The Philippine Supreme Court recently
declared the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as constitutional except for
some parts that it considered as unconstitutional.
I was not surprised. My view is
that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review passes
upon the constitutionality of an entire legislation only as a last resort and
upon determination of “real, earnest and vital controversy between
individuals”. The court decided to deal with only a few of them.
I will touch only one issue. Section
4(c) (4) of the Cybercrime Law or the application of Section 355 of the Revised
Penal Code (LIBEL) was declared constitutional but not insofar as it purports
to create criminal liability on the part of persons who receive a libelous post
and merely react to it.
So if you receive a defamatory post on
Facebook, Twitter, or email and you react to it by liking, commenting, or
sharing/re-tweeting it, you are not criminally liable. Only the original author
would be liable.
As I wrote in a previous column/blog,
the need to have a Cybercrime Law was longtime coming. Philippine
Internet users are very active in the cyber world. They are the freest in Asia
and the sixth freest in the world. They are also prone to the dangers
posed by cyber criminals.
Having participated in the discussions
and development of the Cybercrime Convention, the Philippines was expected to
pass legislation patterned after the format developed at the Convention.
The Philippines did! In fact, the
bill that originated in the House of Representatives was copied almost verbatim
from that of the Cybercrime Convention. However, it became less
acceptable when, in the Senate, Senator Sotto sought the insertion of Online
Libel. The provisions on the protection of Intellectual Property Rights
as well as safeguards like Human, Political, and Civil Rights guarantees were
excluded. The provision on Online libel was not in the Convention while
those relating to Intellectual Property, Human, Political and Civil rights
were.
Not only did Congress, and now
reinforced by the Supreme Court, add online libel as a crime, it even increased
the penalty for its commission by one degree higher.
Penalties for crimes are provided to
inhibit or deter the commission of crimes. Libel as crime under the
Revised Penal Code already provides a deterring penalty that includes
imprisonment. Under Cyber libel, not only does it consider ICT use to be
a qualifying aggravating circumstance, but, as Chief Justice Sereno pointed
out, it has the following effects: First, it increases the
accessory penalties of libel; Second, it disqualifies the offender
from availing of the privilege of probation; Third, it
increases the prescriptive period for the crime of libel from one to fifteen
years; Fourth, it increases the prescriptive period for its penalty
from ten years to fifteen years; and Fifth, its impact cannot
be offset by mitigating circumstances.
The Constitution states; “No law
shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.” – Section 4, Article III
Justice Leonen, also of the current
Supreme Court, is of the opinion that Libel, be it under the Revised Penal Code
or the new Cybercrime Law, is unconstitutional. He says that it “now
stands starkly in contrast with required constitutional protection of freedom
of expression.”
Indeed, the continued criminalization of libel especially when
the form or medium used is the Internet produces such chilling effect that it
effectively stifles our fundamental guarantees of free expression. The
law that provides it has the effect of abridging the constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms provided under Section 4, Article III.
Living in a democracy requires the free exchange of ideas and
views in all forms of media. The governed must freely receive and
disseminate information without fear. Freedom of Expression is the device that
every citizen uses to share the truth and to understand all the issues. For
this, “no idea, no opinion, no doubt, no belief, no counter belief, no relevant
information”, may be kept from him and fellow citizens.
The value of the Internet as a medium for the Freedom of
Expression for effective governance and for wider and direct participation by
citizens in governance is incalculable.
Expressing one’s views not only to a local audience but also
more to a global one “freely” and without or with minimal “fee” strengthens the
democratic processes. It empowers people from even the remotest corners of the
globe, inspires them to think of new ideas, and encourages them to acquire and
share these ideas.
The threat of possible imprisonment because of Libel would
stifle this inviolable and primordial constitutionally guaranteed right.
People Power covers land, air, and sea but also extends its
domain to cyberspace. Its powers are as pronouncedly, efficiently,
effectively, and courageously used in the Internet. Through the Internet,
greater participation by the people without fear means greater power for the
governed.
In the Internet, the fear by people to be maligned is based on
false assumptions. The truth is that potential victims have as much power to
reply, defend, protect, and apprehend offenders. Currently technology
provides it.
To be effective in utilizing their power to legislate, Senators
and Congressmen as agents or representatives of the people are given the privilege
to speak freely in the halls of Congress – even free to defame anybody without
fear of detention. They have what we call immunity from suit. We want
them to be great generators of new ideas and views in legislating to benefit
their principals – the people.
Under the Cory Constitution, the people as principals reserve
the right to directly legislate through People’s Initiative. In
cyberspace, Filipino users have been enjoying free speech privileges without
any threat of detention – not unlike the immunity from suit enjoyed by the
legislators. Cybercrime libel as currently worded changes the dynamics.
In the name of the People Power or EDSA Revolution that provided
them the opportunity to enjoy their current privileges and powers, the Senators
and Congressmen should DECRIMINALIZE LIBEL as soon as possible.