista itong si beltran noong pero tapos na ang kaso at napagbayaran na nito ang kagagohang ginawa…
vander anievas says
the late beltran was malicious in his report…
Tomas Gomez III says
If I remember correctly, the case filed by pres. Cory was dismissed in the Manila RTC.
Luis Beltran together with Star Publisher Maximo Soliven were convicted by Judge Ramon Makasiar of the Manila RTC and sentenced to a maximum prison term of 2 years and P2000 fine. Both were also ordered to pay Pres Cory P2 M in moral damages.
The case was subsequently appealed to the CA which affirmed the lower court decision and to the SC which also ruled in favor of Pres Cory (GR 82585, 82827 & 83979)
Tomas Gomez III says
OOOOPS! my lapsus….my memory has ill-served me. Thanks. What happened after? Louie B. died soon after. I don’t think anyone went to jail. Were damages paid? Now, why would I think that pres. Cory lost the case?
The Star (and Beltran) issued a groveling apology to Cory, if I remember correctly
The Supreme Court case had to do with the RTC’s order to arrest Beltran. The Supreme Court merely allowed the case to proceed in the RTC.
lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/nov1988/gr_82585_1988.html (three w’s in front)
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC, years after Beltran died, in C.A.-G.R. No. 40496; 25 March 1996 from
accralaw.com/lawyer_profile.php?id=71 (three w’s in front) Profile of Rogelio Vinluan.
Clarification – 167 SCRA 393
FACTS: This case is a PETITION for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the RTC of Manila
ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the petitioners (Beltran & Soliven) were denied due process when the information for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently by the President;
(2) Whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC issued a warrant of arrest; and
(3) Whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through filing of a complaint-affidavit.
DECISION: Finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions.
GRs 82585, 82827 & 83979 refer to SC decision on procedural grounds which allowed the RTC to conduct trial on the merits of the case.
C.A. G.R. No. 40496 refers to Court of Appeals decision on the merits of the case which acquitted the accused and never reached the SC.
Read the end.
Bottom line, Cory’s victory at the RTC got reversed by the CA.
In fact, read your own issues:
1..Existence of prima facie was under review by the Secretary of Justice. No decision on the merits of the RTC is involved here. Prima facie nga eh.
2. Warrant of arrest by the RTC. No decision on the merits either.
3. Whether or not the President may initiate criminal proceedings by filing a complaint. Again, no decision on the merits, only the initiation by way of complaint is in issue.
Bottom line, talo si Cory sa CA.
Let us not be partisan here, just because the complainant is a democracy icon. Pretend that the President was Goyang, and the article was written by somebody, about Goyang’s temper tantrums (throwing cell phones at secretaries). Would the Court of Appeals have been correct? Or would the RTC have been correct?
Lady Justice must not lose her blindfold, or she ceases to be just.
I thought God loves those people who used compassion and critical thinking. When she entered the top post in the judiciary she was soft but convinced that heaven is with her in every way she can. We have more of these. We over asked without knowing we had everything we need for that day but justice.
“House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. is in favor of the online libel provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 provided that the harsh penalties are stricken down.” link philnews.com
Not only strike down [as admitted] the harsh penalties but work to repeal this bad law…Libel law in all it’s phases/corners.
You can deliver as a legacy GIFT to the people and country that the law is repealed. It violates Section 4 Article III Bill of Right and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It violates the Pilipino people’s quests for progress, checks on public performance, honesty, credibility and sincerity.
Congress with your leadership can do this repeal bill into a law. Libel law is a draconian instrument against freedom believers and thinkers. As an alternative remedy make libelous remarks in all it’s forms only a civil liability for all.
For All CPMers and atbpa.
link Speaker ‘on harsh penalties’ etc. – http://philnews.com/headlines/2014/headline_news_0219ag.htm
House Speaker Belmonte was once a reporter of the pre-Martial Law Manila Chronicle newspaper.
It’s already about 5 days since Friday last week the SC released the decision on the Cybercrime law and still it is not yet in it’s website for reading? When? People and Internet users wants to read and scrutinize, analyze and debate on it.
SC, pls have the decision posted soon.
