“We did it!”, enthused one rallyist.
Yes, another demonstration of the power of a vigilant public. A total of 15 petitions were filed with the Supreme Court questioning the legality of some provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, particularly the part on online libel.
The 120-day TRO gives us respite and should allow us to celebrate Christmas with lesser stress. That should give us time to recharge when the battle resumes. The SC will hold oral arguments on the controversial law on January 15, 2013.
As the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, reminded everyone, “The battle to defend our basic rights is far from over” until the High Court renders a final decision declaring the law null and unconstitutional and the legislators pass a law decriminalize libel.
Harry Roque of the Center for International Law and the Media Defense Southeast Asia, our counsels for our petition against the law hailed the TRO “as a big victory for freedom of expression.”
Roque asked the citizenry to remain vigilant as the challenge today is to make the TRO permanent by convincing the Court to declare it unconstitutional. “We hope the DOJ and the authors of the law will take heed and forthwith repeal the law even before the Court issues a final verdict on the merits,” he added.
Sen. TJ Guingona, the only senator who opposed the Cybercrime law hailed also the TRO as “the first victory of the people and of freedom of expression.”
He noted that for a court to issue a TRO unanimously is a strong message of its belief that the dangers and fears of the people are real and must be addressed. “With this TRO, the tyrannical powers granted by the law are effectively clipped, “he said even as he cautioned that “the fight is not over.”
The victory is shared by an international organization, Human Rights Watch. Brad Adams, HRW Asia director, said the SC “should now go further by striking down this seriously flawed law.”
Adams said if Congress wants to have a law governing online activity, it should ensure that such a law will not infringe on civil liberties, human rights, the Constitution and the Philippines’s obligations under international law. All provisions in Philippine law that allow for imprisonment for peaceful expression should be repealed. Congress should also ensure that any discussion on proposed laws be done in a transparent manner.”
He said that it was only at the bicameral committee that the online libel provision was included.
Earlier Senators Francis Escudero and Ferdinand Marcos Jr admitted that they were remiss in not noticing that offensive provision .Escudero has a pending bill decriminalizing libel and yet he signed a law making penalty for online libel heavier than libel in print and broadcast media.
It doesn’t speak well of the quality of our legislators who have been elected to pass laws that would protect, and not trample on, the rights of the people.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and other officials of the DOJ, under which a Cybercrime office has been set up to implement the law, are also being presumptuous in allaying the concerns of the public on the repressive law with statements that they would be judicious in their implementation of the law. How long are they going to stay in that position as implementor of a defective law? Don’t they realize that they can be removed anytime? Why are they giving false assurances to the public?
Their call for the public’s cooperation in crafting the Implementing Rules and Regulation is another trick because they should know that the IRR cannot cure a defective law.
Junk R.A 10175!
Simula pa lang ito!
Imagine, kung walang netizens at ilang mamamahayag at mamamayan na vigilant nasampal sana tayo ng libel ng walang kalaban-laban.
And yes, why heed a call to participate/cooperate in crafting the IRR when the Cybercrime law shouldn’t have been implemented outright because it is defective? Ipinatupad muna bago gumawa ng implementing rules, ang laking pang-iisa sa publiko ang gusto nila. Inuulol tayo.
Junk R.A. 10175, yeah!
Letsugas ng mga senadores minus one, ngayon natuturete sila sa pag-amin na defective ang R.A 10175. Pati si Brenda na constitutionalist hindi binasa ang pinirmahang cybercrime law tapos kunwari ay nagpi-predict that SC would declare it unconstitutional. Hindi kayo ma-take ng sikmura ko!
Thank you very much Sen. TJ Guingona, Atty. Harry Roque, Ellen Tordesillas, NUJP and 11 others for filing the petitions for us.
“Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and other officials of the DOJ, under which a Cybercrime office has been set up to implement the law, are also being presumptuous in allaying the concerns of the public on the repressive law with statements that they would be judicious in their implementation of the law. How long are they going to stay in that position as implementor of a defective law? Don’t they realize that they can be removed anytime? Why are they giving false assurances to the public.”-Ellen
You are correct. Who knows baka bukas makalawa hindi na siya DOJ secretary. Presumptuous talaga.
