On Cybercrime Law of the Philippines
The Cybercrime Law and its Onerous Provision on Libel
The netizens of the Philippines expressed disgust in 2012
when President Benigno Aquino III signed into law Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of the Philippines and otherwise known as the cybercrime law. People from various groups --- journalists,
bloggers, online writers, and internet users of social media sites, raised a
howl in protest on the libel provision of the aforementioned law, fearing that
the freedom of expression will be curtailed to silence the opposition.
Several court cases were filed in the Supreme Court to
delete the onerous provision on libel, or if not, to totally scrap the entire cybercrime law. Deliberations were made
and it took two years for the high court magistrates to come up with a
decision. The bad news for the protesters, is that the Supreme Court embank upheld
the constitutionality of the provision for libel. What this means is that, any write-up or
statement in media that may be considered as unfounded or malicious can be subjected
to infractions in libel law.
Filipino protest in opposition of Cybercrime Law
by Enigma=Chadto group/ Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
The magistrates ruled that the filing of libel is made
towards the original author of the article and not those who commented and
share it in cyberspace. However, if additions were made to the post to
insinuate additional materials to what was originally written, the republished
article will be considered as an original material and the new author would
likewise be subjected to libel charges.
Several journalists like the rappler.com group, submitted questions
for clarification from the magistrates. Among those that were touched, are public
officials who are oftentimes subjected to intensive scrutiny by the public, due
to the sensitivity of their positions. It was, however clarified that, the
weight to negate the allegations for libel rest more on the government
officials than those making the accusations. When the accused is a private
citizen, the weight to negate the libel charges lies more on the accuser than
the accused.
The implication of the cybercrime law still remains to be seen.
How it will impact on the citizen’s right to free expression would lie entirely
on how the law is applied. Meantime, everything is quiet until another unraveling hits the front pages to test the applicability of this law.
writer_csm
Philippine News: A Shot from the Hip
Copyright © 2014 CSMiravite