I think, they’re still working out what the implementing rules will be.
my guess is cybercrime law is not going to be retrospective. it cannot go back to what has happened days, months, or years ago. ‘amalayer’ and christopher lao may not be able to file online libel dahil what happened to them was before cybercrime law was enacted and made into law, therefore, out of bounds, not in the time frame. sc will decide when cybercrime law starts. maybe 30 days after implementation, after it has been published in government gazette, there have been massive campaigns in schools, universities, workplaces, etc, and people have been told of the new law and how it affect every internet users. so nobody can say, not fair, there was no publicity about the new law, and that they were never told about it. soon, computer shops and internet cafes might even have copies of the cybercrime law posted on the wall.
andrew lim says
I invite everyone to read Prof Oscar Tan’s column:
And call Tito Sotto just that. It feels good to say the truth, doesnt it? :)
Rissa, how about gracing us with an FAQ page re the cybercrime law and more importantly, some useful tips on how we can still lambast blasted politicians by adding qualifying words to avoid being charged. I understand that news media can report safely as long as they preface statements with words like “alleged” or “according to our sources” or using subtle sarcasm or something like that? Maybe the statement that rather than saying Mike Arroyo is fat it could be said that “Mike Arroyo is no Piolo Pascual.”
If we know how we can say things safely then the law can’t hurt us from voicing or reposting opinions we agree with.
Also, I tend to think this law can also do good in that it temper the rants and vile name-calling of overly zealous people whose health (which I worry about sometimes) is threatened by their passion to do so.
I’m waiting for the SC decision so I can read it.
@dabawenya…’temper the rants and vile name-calling’…you are so much right!
…as I said here ‘us’ members of the free market of idea are not all [acc to PNoy] ‘mga responsableng mamahayag’ [No. 19 below, quoted]. But that is normally allowed per SEC. 4 Article III BILL OF RIGHTS 1987 Constitution, “free speech or of the press, right of people to peaceful assembly and PETITION the government for REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.”
…we do it mostly in huge gatherings with PRAYERS and FLOWERS even, not like in other countries such as Korea, Thailand, Japan, Latino Countries such as Venezuela [last night TV news], atbpa…with fists and bricks!
…in the USA, ‘they OCCUPY’…
…the reason or purpose is TO SEND THE MESSAGE and BE HEARD! [flowered with anger of course!]
So bawal na ang magsabi ng katotohanan, kahit na proven guilty yun isang tao. Well, spreading the truth about one who is already found guilty is LIBELOUS still? Part of social behaviour, we may talk such criminal act as teaching to members of a blog site, as reminder, as a LESSONS LEART not to immitate, this i dont think is libelous…
But when the due process is ON GOING, and one blog site keep posting the verdict as guilty, kahit wala pang decision, that can be considered libelous…this is fair if the accused was just SET-UP, however when the accused is really guilty, ANGER among people is suppressed, then FREEDOM of SPEECH is not FREEDOM anymore. If i say Janet is magna, but the court decision will be after 20 years, then, my anger that she is guilty is blocked….kasi di ko na masasabi sa blogsite because that is libelous…
guilty or not guitly, we should SHUT OUR MOUTH, is that it??? Bawal na BAD NEWS!!! HE HE HE HE
In Islam, Scandal Mongering or Gossiping is not allowed. GOOD and TRUTH NEWS for always even IF “INTENSITY 10 STRUCK METRO MANILA, MILLIONS DIED!!” Well if it is a FACT, no libel will be filed.
BUT IF “MACSPEED HAS MARRIED HIS 3RD WIFE” which is not true, since i have only ONE, then i can file a LIBEL to that person…
FOR ME, CYBERCRIME LAW IS A DISCIPLINARY LAW, A DISCIPLINED NATION IS DISTINED TO PROGRESS.
ALL THIINGS TO BE POSTED SHOULD BE NON LIBELOUS, EDUCATIONAL AND NO SEXUAL ABUSE, RATED K, he he he he.
@mac…we are demanding the repeal of Libel law in all phases/corners…now, looks like we’ll have to ‘take out’ SEC. 4 Article III Bill of Rights in the forthcoming CHA-CHA…as a disciplinary law on free thinkers atbpa!
CHA CHA when it comes, if ever, has to be scrutized….
THIS ONLY MEANS THOSE MIND-MEETINGS THAT CAME UP 1987 CONSTITUTION WERE NOT COMPLETE!!!
THIS CHA CHA IF EVER THERE WILL BE, I WANT DEATH PENALTY TO ALL HEINEOUS CRIMES:
1. PDAF or DAF ROUTING TO PERSONNAL ACCOUNT
3. ILLEGAL DETENTION
5. DRUGS TRAFFICKING INCLUDING LAW OFFICERS
6. OTHERS PLEASE ADD…
HE HE HE HE
Final Cut says
Calling ex CJ Corona, forget about the Hacienda Luisita as your battle cry for your redemption, if you want to gain more friends, audience, resurrect your legacy, we know you are the recipient of negative assaults, this is it, lead us to fight this cyber libel crime law, you have all the expertise, knowledge to make it right. BTW pls recruit former SC spokeperson Marquez…no pun intended.