Even that Assistant Secretary Sy.
“judicious in the implementation of the law”. Bull!
Para silang mga Immortals kung mangako.
09 October 2012
Yahoo.com!!!!!! wagi!!!! hehehe… to all you idiots who signed the bill and then retracted, too late the hero na kayo mga anak ng !@#$% kayo.
Mag mamagaling pa kayo na kunwari e against kayo sa cyber ekek pero pumirma naman pala kayo. mga inutil.
Pero sandali lang???pag tapos ng 120 days TRO what happen next??? dapat ang mga netizens ay huwag matulog at patuloy ang pagmamanman.
Hindi pa tapos ang laban…
Salamat po sa lahat ng mga lumaban at nagingay laban sa cyber law.
Mabuhay kayong lahat.
Yun nga palang mga pumirma sa cyberlaw marami sa kanila mga re-electionist, dapat huwag na silang iboto.
Maraming salamat po muli sa inyong lahat.
prans
My golay, bakit gusto nila tayong supilin?
—
Why did four senators file nearly identical cybercrime bills?
Exclusive By Raïssa Robles
Four senators filed Cybercrime Bills that were almost totally identical to each other and to the final bill that was signed into law late September by President Benigno Aquino III.
The four were Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Edgardo Angara, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.
The highly technical bills they filed were nearly all the same in wording, sentence construction, paragraph order and even punctuation marks.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/blogs/insights/10/09/12/why-did-four-senators-file-nearly-identical-cybercrime-bills
Miriam says it is unconstitutional because it is vague and or overly broad (encompasses too big a subject matter).
If it is vague, then it is unconstitutional, because people cannot determine what is being prohibited.
Agree with that. But I take a different take, based on precedents regarding civil libel and defamation (criminal libel is called defamation in the US).
It is a bit too long, so I posted it in my rarely active blog.
frauslatet.blogspot.com/ (three w’s in front).
To summarize:
The Philippine Supreme Court has held that the doctrine laid down in New York Times v. Sullivan is applicable in the Philippines.
The case of New York Times v. Sullivan stated that civil libel may be filed if one can show actual malice. Actual malice is defined as “knowledge that it (defamatory statement) was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
Later, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the US Supreme Court required that “the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages.”
The civil cases were made applicable in criminal cases in the case of Garrison v. Louisiana. Louisiana’s defamation law is similar to the Philippines because it presumes malice.
Now malice is an essential element of the offense of libel. But if malice is presumed, then it runs against the Constitutional requirement that the accused by proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary to this requirement is the requirement that the prosecution prove each and every element of the offense. So presuming an element of the offense unconstitutionally removes that burden from the prosecution.
What if the IRR (Implementing Rules and Regulations) require the showing (evidence) of actual malice, in accordance with New York Times? Can that save the law? That is what De Lima proposes to do – “judiciously apply the law.”
The Supreme Court of Alabama, in the case of Ivey v. Alabama said no. Constitutional application of an unconstitutional law does not save the law. The vine supports the branch. The branch cannot nourish the vine. If the vine is dead, the branch is lifeless as well.
Ivey was a criminal case in the State of Alabama, where Sullivan filed his civil libel case against the New York Times. In that case, the government argued that the application of the law was constitutional because the judge instructed the jury to first determine whether there was actual malice before convicting, even if the law only used the term “maliciously” not “actual malice”.
The Supreme Court of Alabama said that reading actual malice into the term “maliciously” was legislation, not interpretation, which the courts cannot do. So the law was struck down.
The Supreme Court of Alabama was persuaded by similar decisions by the Supreme Courts of Alaska and Pennsylvania. So something good does come from Alaska, other than salmon and the looks (only) of Sarah Palin.
Cybercrime law was ‘cut-and-paste’ lawmaking?
by Jojo Malig www. ABS-CBNNews.com
__
Langya, con todo kopyador ang mga lawmakers, pati ba naman ito cut-and-paste. Kakahiya, wala ng honest at magaling na mambabatas ang Pinas. Pati si Miriam 380 degree turn na after apruban pero hindi binasa ang cybercrime bill.
“… the cybercrime law, which has been suspended for 120 days following a Supreme Court temporary restraining order, was initially modeled after the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.”
Sasampalin din lang tayo ng libel hindi pa orig. Ano ba yan?!
atty sax, I understand your summary the most. TY.
Isn’t it there already existed a similar bill that was signed into law several years ago? If I remember correctly, there is a corresponding penalty on libel posted on the internet. The penalty is the same as libel committed in mainstream media.
Sablay si Escudero dito. Sabit ang kanyang BRAINS, puro kasi HEART ang inaasikaso.
Hahahaha! 🙂
Mga binayaran na congressman sa US para iboto ang bill na SOPA at SIPA na kinopya naman dito sa Pinas na tinaguriang cybercrime law.
Sino ba ang kayang bayaran ang mga congressman natin at senador ng malaking pera na may hawak ng bilyon bilyong pork barrel?
http://www.politicolnews.com/congressmen-who-received-money-for-sopa-vote/#ixzz1k7DRY679
Ellen,
Nakakakatuwa naman ng ma approved ang CYBERLAW ay kumunti agad ang nag susulat dito sa mga topics mo (natakot yata).
Siguro ngayon ay na stop at may TRO ay dadami na ulit dito.
🙂
Iyun mga hackers sa Gobyerno ay baka gawa gawa lang nila iyan para ma approve nila ang CYBERLAW.
Sila rin ang nag papa hack sa sarili nila para may makita na.
Isang pananaw !..The suppression of the
Freedom of Expression is just like “cutting” the tongue of all the citizens of the Philippines..a “Martial law against expressing what are good and Bad of the country”…Karamihan kasi na nasa poder y Senate and Congress, at iba pang sangay ng gobyerno, mga Pikon, at ayaw silang ma-pagsabihan kung ano ang Tama, at Mali sa kanila..di naman sila mabubuhay ng matagalan, at lalo di mga immortals…Dapat maging balanse at patas na ang kanilang mga Kaisipan, para sa ikabubuti ng Bayan at pangkalahatang mga mamamayan…Sayang ang mga sweldo na tinatangap nila galing ki JUAN de las Cruz, lalo na ang malalaking mga “Pork Barrels, at iba pang mga komesyones ?… Konsomesyon sila sa taong bayang mga naghihirap !…
Si Sotto ay nag file ng bill na e abolish ang cybercrime law pero binawi niya yong bill dahil sabi nya gusto raw din ni Pnoy yong cybercrime law. Ganoon ba kadali mag desisyon? lol.
#15. vonjovi, sasamantalahin ko ang 4 months tapos tutupi ule ako ng konti. 🙂
Ipinababasura ni Miriam ang buong cybercrime law, yan ay matapos niya na lagdaan pero hindi binasa. Haysus, bumabawi!
Kandarapa sa pag-amin kuno ang mga senatong at tongressmen na kuno ay na-shortsighted nila, hindi nabasa dahil naisingit na, o hindi napansin ang probisyon ng libel sa bill. Para namang ang pag-amin nila ay makapagpapogi sa kanilang mga bulok na image.
Ganun pala at pinabayaan ninyo ang cybercrime bill, magsilayas kayo at ibalik sa kaban ng bayan ang aming ipinasweldo sa inyo. Puweeeeee! Sabi nga ni Tedanz.
Unanimous and decision ng SC sa temporary TRO ng cybercrime bill. Ibig sabihin lihis talaga sa Pinas Konsti. Ibasura dapat yan ng buo at magbalangkas ule ng maayos, yung babasahin, iki-critique at isasangguni ng mga lawmakers sa publiko.
O kaya, wag na silang gumawa ng anumang bills, palpak naman sila.
Chi, okey lang napuna ko lang ng mag post ako ng message sa topic ni Pacman at umi iral pa or di pa na stop ng SC ang CYBERLAW ni Pnoy na kokonti lang ang nag post at di pa patira ang mga sinasabi (ika ng safety).
Binabawi ng iba ang kanilang pirma dahil naka usap rin nila si panginoon :).
Akala ko magagaling ang mga Sirator at Tongress natin.
Puro palpak pipirma di naman pala nila binabasa at ayun nag papalusot pa.
#8 “The Supreme Court of Alabama was persuaded by similar decisions by the Supreme Courts of Alaska and Pennsylvania. So something good does come from Alaska, other than salmon and the looks (only) of Sarah Palin.”
Bakit nasali pa si Sarah Palin dito? Wow, such wit…
Kung wawariin , at iisipin ang mga nag-perma sa Cyber Space Libel Law, talagang, nakaka-tawa sila..”pomerma ngunit di binasa “..tapos babawiin…naglalaro yata sila na katulad din sa fbooking, ( like and dislike,then share, etc..)…Mas more “Funny” pala sila kaysa sa slogan ng DOT, ” More fun in the Philippines “…ang mabigat, yuong huling nag-perma, para maging batas..Sana, 7x muna syang nag-isip, at nag-kunsulta sa SC (TRO), mga advisers nya, bago gumawa ng batas ?…Ngayon, damay tuloy sya sa “Funny and Funny things” about this CYber Space Libel law…katulad tuloy sila sa dakilang ma-pag-patawa, comedian king, the late “Dolphy”..May his soul rest in Peace..
At natatawa ako sa kanya kasi nagpapatunay lang na miyembro talaga siya ng Eat Bulaga. Kasi parang Laban O Bawi siya. Nabasa ko sa isang blog na nag file raw siya ng bill para maalis ang libel, pero ng malaman niya na pabor si Pnoy sa libel ay withdraw niya. Ito pa sabi niya, “the President not against it, why will I go against it”. Ito ang blog
http://allanistheman.blogspot.com/2012/10/Sotto-On-Removing-Libel-From-Cybercrime-Law-The-President-is-not-against-it.html
“So something good does come from Alaska, other than salmon and the looks (only) of Sarah Palin.”-Hataw
She will always be a reference point for her stupidity, and yes! there are crazy people out there who really think she could be a president of the u es eh. I really wished McCane and her won.
But the Question is why it is prohibited by the Constitution to pass a Law Abridging the Freedom of expression, why is there a Law that Criminalize Libel (revised penal code) that will be in itself diminish the freedom of espression and of speech…that should have been stricken out by the court or repealed by the lawmakers long time ago… it should be the court to decide the case of libel as a civil offense…
But the Question is why it is prohibited by the Constitution to pass a Law Abridging the Freedom of expression, why is there a Law that Criminalize Libel (revised penal code) that will be in itself diminish the freedom of espression and of speech…that should have been stricken out by the court or repealed by the lawmakers long time ago… it should be the court to decide the case of libel as a civil offense…
You are absolutely right, vic. The 1987 Constitution has effectively superseded the older Criminal Libel Law. While lawyers continually argue that Law is merely English and Logic, I can’t find that logic nor alien language that says otherwise in this case.
I think it’s high time the Supreme Court once and for all make a definitive stan on this issue, not exclusively the anti-cybercrime law.
*stand
OFF TOPIC:
“Now, Gloria Arroyo has heart problem, is in ICU” says an Inquirer headline.
A big, fat lie! Since when did Gloria have a heart?
grabe ang binoto nyong president, si pnoy, lahat ng pinirmahan nyang law or EO, they question it or ultimately binasura, who are the legal advisers? naku ang ama nya, for sure is flipping in his grave, imagine, a president who seems more like running a student council
The President says he subscribes to the idea of decrminalizing libel.
Put your money, not your cigarette, where your mouth is. Certify a bill to decriminalize libel. The bill need only have two sentences.
What is the emergency? Why it is being certified? In order to have the bill passed before the deadline of the Supreme Court TRO; in order not to waste the time of the court.
Talk is cheap. Until he certifies such a bill, this is all lip service.
Unahan na niya, before it is declared unconstitutional. The credit, in that case, shall have been wrested by the Supreme Court from the Daang Matuwids.
If libel in the Revised Penal Code is repealed, the cyber defamation section of the cyber crime law falls as well, because it is anchored on libel in the Revised Penal Code.