SC’s Cybercrime ruling to be elevated to UN

After the Philippine Supreme Court (SC) dismissed all motions for reconsideration over the constitutionality of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act in February, the law’s detractors are now looking to elevate their concerns to the United Nations.

The Center for International Law (CenterLaw), which represents petitioner journalist and libel convict Alex Adonis, said in a statement:

“As all domestic remedies have been exhausted with the denial of the motions for reconsideration, 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.”

Violation of UN covenant

CenterLaw chairman Harry Roque Jr, a law professor from the University of the Philippines, warned that the Philippine government will be subjected to “embarassment” once the UNHRC finds out about the SC ruling, which Roque’s camp said was in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Philippines is a party.

The said covenant upholds the right to free speech and expression, and states that no defamation law shall be passed stifling these freedoms.

“We gave our Courts the opportunity to avoid the spectacle of another view deploring the Court’s misapprehension of human rights law. It will only have itself to blame if its latest decision is condemned by the international human rights community as a violation of human rights law,” said Roque.

Apalling decision

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), a separate petitioner petitioner in the case, also expressed disappointment over the latest SC ruling.

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

It added: “t is appalling that the administration has professed again and again that it is built on the foundation of democratic tenets.”

The NUJP, like the other petitioners, had insisted that the online libel provision of the law under Section 4(c)4 should be struck down as unconstitutional, as it is tantamount to prior restraint and curtails basic rights to free speech and expression.

“We are one with the rest of the libertarians in condemning this latest travesty to the freedom of expression. We call on everyone to continue asserting our constitutionally guaranteed rights and to fight against this railroaded anti-people and undemocratic law,” NUJP said.

Supreme Court dissent

The following justices maintained their dissents in the majority ruling, namely: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Jose Mendoza, and Marvic Leonen.

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco and Estela Perlas-Bernabe took no part. — TJD, GMA News