Question: My question is in regards to Cybercrime Law. Just in regards to your mantra under your term to improve human rights in the Philippines. How does opening the past and allowing people to be jailed for posting defamatory comments online improve human rights situation in the Philippines?
Aquino: Well, can I just state for the record: as the Chief Executive of this land when the proposed measure was brought before me, I had basically two options. Under the Constitution, if I agree with the same I sign it into law. If I disagree with the same, I veto everything. I cannot… I only have a line veto on the budget measure. I don’t have a line veto on other measures.
So if I really failed to sign the law then the provisions on identity fraud or to prevent identity fraud, the porn, the other aspects sought to be penalized by this law would have been left again in limbo.
Can I just give you an example? We have an Anti-wire Tapping Act. I think it’s Republic Act 4200 crafted sometime in the early ‘60s. It contains… It defines how do you–the devices that you can use; how do you commit the crime. Unfortunately, most of the enumerated methods of wiretapping no longer exist and perhaps those of us who are younger in this room will not even know what a “dictaphone” is. But it’s like a type of items that are in the law but not necessarily existing in reality.
In fact, our jurisprudence says that unless there’s a physical wire that you actually tap into then you cannot be guilty of wiretapping or illegal wiretapping. We now have the internet. My position is simple: When I read the law and I read it, I think, three times on the proposed measure it just said that there’s an existing provision on libel in the Revised Penal Code.
And libel through print should–a libelous statement in print that is sanctioned should also be a libelous statement in the broadcast media, should also–if it is still same statement existing on the net should also still be libelous. There shouldn’t be an exemption if—based on what format.
Now, the issue is increased penalties, etcetera, the arbitrary closing, etcetera. The IRR, the implementing rules and regulations have to be crafted and actually we can solicit especially for those who are reasonable individuals to perfect that which is made by an imperfect being which is man.
So we are open to having amendments to it. The Executive’s functions is to enforce the law. We cannot choose not to enforce a law that is existing. So how does it—can I just finish? How does it enhance? We are taught, when we were in the elementary, we all have freedom of speech but our freedoms or all our rights are also guided by the rights of others.
When they impinge on the rights of others then there are practical limitations. The oft-cited example when you’re in a movie house, you don’t have the freedom of speech to say that there’s a fire when there is (-unclear-). So I think the discourse should also be cognizant of the rights of all parties and not just that of the blogger.
Q: And in regards to the penalties, are you personally in favor people being jailed for defamation or libel with regards on the internet or in print? Should that be a criminal offense or should it just be as in the US and other major countries a civil problem?
Aquino: I’m divided between sometimes the personal side and the public side. I think I fully subscribed to the idea of decriminalizing it…but not lessening the atmosphere to encourage irresponsibility in certain quarters.
Q: So you are personally in favor of decriminalizing (libel)?
Aquino: Yes.
Q: Sir, good morning. Manny Mogato from Reuters. Sir, just a quick follow up on Carl’s question. Is this not an attempt by government to put the genie back in the bottle by reining in attempt online freedom of expression?
Aquino: I’m sorry, can you repeat the question?
Q: Sir, is this not an attempt by government to curtail freedom of expression by putting in the libel provision in the Cybercrime Law?
Aquino: Putting in the libel provision is not an accurate statement. It just states that under the Revised Penal Code, postings on the net are also subject to that provision. I think, the number is Section 3, 5—or something like that, ano. It’s already existing. So do we want to curtail freedom of speech? You, I think, will be one of the primary witnesses of how pervasive freedom of speech is in this country. So I think that’s an invalid question.
Q: OK. Sir, my question is on the…
Aquino: Sandali lang, ano. It’s not an urgent bill. It didn’t come from us, ano, although our law enforcement agencies were saying that there is difficulty when they arrest people engaged in fraud or, in particular, we have been deporting hundreds of people engaged in cybercrimes especially in internet fraud.
I’m not sure if I got the President correctly: he is for decriminalizing libel even on online postings.
If I got him correctly, well and good.
The President’s advisers should tell him that the Philippines is signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.”
It further 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.”
