OUTRAGE OVER THE NEW PHILIPPINE CYBERCRIME LAW
MANILA, OCTOBER 1, 2012 (PAKISTAN DAILY NEWS) Amid the public
backlash, some of the senators who voted for the cybercime law have started to
disassociate themselves from it, even claiming they did not read the provision
on libel
A new cybercrime law in the Philippines that could see people sentenced to 12
years in jail for posting defamatory comments on Facebook or Twitter is
generating outrage among citizens and rights groups.
The stated aim of the cybercrime law is to fight online pornography, hacking,
identity theft and spamming in the conservative Catholic nation amid police
complaints they lack the legal tools to stamp out Internet crime.
However it also includes a blanket provision that puts the country's criminal
libel law into force in cyberspace, except that the penalties for Internet
defamation are much tougher compared with old media. It also allows authorities
to collect data from personal user accounts on social media and listen in on
voice/video applications, such as Skype, without a warrant.
Teenagers unwarily retweeting or re-posting libellous material on social
media could bear the full force of the law, according to
Noemi Dado, a prominent Manila blogger who edits a citizen media site called
Blog Watch.
"Not everyone is an expert on what constitutes libel. Imagine a mother like
me, or teenagers and kids who love to rant. It really hits our freedoms," Dado
said.
Compounding the concerns, those teenagers or anyone else who posts a
libellous comment faces a maximum prison term of 12 years and a fine of one
million pesos ($24,000). Meanwhile, newspaper editors and other trained
professionals in traditional media face prison terms of just four years and
fines of 6,000 pesos.
While harsh criminal libel legislation remains in force in other parts of
Asia, Dado said the Philippine law sent the wrong signal in a country that
overthrew the military-backed Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship just 26 years ago.
Dado, a lawyer's wife known in the local online community as the "momblogger",
is among a group of bloggers and other critics of the libel element of the
cybercrime law campaigning for it to be repealed.
Brad Adams, Asia director for New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the law
was having a chilling effect in the Philippines, which has one of the world's
highest per capita rates of Facebook and Twitter users.
"Anybody using popular social networks or who publishes online is now at risk
of a long prison term should a reader - including government officials - bring a
libel charge," Adams said. About a third of the Philippines' nearly 100 million
people use the Internet, with 96 percent them on Facebook, according to industry
figures.
Five petitions claiming the law is unconstitutional have been filed with the
Supreme Court. Senator Teofisto Guingona, the lone opponent when the bill was
voted on in the Senate, has filed one of the petitions to the Supreme Court.
"Without a clear definition of the crime of libel and the persons liable,
virtually any person can now be charged with a crime - even if you just re-tweet
or comment on an online update or blog post," Guingona told the court. "The
questioned provisions... throw us back to the Dark Ages."
The five petitions all say the law infringes on freedom of expression, due
process, equal protection and privacy of communication. University of the
Philippines law professor Harry Roque, who filed one of the petitions, said the
Philippines was one of a shrinking number of countries where defamation remained
a crime punishable by prison.
Part of the penal code that was drawn up 82 years ago, it goes against the
trend in many advanced democracies such as the United States and Britain where
defamation is now punished with fines rather than imprisonment, Roque said.
Amid the public backlash, some of the senators who voted for the cybercime
law have started to disassociate themselves from it, even claiming they did not
read the provision on libel.
However presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda has defended the cybercrime
law. "The Cybercrime Act sought to attach responsibilities in cyberspace....
freedom of expression is always recognised but freedom of expression is not
absolute," he told reporters on Thursday.
Nevertheless, Lacierda said the law could still be refined. He called for
critics to submit their concerns to a government panel that will issue by the
end of the year specific definitions of the law, such as who may be prosecuted.
afp
FROM THE MANILA BULLETIN
Chiz Seeks To Amend Cybercrime Act By FREDDIE G.
LAZARO September 30, 2012, 7:03pm
MANILA, Philippines — A lawmaker will file an amendatory bill to
amend the provision on libel as a crime in the newly passed Republic Act 10175,
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Sen. Francis Escudero (photo), chairman of the Senate Committee on
Justice and Human Rights, said the particular provision in RA 10175 should be
repealed as it runs contrary to his position as a principal author of a bill
decriminalizing libel.
"Section 4 of Paragraph 4 of the cybercrime prevention law broadens the
coverage of libel which now includes those with the use of "computer system or
other similar means that may be devised in the future," he cited.
Escudero said it was a personal oversight on his part that the above clause
was inserted in the Committee Report when the Senate voted for its passage.
It was recalled that in 2010, Escudero filed Senate Bill Number 2162
decriminalizing libel to accord greater protection to freedom of speech and
expression either those done in writing or other similar means by taking away
the threat or fear of incarceration, restraint of liberty and fine.
"This move is just being consistent with my original bill to decriminalize
libel. At the very least, if at all, libel should just be made a civil
liability. If a person is proven to have besmirched someone, let the guilty
party pay for damages. But it should be remembered that in libel, proof of the
truth is defense," he said.
He reiterated what was stated in SB No. 2162, "that a strong media could give
great service to the Filipino people in providing an effective mechanism of
complete and fearless transparency over the excesses of government in the
exercise of its powers and prerogatives."
Meanwhile, the Kabataan Partylist warned Saturday that aside from the
Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Law that can potentially
incriminate netizens or habitual computer users through their Facebook statuses
and tweets, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is also empowered to block access to
social media networks and websites, including Facebook, Twitter, and the popular
meme-based website 9gag.
In a press interview, Kabataan Partylist Rep. Raymond Palatino explained that
"such is the power that the Anti-Cybercrime Law gives to DOJ that even access to
social networking sites may soon be lost."
Lawyer James Mark Terry Ridon, national president and general counsel of
Kabataan Partylist, explained that DOJ can "theoretically invoke" Section 19 of
RA 10175 to impose a total access ban on social networking sites in the future.
Section 19 states, "When a computer data is prima facie found to be in
violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to
restrict or block access to such computer data."
"This effectively gives the DOJ total control of the Internet in the
Philippines. As only prima facie evidence is needed, the new law has done away
with due process," Palatino said.
Online censorship under Section 19 is more encompassing than traditional
censorship, Palatino added. "If for example, an online article is said to be
libellous, DOJ may order the total shutdown of its host domain, effectively
censoring not just the article in question, but also other articles in that site
– a clear violation of the constitutional right to free speech."
"There may come a time when DOJ and the courts will be swamped with reports
of violations of the Anti-Cybercrime Law committed in sites like Facebook,
Twitter, and 9gag.
The violations are not limited to libellous material – people can report
phishing, illegal access and other violations being committed in these sites,
and it would become more practical for DOJ to simply block access not only to
the content or data in question but to the very sites themselves," Ridon
explained.
"The DOJ is thus effectively given the power to cut Philippine access to
Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. This is how restrictive the
new law is," Palatino said.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All
rights reserved
PHILIPPINE
HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
PH Headline News Online. Copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved