Last Friday, I joined five other persons in asking the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order against the implementation of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
We asked the High Court to declare Sections 4 (c) [4], 5, 6, 7 and 19 of the Act unconstitutional.
Named respondents because they are the ones who will be implementing the law which President Aquino signed last Sept. 12 and took effect Sept. 27 are: Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas III, National Bureau of Investigation director Nonnatus Caesar Rojas, Philippine National Police chief Nicanor Bartolome, and acting Director-General Denis Villorente of the Information and Communications Technology Office-Department of Science and Technology.
Our primary argument against the law is that it is in violation of the Constitution which states that “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.”
Click here for Cybercrime petition
That provision in the Bill of Rights and is a reflection of how important the framers of the Constitution regarded the freedom of the press and the right of the people to be informed.
We also hold that RA 10175 is not in consonance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the Philippines ratified on Aug. 22, 1989.
The ICCPR provides, among others, that “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.”
It also states that “ Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
We hold that Section 6 of R. A 10175 violates the equal protection clause, of the constitution since it arbitrarily increases the penalty imposed on “cyber libel” punishable with from six months and one day to 12 years as compared to the penalty for ordinary libel which is punishable with six months and one day to four years.
We ask the public for support.
My fellow petitioner, Adonis, knows whereof he speaks, when it comes to the burden of libel.
In April 2007, while working as a commentator for the Davao City-based Bombo Radyo, he was sentenced to four years and six months in prison in a libel case filed against him by then Davao representative (and later Speaker of the House) Prospero Nograles.
Nograles brought the suit against Adonis in 2001 over a report by the radio broadcaster which alleged, citing newspaper reports, that the congressman was seen running naked in a Manila hotel shortly after the husband of a woman he was allegedly having an affair with caught them in bed.
While serving time, Adonis became the author of a Communication filed before the Human Rights Committee entitled Alexander Adonis v. The Philippines.
With the help of Atty. Roque, he questioned his imprisonment for libel as a violation of his right to free expression and brought it to the UN Human Rights Committee, which declared that criminal libel in the Philippines conflicts with the country’s obligations under Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“that the congressman was seen running naked in a Manila hotel ”
Funny but I remember a naked guy running from Manila Intercon towards Urdaneta Apartments Bldg. He passed by right in front of my car. Hubo’t hubad at naka paa. 😛 I wonder if thats Nograles has similar features but younger looking and sporting a moustache. 😛
Btw, that was years ago can’t remember exact year. But it was really funny and he was covering his privates while running. The traffic aides didn’t do anything as all cars stopped. Everyone was laughing including me. Hehehehe 😛
Sino ba talaga ang gagong senador na nag-back channel ng libel clause sa cybercrime law. Walang umaamin ng magkabistuhan.
Bakit yan minadali, bakit hindi binasa muna ng mga bwisit na senadores at ng mga taga-palasyo kung ayon sa Konstitusyon? Tama lang na mag-aklas ang publiko laban sa cybercrime law, mismong mga lider walang alam sa sariling Konstitusyon tapos ipatutupad nila para supilin ang pagsasalita ng tao.
This is a challenge to the SC, let’s see if it is really independent today.
Ther is a need for the Cybercrime Law as there are many crimes that are unique to Internet. For example spamming, Identity thievery, trafficking in Child Pornography and others that are normally not found in the Criminal description of crimes. But Libel and Slander still under the Criminal Code of the Phil was already a crime..Sotto should sponsor a Bill to Decriminalize Libel and Slander instead of including it among the Cybercrime solely to cover their own Behinds. And the Rest of the Senators who play possum to the INSERTION Were no Different. Once again this shows where the politicians interest belong to…THEMSELVES shameful.
#4
Chi naman, sino pa? eh di lahat nung pumirma nung bill na yon ay guilty of insertion. Palusot pa yung iba, di raw nabasa mabuti. Punye….. kalabaw, kung ganoon ang katwiran nila, di sila dapat manatiling kahit isang segundo man lang bilang mabubutas este mambabatas. Biruin mo, isang senador pumipirma ng di binabasa ng maigi ang mga dokumnetong kanilang pinipirma? Diyos mio!!! 😛
Mike, meron talagang pumipirma ng hindi binabasa. Ang kapalit niyan yung walang debate, walang interpellation pag siya naman ang sponsor ng isang batas.
Scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.
Horse trading ang tawag diyan. Yung interesado sa batas, inuutusan ang researchers o chief of staff para analisahin yung nakasalang na batas. Pero kadalasan, pinapalusot na lang.
The main author of the bill in the Senate is Sen. Edgardo Angara. He should tell the public the background of that libel insertion.
Statement of Sen. TJ Guingona on SC decision to defer hearing of petitions on Cybercrime Act
As the lone opposition to the Republic Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in the Senate, and one of the petitioners against the law in the Supreme Court, I am disappointed that our justices have deferred the hearing of the petitions to next week.
I respectfully ask the High Tribunal to resolve the issues and act on the petitions immediately to prevent further harm to our cyber users. The implementation of the law tomorrow, October 3 will take back our citizens to the Dark Ages where freedom of speech and expression were not recognized.
Further, I will continue to join our citizens and internet users to continue this fight to ask the Supreme Court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) 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. The Filipinos should never be left to cower in the sidelines –their thoughts and voices should not be shackled by fear and intimidation. The people should not be afraid of its own government.
Yes to freedom of speech and expression!
Wala kuno na nakapansin ng libel insertion liban kay TJ Guingona, utot nila!
Sabi da ay gagarantiyahan daw ni de Lima ang proteksyon ng netizens against the cybercrime law. E hindi naman nakasulat na kasama ang kanyang garantiya sa CL. Teka, baka ma-libel ako. 🙂
“Yes to freedom of speech and expression!”. Amen!
Lumalabas na si TG Guingona lang ang nagbasa ng cyber crime act & the rest of the senators, napalusutan daw o nagpapalusot lang at pinirmahan ng ating presidenteng nasa tuwid na daan.
May hinaing ang kanyang mga boss…
http://www.abante.com.ph/issue/oct0212/op_edit.htm#.UGrb1-g_6So
http://www.abante.com.ph/issue/oct0212/op_tg.htm#.UGrcV-g_6So
Kung ituloy nila na gawing krimen ang libelo via Republic Act 10175, ang aawitin natin ay ‘Ang Bayan Kong Alipinas’.
Yes to freedom of speech and expression!..amen din!!!
Senator Tito Sotto..If you have nothing to do with the libel piece insertion of the Cyber Crime Law, what are you doing to repeal, remove, or fix this??
How about you Senator Chis Escodero? How about you Senator Miriam Santiago? How about you Senator BongBong Marcos, JFE, Jinggoy Estrada, Pia cayetano, Lauren Legarda??? anyone??
Si Teofisto Guingona lang ba ang may malasakit or nakakaintindi ng karapatang pantao???
De Lima: Anti-Cybercrime Law to proceed
MANILA, Philippines (3rd UPDATE) – Amid the protests in and outside the virtual world, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said the Anti-Cybercrime Act will be implemented as scheduled tomorrow, October 3, despite the lack of implementing rules.
http://www.abs-cbnews.com
__
Maliban kay TJG, hindi na sila nagbabasa, hindi pa sila nag-iisip. Mga hinayupaks!
Hanggang ngayon lang muna ang mura ko sa inyo kasi Oct. 3 na bukas. Hihintayin ko muna ang SC, baka hindi na sila tuta ngayon.
chi mas malaki ang problema ng gobyerno paano tayo magkakasya sa kulungan sa dami nating gumagamit ng social media. Kahit ipadala pa tayo sa iwahig o maglagay ng kulungan sa spratlys e kukulangin at baka sila-sila na lang mga nagpapatupad ng batas “nila” ang matira kasama ng mga lehitimong kriminal. Ang daming dapat unahin ng pamahalaan unang-una na ang peace & order ng bansa na hanggang ngayon patuloy ang pag iskor ng mga alagad ni taning.
re #8
tongue ang hirap pagsabayin yong pakiramdam na asar-na-asar ka na nasusuka ka pa!
dan, paano kaya ako ma-extradite ni Leila? 🙂
Hanep na administrasyon ito, Freedom of Information bill walang nangyari pero cybercrime bill ipinasa.
Korek ka dyan, sa dami ng priorities na dapat implement dahil may batas na inuna ang libel law dahil sa asong si Sotto.
Let’s see kung sino ang unang mapaparusahan sa paglabad sa CL. Sya ang aking magiging hero. 🙂
#17. Toxic talaga, hahaha!
Posted by Charie Villa on facebook. 😛
For starters, here are the names of the senators who voted “Yes” to the Senate version on Third Reading of the Cybercrime Law: PLEASE REMEMBER THESE NAMES ON ELECTION DAY
Loren Legarda
Francis Escudero
Gregorio Honasan II
Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III
Pia Cayetano
Ramoln “Bong” Revilla Jr.
Jinggoy Ejercito-Estrada
Panfilo Lacson
Manuel “Lito” Lapid
Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos
Ralph Recto
Vicente Sotto III
Manny Villar
ONLY SEN TG GUINGONA VOTED NO
Sotto copied libel
(Dindo Matining/Bernard Taguinod)
Lumilitaw na si Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III ang nagsingit ng “libel clause” sa inaprubahang Republic Act No. 10175 o mas kilala sa tawag na Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Ito’y sa kabila ng mariing pagpalag ni Sotto sa akusasyon ng mga petitioner at kontra-Cybercrime Law na isiningit niya ang probisyong libel case sa batas makaraang atakehin sa social media.
Sa pagsaliksik ng Abante sa Journal ng Senado na may petsang Enero 24, iginiit ni Sotto na magkaroon ng pag-amyenda sa Senate Bill No. 2796 o An Act Defining cybercrime, providing for prevention, investigation and imposition of penalties therefore and for other purposes.
Sa page 6, line 37 ng nasabing panukala, iminugkahi ni Sotto ang panukalang magkaroon ng libel law sa cyber space.
“As proposed by Senator Sotto and accepted by the sponsor, there being no objection, the body approved the insertion of a new paragraph, 4. LIBEL — the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” more at http://www.abante.com.ph
Rhian Ramos case started online libel clause: Sotto
By David Dizon, ABS-CBNnews.com
MANILA, Philippines – Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III on Wednesday admitted he asked for the inclusion of an online libel clause in the new Anti-Cybercrime Law due to online sex scandals and intense cyberbullying against celebrities. more at abs-cbnnews.com
Nakorner, can’t lie anymore inamin ni Sotto pero nanguulol pa rin, ginawang scapegoats ang mga starlets. Haysus, hindi sa nanglalait ako pero gaano ba kaimportante ang mga starlets na binanggit nya para pati publiko ay madamay sa kanyang insertion ng libel clause?
—
“Sotto said that while he has no plans of using the law to sue his online critics, he believes the insertion of the online libel clause was “divine providence.” ”
Nagpakahirap pa hindi naman pala gagamitin, mananakot lang.
Divine providence daw ang insertion ng libel clause. Napaka%#$@!*! Paano nangyari yun? Worst senator si Sotto!
Worst senator sisoto! Agree!!! Imagine nangopya na siya pa ang galit! Booooh
Plagiarism punishable under Cybercrime Law — De Lima
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/276514/scitech/technology/plagiarism-punishable-under-cybercrime-law-mdash-de-lima
Sharon sees nothing wrong with cybercrime law
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/10/03/12/sharon-sees-nothing-wrong-cybercrime-law
Regine Velasquez on Cybercrime Law: ‘It’s good to have parameters, rules and regulations’
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/276542/showbiz/regine-velasquez-on-cybercrime-law-it-s-good-to-have-parameters-rules-and-regulations
re #20
mike according to sources which still need to clarify absent daw sina sens. Bongbong Marcos at AP Cayetano during the voting.
re #5
chi sana makakuha tayo ng ayuda sa SC, mas malakas yata kay pnoy ang TITO kesa sa mga boss nya. Huwag na muna tayo umasa sa FOI bill malabo pa yan.
Mike, hindi raw plagiarism yun, translation lang. 🙂
#23. Besides that, Sotto can lie straight to the eye. Shades of imeldific and unana.
dan, test sa SC. Not a good start, niliban nila sa next week ang hearing sa TRO, kainis!
Angara and the Palasyo said hindi raw dapat matakot sa Cybercrime Law o E-martial.
These people just don’t get it! It is not fear that drives netizens and public to rally against CL. It is their penchant for making Pinas Constitution useless. Ewan kayo!
Butas-butas na nga ang Constitution, winawarak pa.
Dali, i-amend na nyo yan at pagandahin kesa daldal ng daldal kayo sa media to defend the indefensible libel clause.
Tinatawanan lang kayo ng ibang nasyon, sa kanila decriminalize ang libel sa Pinas may batas na hindi naman repealed dinagdagan at pinaigting pa.
Statement of the Presidential Spokesperson on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
The Cybercrime Prevention Act was enacted by Congress to address legitimate concerns about criminal behavior on the Internet and the effects of abusive behavior.
Questions have been raised about the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Act. We recognize and respect efforts not only to raise these issues in court, but to propose amendments to the law in accordance with constitutional processes.
In the meantime we believe there is an opportunity for reasonable discourse between concerned stakeholders and the Department of Justice. This dialogue can address stakeholder concerns as the Implementing Rules and Regulations are drafted. We urge the fullest and widest participation of stakeholders in this process.
Let us bear in mind the law that binds us all: the Constitution. Our Constitution is clear and uncompromising in the civil liberties it guarantees all our people. As the basic law, its guarantees cannot, and will not, be diminished or reduced by any law passed by Congress. The administration is equally adamant in upholding these liberties, which were regained at such high cost by our people. As the President said on September 27, the vigorous exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy, requires those who disagree not to oppress others.
