SC stands by Cybercrime Law ruling; media group ‘appalled’

MANILA, Philippines — (UPDATE – 4:41 p.m.) Two months after it declared the Cyber Crimes Prevention Act of 2012 constitutional, the Supreme Court dismissed on Tuesday several motions for reconsideration filed by media and militant groups as well as members of the academe on the ruling, particularly the provisions on cyber libel.

Reacting to the decision, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said it was “appalled” but struck a defiant stance, “condemning this latest travesty to the freedom of expression” and calling on “everyone to continue asserting our constitutionally guaranteed rights and to fight against this railroaded anti-people and undemocratic law.”

The high court’s public information office said five magistrates — Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Arturo Brion, Marvic Leonen and Jose Mendoza — maintained their dissents to the February 18 majority ruling.

On the other hand, UP Law professor Harry Roque Jr., warned that the tribunal risks being “condemned by the international human rights community as a violation of human rights law.”

The motions were filed by the NUJP, Roque, National Press Club, Philippine Bar Association, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Kabataan party-list, Philippine Press Institute and broadcaster Alex Adonis.

The petitioners argued that Section 4 (c) 4 of Republic Act 10175, which penalizes online libel, is unconstitutional and a breach of various international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees freedom of speech and which the country has signed into.

They also reiterated the same argument for Sections 5 and 6 of the law, which penalize aiding in the commission of cybercrimes and applies penalties one degree higher than those imposed by the Revised Penal Code for similar offenses.

They also asked the SC to reverse its ruling on the legality of Sections 13 and 15, which allow the preservation and search and seizure of computer data, arguing that these violate the constitutional right to due process and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In a statement released Wednesday, the NUJP maintained that the cybercrime law “is incompatible with freedom of expression,” citing Article III, Section 4, of the Constitution, which 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.”

“We are appalled at the High Tribunal’s decision as it now appears that this administration cannot digest legitimate dissent,” the group said.

In his blog, Roquem who also heads the Center for International Law, called the ruling “an affront anew on freedom of expression and is a blatant disregard of the view expressed by the UN Human Rights Committee declaring criminal libel in the Philippines as being incompatible with freedom of expression.”

The UNHRC came out with this stand after Roque presented the case of Adonis, a Davao City broadcaster who spent for years in jail after being convicted of criminal libel in a case filed by former Speaker Prospero Nograles.

“CenterLaw will again submit a communication with the UN Human Rights Committee to complain that instead of taking steps to avoid incarceration of journalists for criminal libel and prevent similar violations occurring in the future, including the review of relevant libel legislation, the Philippines instead breached its state obligation with the recent decision upholding the constitutionality of libel in the cyberspace,” Roque said. –Brian Maglungsod, InterAksyon.com