Let Freedom Reign: A Look at the PHL Cybercrime Prevention Act or RA 10175

Image retrieved from The Indian-Muslim Observer

(Preface: I, myself, had some sort of hesitation pushing through with this blog post, simply because of the repercussions that may result, especially now that RA 10175 is enacted. After reading the full copy of the law, I'm confident I'm not doing any wrong, that I'm not defaming anybody with this post and I hope at least some of my readers would agree with me.)

A lot of commotion has been risen towards a new bill signed into law by the Philippine President, Noynoy Aquino, just recently. This new law is RA 10175 or the "Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012". Before I wrote this blog post, I made sure I first read the full copy or transcript of the controversial law, so I could objectively give my opinion on it. For those who'd like to do the same, a full copy of the RA 10175 or "Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act" is available to be read online in the Official Gazette of the Office of the Philippine President, link available here: Gov.Ph: RA 10175.

I tell you, when I read the law, it had all the makings of a great law. In many ways, and in a line of thought that may be contradicted by many of my compatriots, RA 10175 is a step forward for this nation. For a long while now, the country has had a lot of problems when it comes to cybercrime, especially those relating to child pornography in the web as well as cyberbullying and identity theft. We've also had a barrage of these cybersex dens plague our cities for a while now. Finally, our nation's law now has teeth to battle these crimes and were given suitable punishments.

However, somewhere along the lines, the law made a weird U-turn and turned into something preverse.

One provision stood out for me as I read RA 10175 and it was this:

SEC. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. — When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.

If you've yet to realize the ramifications of this simple line, let me help you. Let's first define what "prima facie" is. In the world of law, that Latin term connotes that something is true until proven otherwise. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, anyone found to be in violation of the act is guilty of the violation, period.

So what does this entail? Let's backtrack to section 4(c)(4) of this law:

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

What does this provision bring to the table now? Let's take a look at this quick and simple explanation from abogadomo.com (actual link: Abogadomo.com - Libel Laws of the Philippines):

Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, Libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.

Now we can put the puzzle together. What section 19 of RA 10175 says is that if you are found to be discrediting someone or something, whether this imputation is real or not, as long as you published it online, then you are guilty of libel under this new law unless proven otherwise. Let's make that more concise: Once the DOJ finds you defaming someone / something in the net, even if this act of defaming is imaginary, then you're guilty until its found out you're not after all.

If you take a look at this in hindsight, you now realize, "Wait, isn't that curtailing the freedom of speech?" My answer: Yes, yes it is.

The Facebook analytics company, SocialBakers, states that there are almost 30 million Filipinos on Facebook. There are also more than 75,000 bloggers in the Philippines, according to the Blog Herald as of 2005. Now, what does the new RA 10175 law mean for these people? Simply put, a gag order has just been issued against them. Once they publish words that may hurt a known person through blogs or social media, then the axe of the law can be used against them.

Right now, we Filipinos should do everything we can to spread the word about this crippling provision in the law. Contact your local legislator through their online social media pages, sign petitions advocating the revision or junking of the law, so that our lawmakers may at least consider tweaking the law to some extent that would be less curtailing to the millions of Pinoy netizens out there.

We need to raise our voice against this matter now, for if we don't, we may not have a voice any longer in the future.

==========================

Remember, you can now...

follow this blog on Twitter: twitter.com/KanzlersTales

like this blog on Facebook: facebook.com/KanzlersTales

Get a New Speechwriter: Sotto, PH Senate Doesn't See Plagiarism as an Issue?

Sotto's speech (left) appears to be an exact, transliterated version of Kennedy's 1966 speech (right).

Click to enlarge, Image retrieved from GMA News Online

Two years ago, an associate justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, Mariano del Castillo, was accused of plagiarism. When he penned the ruling on "Vinuya, et al. vs. Executive Secretary" in April 2010, there were portions in the document that was identical to statements found in “A Fiduciary of Theory of Jus Cogens" by Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent, "Breaking the Silence on Rape as an International Crime" by Mark Ellis, and "Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law" by Christian Tams. (Link to source: SC clears Justice Mariano del Castillo in Plagiarism Mess - GMA News Online)

Six months later, the Supreme Court en banc decides that the associate justice had not committed anything wrong and that the attribution was merely "accidentally deleted."

The result? People from different sectors in the Philippines denounced and ultimately condemned the justice, as well as the SC decision on the matter, stating that plagiarism should not be tolerated in the country. Some even attested that the plagiarism could be a grounds for impeachment. One of those sectors who publicly denounced Mariano del Castillo's act was the Philippine Senate.

At that time, Sotto was already a senator.

Fast-forward two years, and the blame is shifted to the one who cried foul about the same act. In a privilege speech given by Sotto on his contradiction of the RH bill, now being heard in the plenary, Sotto gave a speech that caught a lot of attention. Apparently, his speech was an exact transliteration of Robert Kennedy's Day of Affirmation address in 1966. (See photo above or click here for a larger image -- opens in a new tab / window -- for comparison; for my non-Filipino readers, I can attest now, Sotto's speech quote on the left of the image is roughly 99% a transliteration of Kennedy's 1966 address. You can check it on Google translate if you want, just to get a rough comparison) (Link to source: Sotto Dismisses New Plagiarism Charges - Manila Bulletin)

Obviously, the senator had to deny it, which he did, and even quips, "Marunong pala managalog si Kennedy ah. (What, Kennedy knew how to speak Tagalog?)"

Seriously, even a forum spammer would say, "Trolling!!"

The senator went on to say that this "cyberbullying" of him should stop and that these charges merely stand to distract the public from the real issue at hand, which is the RH (Reproductive Health) bill debate -- A blog post on the RH bill may come in the near future.

Moreover, his colleagues don't seem to fret over it. Senators Bongbong Marcos and Juan Ponce Enrile stated on live television that this issue should no longer be belabored with.

Interesting view... Never knew the senate could pull a passive-aggressive stunt all of a sudden.

Let's get this straight: So plagiarism is a non-issue now here in the Philippines? Seriously? Apparently, these politicians don't just steal money from the government, they can steal speeches and other intellectual properties, too? Well-rounded people, these guys.

I don't care if its a debate on the RH bill, the national budget, the investigation on corruption or what else you may think of. Stealing is stealing, period. You can change the venue, you can change the topic, you can change the tone, but it doesn't change the fact that what you've done is thievery, plain and simple. Don't go shouting, "let's focus on the real issue," because you don't know which issue is important. Hell, you publicly steal a well-known speech and you say it isn't an issue? If we send hundreds of people every day to jail for stealing money, or possessions, then why should those caught stealing ideas not get the same treatment? How's that for an issue.

Perversing the Freedom of Speech: How Filipinos Set Aside Rationality for Radicalness's Sake

Newly-appointed Chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno visited the offices under her new position today

Image retrieved from GMA News

Three months after the ouster of Renato C. Corona as the Chief Magistrate of the Philippine Supreme Court, and the public hearing of the nominees for the vacated post soon after was conducted, President Noynoy Aquino has finally given his choice: the highest court in the country was now to be presided over by the first ever woman Chief Justice, in the person of Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Taking this in retrospect, we Filipinos have that sometimes debilitating tradition of paying utang-na-loob, or that oh-so-generous hospitality we give to people who have helped us in the past. It is but unavoidable that we give some leeway led us to where we are. Surely Sereno is not immune to that, is she? Sereno's could arguably make decisions in the future that will be beneficial to the president and his interests.

However, my opinion, which could also be the opinion of many others, is not significant at this point. She had barely done anything in her job as the new Chief Justice (I repeat: It's her first day) and so we can only wait until she pulls off a favor for the president and point it to her, blatantly, if I may emphasize, once she does that.

And yet, there are many of us who seek to ignore this rational, logical cascade, and instead jump the gun on such matters. Case in point is the flock of picketers in front of the Supreme Court today, protesting Sereno's appointment. They were quick to accuse her of being a "puppet" for the administration and that her rule is merely for the president's benefit.

Rallyist groups flocked in front of the Philippine Supreme Court Tuesday (Aug. 28) to protest the appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as the first Woman Chief Justice of the country

Image retrieved from ABS-CBN News

Look at this for a moment: "So its the chief justice's first day of office... She's a friend of the president and she was put there by the president. She's a puppet of the administration!!" That sentence pretty much summed up the call of the picketers today at the Supreme Court. Time out: Did you get what that sentence meant? The new chief justice is barely getting things running and you say that? isn't that a bit premature? To quote Robin Williams, that's like saying obese people have a high chance of getting healthier because they might exercise. It's ludicrous, absurd and irrational.

The protest at the Supreme Court earlier this morning is just the latest of a long line of protests aimed at various people in various positions for various reasons not bearing the credibility usually associated with logic. Whether it is of students protesting of sudden increases in school fees, or of public vehicle drivers rallying about fuel price hikes, or of people from the "informal sector" - politically correct term for people who don't legally own the houses they live in, a.k.a. squatters - complaining in the streets about not liking the place where they are being relocated (note: they are being relocated to somewhere else for free), or of the usual "poor" people who go on and on about aberrations in the government (Like that RH Bill debate - that's for later)... They take to the streets not for talks, not for deliberations, not for negotiations... It's never that. It's because we've been spoiled by that illusion of People Power, that "revolution" to get what we want, period.

Some will say, "But you've never been to our position. You've never experienced what we've experienced..." But I say to them, "Heck, your experience isn't even what you're heralding! You complain about not getting what you want, and that's all there is to it. No heralding of any cause, no protecting of anything that needs to be vanguarded... You complain simply because you have the capability to. There's no issue being defended here. You're simply choosing a side, not knowing what that side actually stands for, and wait for a fight to pick up, getting a few minutes of fame alongside it."

And that is what being an "agent of change" is now for the many of us. We want people to listen to us simply because we have a voice, but it takes more than a voice to make a change. Our freedom of speech doesn't give us carte blanche to say anything we want, whenever we feel like it, wherever we want to say it. That's not what this right is for. The freedom of speech is for us to be able to channel our reason to others. Our voice now becomes our microphone to spread our logical view to other people, with other people doing the same, in an effort to seek the general will of the people and the enact changes that will benefit the society.

Rizal himself stated it, and that great historian Zaide has this in his book: "Let us be reasonable and open our eyes. God... wants us to use and let shine the light of reason with which He has so mercifully endowed us." 

Let me end with a quote from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, whose statement said it best, "Let your words be better than silence, or be silent."