We would therefore like to point out that no government entity has moved to deprive anyone of access to the Internet or to suppress civil liberties as exercised online. In fact what has taken place is that hackers who claim to be aligned with critics of the Cybercrime Act are the ones who have engaged in online vandalism, depriving the broader public of access to much needed government information and services online.
We call on critics of the Cybercrime Act to speak out against online vandalism and bullying with as much vigor and passion as they have expressed in their objections to certain provisions of this law. If our freedoms have been hard won, it would do us all well to remember that in the end, vigilantism harms the cause of freedom of expression and civil liberties for all netizens.
Angara and the Palasyo said hindi raw dapat matakot sa Cybercrime Law o E-martial.
___
Di daw?! Libel?1 di daw..we are not that stupid!
not this time pnoy! you signed it..do something about it! it’s wrong to limit the people right to expression and speech. You should know better….1987 constitution!!! Senator Sinoto resign!!!!to include those senators who signed the bill into a law without reading it. Looks like you don’t know content of our constitution you promise to protect and uphold.
Thank you Senator TG Guingona!..for depending our right to speech and expression
We call on critics of the Cybercrime Act to speak out against online vandalism and bullying with as much vigor and passion as they have expressed in their objections to certain provisions of this law. – palace spook
Bakit hindi nya direktang banggitin ang putris na libel clause ni sinoto na pinayagan ni angarapal inapuriban ng lahat ng senador liban sa isa at binigyan ng imprimatur ni Noynoy?
Online vandalism and bullying, hindi yan nirereklamo namin kaya hindi kami passionate dyan, stupid fool!
At saka bakit minamadali na implement ang CL na walang implementing rules? Dapat sila ang i-charge kasi labag sa Constitution na magpatupad ng batas ng wala implementing rules. Sila mismo lumalabag sa batas. Hay naku kayong mga lider ng bansa!
# 34
Chi, this is what Tita cory have to say about our rights, our freedom.
”National leaders who find themselves wilting under the withering criticisms by members of the media, would do well not to take such criticism personally but to regard the media as their allies in keeping the government clean and honest.”
“Freedom of expression – in particular, freedom of the press – guarantees popular participation in the decisions and actions of government, and popular participation is the essence of our democracy.”
– Pres. Corazon Aquino
DO NOT VOTE THE AUTHORS OF THE CYBER CRIME LAW:Angara ██ Sotto ██ Revilla ██ Villar ██ Lapid ██ Pimentel ██ Estrada ██ Legarda ██ Escudero ██ Lacson ██ Honasan ██ Cayetano ██ Marcos ██ Recto ██ DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM. please share on your facebook and twitter.
I don’t like cybercrime law that’s why I wrote about it.
http://www.arvin95.blogspot.com/2012/10/cybercrime-law.html
We never forgive,
We never forget.
We are anonymous, expect us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iseBi8zP0eU&feature=related
http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/rulings/theoakestest.php
my note…where Rights are not absolute…there must be a legal test to which to measure the constitutionality of Infringement to the particular right in pursuit of addressing the need of society by legislation…
Oakes Test
R. v. Oakes
On February 28, 1986, four years after the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) came into effect; the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its decision in R. v. Oakes[1]. This case was important for two reasons:
1.a. it established that the provisions of the Charter could be relied upon to challenge government legislation; and
2.b. it produced the “Oakes Test” which the S.C.C. would use to make decisions in its future Charter rulings.
now with the latest brouhaha with the approval of the Cyber Crimes law, many constitutional experts gave their thoughts and expertize on the constitutional issues…but when it comes to the Constitution, the only Legal Test that will really matter is the one that was developed by the LAND HIGHERT Court based in its ruling in its test case..the objective of this oakes test is to give the Courts of all Level a consistent basis in which law to be struck down and not base on the Test for its Fairness, Justness and Constitutionality and also for the Legislators to measure their proposed bill before enacting and implementing them…
This summary of the Rulings on R vs Oakes (R representing the Crown or the Queen as expressed in word “Regina”)is a very interesting reading…Mr. Oakes won his case from the Trial court but was elevated by the government to the Appeal court which also ruled in favour of Mr. Oakes and the Government further argued the case before the SC…the High Court under CJ Dickson in l986 penned the Rulings and also the Tests…4 justices concurred to the CJ decision 2 went with him but preferred the Appeal court rulings..the constructive approach while CJ used the purposive approach…2 decades and a half later with a little refinements the Oakes Test is still the MEASURE…in fact it is being cited in many other countries such as Australia and the Carribean…where rights are not absolute…you need the oakes test or similar…
Why is cyber libel unconstitutional?
I advance some arguments in the following blog:
http://frauslatet.blogspot.com/