Media
groups plan coordinated protests over the Supreme Court’s Cybercrime Act ruling
MEDIA
ORGANIZATIONS, netizens, and civil society groups will commemorate the 28th
anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolt today, February 25, with a
coordinated online protest against a recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the
constitutionality of online libel.
The
“Black Tuesday” protest was agreed on during a roundtable discussion held by
the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and other media and online
organizations that had questioned the constitutionality of Republic Act 10175,
also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
The
groups say Tuesday’s protest highlights the “regression” of both press freedom
and freedom of expression since press freedom was restored after the ouster of
former President Ferdinand Marcos on February 25, 1986.
The
protest also comes exactly a week after the Supreme Court ruled on R.A. 10175.
The
High Court had ruled that the online libel provision in R.A. 10175 is
constitutional, over the objections of at least 15 media and civil society
groups questioning the law.
While
the court recognized online libel, it however said that the crime only covers
the original authors or producers of the libelous material, and does not cover
those who receive, share, or respond to the material.
In
addition, the court also struck down other questionable provisions in the law,
such as the “takedown” provision which would have allowed the Justice
Department to restrict access to digital materials in question even without a
warrant, and the provision that would have allowed law enforcers to collect
real-time traffic data.
While
the media groups welcomed the removal of these provisions, they said the SC
decision effectively expanded the coverage of the crime of libel into the
digital domain.
Media
organizations and civil society groups have been pushing for the
decriminalization of the crime of libel, contained in Section 353 of the
Revised Penal Code.
The
Cybercrime Act expressly provides that this crime is also covered in the
digital domain, and elevated the punishment for online libel by one degree.
The
Philippines is one of few countries in the world that still considers libel a
crime punishable with imprisonment. In addition, Philippine libel is unique in
that an allegedly libelous material is presumed to be tainted with malice unless
otherwise proven by the accused.
The
groups that attended the roundtable discussion, which include the Center for
Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Philippine Center for Investigative
Journalism, the NUJP, and several bloggers and online organizations, decided to
draft a pooled editorial for publication or broadcast both online and offline
on Tuesday.
The
editorial would express dismay over the decision of the Supreme Court affirming
the constitutionality of online libel, and push for the decriminalization of
libel itself as defined by the Revised Penal Code.
As
well, the groups are asking the Supreme Court to release the full text of
Tuesday’s decision on R.A. 10175, as many points of the decision remain vague
or unclear. The full decision is also needed for the groups to decide on how to
appeal the Supreme Court ruling.
The
groups also agreed to a coordinated campaign against the ruling on online libel
on BlackTuesday. Details of the campaign are still being hammered out.
The
groups also noted how Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling appeared to backtrack on
earlier pronouncements by the Tribunal on libel.
In
2008, then Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Puno issued a circular to all
trial judges urging them to impose fines rather than prison sentences on those
found guilty of libel.
While
the circular does not carry the weight of an en banc decision, the issuance had
a noticeable effect on many courts that year, said NUJP Chair Rowena Paraan.
Paraan
said that as a result of the circular, no journalist was sent to jail for libel
on that year.
“The
ruling (last Tuesday) was a step back. It was already very libertarian,” Paraan
said.
Malou
Mangahas, executive director of the Philippine Center for Investigative
Journalism, said it is wrong for officials to justify the new restrictions by
saying that citizens who do not commit crimes have nothing to fear.
Earlier,
President Benigno S. Aquino III said the court ruling was not a curtailment of
freedom of the press.
“If
you know you speak the truth, why be worried about libel,” the President was
quoted in media reports as saying.
“This
should not be about a theorem of fear, but a theorem of rights,” Mangahas said.
“May
sense sila na if you pass restrictive laws, then everybody will behave.”
Juned
Sonido, a local blogger, said the online libel provisions will only drive
expression “underground.” Sonido said this is unfortunate especially now that
citizens are learning to express and engage with government, both online and
offline.
“This
sets back freedom of expression by 20 years,” Sonido said. “It sets the
discussions that are online back, at a time when citizens are already going
online to engage the government.”
Sonido
pointed out that this would even make it more problematic for the government,
as knowledgeable netizens know how to hide their identities when they post
online. “So who would they sue then? This sets back freedom of expression by 20
years.”
The
groups also agreed to harness the growing opposition to the online provision of
the Cybercrime Act in order to redefine and decriminalize libel itself. For
this, the media groups warned netizens of the “false dichotomy” that libel only
applies to journalists.
The
groups asked netizens to help in the campaign to make the public understand the
full impact of the Cybercrime law, not just on journalists, but on ordinary
users of the internet.
