SC decision on online libel may stifle freedom of expression —intl lawyers group

SC says Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) on Wednesday said the Philippine Supreme Court’s (SC) decision to uphold the constitutionality of the law on online libel could stifle freedom of expression.

“By enacting this law, the Philippines government will inhibit people who try to express themselves through the Internet and electronic media,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Legal Advisor on Southeast Asia.

“The Supreme Court decision unfortunately means that the Philippines has now joined those countries in the ASEAN region that are vainly trying to turn back the tide of greater and freer expression online,” Gil said in a statement. Gil is based in Bangkok, Thailand.

The ICJ, based in Switzerland but with offices in various countries, is a group of around 60 senior judges, attorneys, and academics from different nations.

In an email to GMA News Online, Gil said, “The best scenario would have been for the Supreme Court to strike down the provisions on online libel as unconstitutional and violative of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

“This would then send a strong signal to Filipino lawmakers to start looking at the Revised Penal Code and decriminalising libel and defamation in the Code. The penalty of imprisonment should be taken out for libel or defamation. Imprisonment is never a commensurate penalty for libel or defamation,” she added.

On Tuesday, the SC upheld as constitutional the provisions in the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175) increasing the penalty for libel committed online.

SC spokesman Theodore Te told reporters that original authors of libelous materials will be penalized under by the cybercrime law but not the ones who merely received these materials or posted their reactions to these.

On Wednesday, President Benigno Aquino III defended the SC decision, saying the law does not intend to curtail freedom of expression and that all rights, including freedom of expression, have a limit.

Aquino also noted that it was unfair that libelous acts in print and broadcast media are penalized but not in online media.

Netizens urged to lobby vs. cybercrime law

Gil urged people to continue lobbying against the controversial sections of the cybercrime law.

“Ordinary Internet users should continue challenging this law and lobby their congressmen to change this law. Social media is a very powerful tool,” she said.

“Internet users should use social media to get their message across to the lawmakers that they want the decriminalization of libel and defamation,” she added.

Incompatible with PHL’s obligations

Meanwhile, ICJ noted that the cybercrime law was “incompatible not only with the Philippine Constitution, but also with Philippines’ international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the rights to freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart information.”

“The criminalization of libel or defamation is an affront to freedom of expression,” Gil said.

The ICJ said the UN Human Rights Committee, the international monitoring body of the ICCPR, “has said that States should decriminalize libel or defamation.” The Philippines has been a party to the ICCPR since 1986.

The ICJ explained that states may only penalize the most serious defamation cases and even in these cases, “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.”

Cybercrime law

The cybercrime law penalizes offenses such as cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data, and libel.

Adopted in September 2012, the cybercrime law was suspended a month later because the SC issued a temporary restraining order after the law was questioned by various groups, among them the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Internet and Society Program of the University of the Philippines College of Law, and the National Press Club.

In October 2012, over 1,250 schools belonging to the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) issued a statement saying, “We are wary that this law, while intending to combat criminal activities on the internet, unlawfully curtails the individual right to free speech.”

The ICJ has also previously expressed opposition to the cybercrime law, claiming that provisions on online libel compound the existing problematic provisions on defamation in the Philippine’s Revised Penal Code (RPC) and provide for even greater penalties for libel.

Gil explained, “A person may file a libel case when he or she feels that his feelings or reputation has been subject to unwarranted attacks.”

“Hopefully, however, when a person files a suit for libel, it would be under a law that is able to balance the protection of a person’s reputation and protect freedom of opinion and expression. I hope that the Philippine lawmakers are able to craft this kind of law,” she said.

The cybercrime law (Section 4) describes online libel as “the unlawful and prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”

Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines libel as a “public imputation and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”

Under the law, “public” is anything that was read, seen, or heard by other people, regardless of number. —KG, GMA News