When Davao-based journalist, Alexander Adonis (our co-petitioner against the Cybercrime Law) brought his case of having been imprisoned for libel before the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2008, the UNHCR declared that the imprisonment imposed on Adonis for libel under the Revised Penal Code is “incompatible with Article 19, paragraph three of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
We would like to think that Aquino was not adequately briefed by his legal advisers on the ICCPR when he signed the law. We welcome his openness to having the law amended.
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 is it 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 a bill is certified, 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.
Ganun lang ka-simple?
But Snv, Pnoy does not want to repeal libel. He is just amenable to having it decriminalized.
Links to Aquino’s FOCAP speech and Q & A:
http://www.gov.ph/2012/10/17/speech-of-president-aquino-at-the-annual-presidential-forum-of-the-focap-october-17-2012/
http://www.gov.ph/2012/10/17/interview-with-president-aquino-during-the-focap-presidential-forum-october-17-2012/
Teka, nahilo ako sa mga sagot ni Pnoy, hindi ko pa makonek-konek. 🙂
“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.” atty sax
Ganun lang yun!
Pero…
…Pnoy does not want to repeal libel. He is just amenable to having it decriminalized.” -Ellen
Paano yun?!
I wonder how Sotto will react to this. First he said he agrees to amend the law, then biglang bawi and said since PNoy is for the bill he changes his mind and won’t agree to amend the law. Hmmmm? 😛
Mali ata ang turo ng mga adviser. Shouting fire in a crowded theater has got nothing to do with the rights of others. It has to do with the speech being so close to action, as to make them instantaneous. What is actually being punished is action. But because the speech is followed quickly by action, then speech can be prevented.
When you shout “sunog” in a theater, there is only a split second between your shout and the stampede. So if the police know about it, they can stop you. If it already happened, then the speaker can be punished.
So only speech that would immediately produce action is prohibited, because Congress can only punish action, not speech. This is the exception – when speech tends to produce immediate action.
Here is Brandenburg v. Ohio explaining this principle.
What was the speech in that case?
Decriminalize means to make it not criminal.
How do you do that? Take it out of the criminal statute (Revised Penal Code).
How do you take it out? Repeal it. No other way.
Unless. Unahan ka ng Supreme Court, by declaring it unconstitutional. The ball, then, shall have been wrested from the Executive, and it is the Court that slamdunks it for the people.
There is another way to Dicrimilizing the libel law…by the Ruling of the court dismissing a case before it of an accused under the RPC declaring that it is Unconstitutional (unreasonable limit to the freedom of speech). And if this rulings ever gets to the SC it is imperative for the high court to develop the set of Legal test to measure all other challenges to the Bill of Rights and the same Test for the legislators to measure their bills before enacting them into Law or for any policy maker for formulating any policies and regulations.
In our system it is mostly the Court that will be getting rid of what is Deemed a Violation of any of the Guaranteed right that is prescribed in law. And what is prescribed in law could be a statute, policy , regulation, and must be accessible and intelligible to the Public ( gatekeeper ). Once the accused challenged the law based on the charter and the Court ruled in his favour, that law or part of it for which he was charged is unconstitutional and is Null and void. The Govt can Appeal the ruling to the higher court or accept it and amend the law or part of it or otherwise may it be. Ex. The SC ruled that restricting a woman right to Choose violates her Right to Liberty all Restrictions To Abortions were effectively abolished
This is very interesting. Thank you.
Akala ko sa eat bulaga lang may Laban o Bawi.
Ano kaya ngayon ang masasabi ni Sen. Sotto.
What is the philosophy that underpins the abhorrence of the United States for laws abridging speech, including libel?
Justice Anthony Kennedy, US v. Alvarez, Oct 2011, quoting Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent in Abrams v. US.
You fight false speech with speech that reveals the truth. You do not fight speech with jail time; that is an unfair fight.
A civilized society fights speech with speech, not speech with handcuffs. Hindi ba’t yan ang ginawa ni Goyang at the Manila Pen?
@16
“You fight false speech with speech that reveals the truth. ”
So are you for the right to reply? Meaning if a newspaper publishes a front page story against you that you claim is false it will have to publish your reply debunking the story also in the front page. And in radio/tv you get tp debunk the story in the same time slot with the same amount of time alloted.
Do not put words in my keyboard.
No right to reply. Just talk. Let the idea get sold in the marketplace.
For example, the autism news. Did the candidate demand for a right to reply? No the idea was so bad, it got unseated by the better idea. I myself posted my disbelief in the canard, here. What happened? The guy got elected.
What about Goyang’s illness? There are sellers of that idea, and selling the idea that it is a lie. The market has buyers for both believers and non-believers.
The Sandigan believed her, and gave her hospital arrest. If a newspaper columnist writes an article that she does not believe in the illness, will that be ground for libel by the Sandigan justices? Or even by Goyang, because there is already a judicial finding?
Not to me. Let them fight by issuing a press release or having a press con. Now whether or not the press con is covered, is up to the market.
What is an example of the marketplace determining the value of a news item? That birth issue about Obama.
The antis have been going to town on it for years – from Rush Limbaugh, to Donald Trump, to many other fox news twerps.
How did the idea get evaluated by the market? It has been lampooned by Jay Leno, David Letterman, Rachel Maddow, etc. So did the idea sell? As a joke, yes. Was there a demand for a right to reply? Nyet.
Funny how the champions of the marketplace, when it comes to disguised monopolies (Edong Angarapal’s EPIRA law) are the very opponents of the marketplace when it comes to ideas. Then again, they helped the power plant private monopolies, so now they want a monopoly of the news by the government censors.
But the question here are the other limits to the Rights prescribed in the Cyber Law meet the test that its objective is proportionate to its interference to the guaranteed Right or Freedom? And if it meet the proportionality objective is the infringement is as little as possible. Every day There is almost a news item that someone been busted for On Line Child Pornography. Today a House of common employee was CHARGED for Hacking the GOVERNMENT of Quebec Website.. A Day before a Child, A victim of Pedo ring was rescued and thousands of graphic Child images were extracted fr the Rings hard drives. Several individuals were Charged. Cyber Crime Law is Neeeded Less theINSERTION
here is the case that struck down the law on traditional marriage as “the Union of Man and Woman at the exclusion of all Others” Family law on marriage Pre date the Charter. R vs. Hislop. Mr Hislop a gay activist claimed a survivor pension when his long time same sex partner passed away. Canada pension refused the claimed based on the law of Marriage. He appealed the ruling claiming His Right to equality was violated. The case went all the Way to the SC as there were many intervenors and party of interest that the courts had to hear. The Charter guarantees that Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to egalities protection and benefit of the law without Discrimination .. The Feds fought the case as of lost it is liable to pay the survivor pensions of thousands of widowers or widows retroactively to the date when the claimed was filed. The case was won byMr Hislop and the Law of MARRIAGE isNull and Void. No there is more law except that the couple must be of legal age. The SC When queried by the Parliament if a new law is needed replied, many same sex couples went ahead and get married(wed) based on the courts rulings, the rulings will stand. Legislation no longer necessary. And all is well as of nothing had happened at all.
As it appears here, Penoy does not know what he is talking about. He just pretends to know something but the truth he knows nothing.
talagang he does not the brains of his father, very unfortunate that faith has it that ninoy (with brains) will never ne president and the not so intelligent cory and noynoy will be president, haaay malas talaga ang pinas, bansang sinumpa, kung hindi walang brains, ac tion star, comedian , player yan ang mga namumuno
@ 24 Brainy Leaders are not always the good leaders. Marcos was the testament to that and the always “as an ECONOMIST ” GMA ..Pnoy misleading take on some issues is not beause of his lack of Intelegence but not Good Briefings by his Advisers on any particular issue and most often he got carried away by his personal emotions rather than Politicla realities. He is a very Clever fellow and many had been Underestimating Him. Even the CJ did..GMA and her circles. And who has the upper hand now?
Malas talaga ang bansa natin sa mga namumuno. Hindi lang walang brains, Action star, comedian, Players, pati na ang mga asawa ng sikat na boksingero at kapatid ay tatakbo sa politika dito.
Pnoy elected dahil sa kay Cory ng mamatay ika nga ay from “Symphaty Vote”. Kung buhay si cory ay si Lacson sana ang presidente natin.
Mas mainam pa “Yata” si Lakay noon dahil mas maunlad pa tayo kesa ngayon.
#5, Chi, nahilo din ako.
Becky, I read it twice lalo ako nahilo. 🙂