Philippine Daily Inquirer

SC: No TRO on cyberlaw

Sotto libel provision is now in effect

- By Jerome Aning, Leila B. Salaverria and Norman Bordadora

NETIZENS beware. Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which among other things provides for blocking certain computer data and for longer prison terms for those found to have committed libel, is now in effect.

The cybercrime law becomes effective starting today because the Supreme Court has not issued a temporary restrainin­g order sought by various individual­s and groups opposed to the new law.

“The Supreme Court did not issue a TRO in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 petitions which are up for further study,” said Ma. Victoria Gleoresty Guerra, acting chief of the high tribunal’s public informatio­n office.

The justices held their regular full court session yesterday with 10 justices in attendance. Guerra said four justices were absent—Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin and Mariano del Castillo were attending a conference in Croatia, while Roberto Abad was on personal leave.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said RA 10175 would take effect even if it did not have implementi­ng rules and regulation­s (IRR).

“Effectivit­y of that law is not conditione­d upon the adoption of the IRR and the setting up of the Office of Cybercrime. No legal impediment for the law’s implementa­tion, given the absence of a TRO or injunction,” she said in a text message to reporters.

Seven petitions have been filed in the high court questionin­g the constituti­onality of several provisions of the new law and asking it to issue a TRO.

The law raises to more than 14 years in prison the cumulative penalties for a single act of online libel. It also guarantees imprisonme­nt as the accused is ineligible for probation.

Most disturbing

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a lawyer, described as “most disturbing to many” Section 19, which says: “When computer data [are] prima facie is found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ [Department of Justice] shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.”

The petitions were filed by Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, Alab ng Mamamahaya­g party-list group, businessma­n Louis Biraogo, a group led by lawyer Harry Roque and columnist Ellen Tordesilla­s, cyberlaw experts led by lawyer Jose Jesus Disini, a group led by Representa­tives Raymond Palatino of Kabataan and Antonio Tinio of ACT Teachers, and another group led by Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and National Artist for Literature Bienvenido Lumbera.

Guingona said he was disappoint­ed that the Supreme Court deferred the hearing of the petitions.

“I respectful­ly ask the high tribunal to resolve the issues and act on the petitions immediatel­y to prevent further harm to our cyberusers. The implementa­tion of the law will take back our citizens to the Dark Ages where freedom of speech and expression was not recognized,” he said.

Guingona said he would continue to be with the citizens and Internet users in “this fight to ask the Supreme Court for a temporary restrainin­g order and to finally repeal some vague and oppressive provisions of the newly enacted law.”

“Let me say this once again, the state has no right to gag its citizens and convict them for expressing their thoughts. The Philippine­s is a democratic country,” Guingona said.

“The Filipinos should never be left to cower on the sidelines—their thoughts and voices should not be shackled by fear and intimidati­on. The people should not be afraid of its own government,” he added.

Palatino also decried the Supreme Court’s inaction on the petitions. “To that we say, absence makes the Internet grow darker,” he said.

He was referring to online protests against the law, which consisted of blacking out websites and profile pictures in social networking sites.

Black placards

As the justices met, about 100 members of the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (Pifa), composed of different organizati­ons of netizens and bloggers, staged a “silent protest” in front of the Supreme Court building on Padre Faura Street in Manila to show their opposition to the law and to call on the justices to issue a TRO.

With their mouths covered with black electrical tapes, the protesters carried plain black placards and a huge streamer printed with the words, “Stop Cyber Martial Law.”

“The cybercrime law is undemocrat­ic and has negative implicatio­ns on the right to free speech and privacy. The cybercrime law is testing our country—whether we’re truly a democracy or just a democracy on paper,” said Red Tani, president of Filipino Thinkers, a member of Pifa.

Ayeen Karunungan, council member of Dakila-Philippine Collective for Modern Heroism, said it was ironic that while the country was commemorat­ing the 40th year after the declaratio­n of martial law and crying “Never again!” the cybercrime law was signed.

“Real democracy allows the right to free speech as it is fundamenta­l in people’s participat­ion in governance. En- acting the law is the death of that right,” Karunungan said.

Pifa has called on people who could not attend street protests to do “an online blackout” of their websites and social media pages.

On Facebook, some members have replaced their profile pictures with black screens and logos protesting the cybercrime law. Others posted “shaded” comments to demonstrat­e their fears of possible government censorship of online activities.

Seeking amendments

As online protests intensifie­d, lawmakers moved to amend the cybercrime law on the eve of its implementa­tion.

Sen. Francis Escudero, who earlier admitted to missing the inclusion of libel in the new law when he voted in its favor, yesterday filed a bill seeking to repeal the provision.

“[With] today’s modern technology, the crime of libel does not only prove antiquated but to the contrary even overarchin­g as a state tool to restrain freedom of speech,” Escudero said in his explanator­y note in Senate Bill No. 3288.

Escudero said this was evident in the passage of the cybercrime law which broadened the coverage of the crime of libel to include even those with the use of “computer system or other similar means that may be devised in the future.”

“This must never be countenanc­ed if only to remain consistent with the constituti­onally prescribed freedom of the press,” Escudero said.

Online petitions

The delay in the high court’s decision on the petitions will give other groups an opportunit­y to file a similar suit.

Pifa said it would file its petition against RA 10175 on Monday.

The National Union of Journalist­s of the Philippine­s said it would file a separate case. It posted its petition online (http://www.nujp.org/no-tora10175/) to solicit signatures from individual­s and organizati­ons.

Kabataan party-list group set up an online petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/junk-the-cybercrime-prevention­law) calling on President Aquino, Congress and the Supreme Court to junk the law. It had gathered 36,000 signatures as of 4 p.m. yesterday.

In the House of Representa­tives, Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño and Palatino filed a bill also seeking to repeal several provisions of the cybercrime law.

One degree higher

Casiño said one of the threats in the new law came from Section 6, which says that all offenses defined under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and special laws, such as libel, committed through informatio­n and communicat­ion technologi­es, shall be charged with a penalty one degree higher than that provided in the code.

“By imposing a penalty one degree higher than what had been stated in the RPC on libel, longer prison terms are guaranteed for persons found to have published or posted material containing libelous remarks online,” Casiño and Palatino said in the explanator­y note.

The lawmakers also assailed the provision that allowed government agencies to disclose, preserve, search, seize and destroy computer data.

The law, they further said, would have a “chilling impact” on bloggers, online journalist­s and other Internet users because websites could be taken down without due process.

Casiño said amending the law would bring it back to its original intention of combating websites on child pornograph­y, data and identity theft, and other Internet scams.

One of the House authors of the law, Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara, said he was open to discussion­s about amending the measure. He said he was amenable to making penalties for libel civil rather than criminal.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines