|
INTERNET LIBEL in RA 10175
Engr. Antonio E. Jimeno, Jr., ECE
Valenzuela City, Philippines.
18 September 2012
The
Cyber Crime Prevention Act recently signed
by His Excellency, President Benigno Simeon
Aquino III provides for the following act of
Internet Libel now punishable under Section
4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175:
"Chapter II
Punishable Acts
Sec.
4 Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts
constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act.
(c)
Content-Related Offenses
(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."
As
usual, the defenders of human
rights, particularly on the Freedom of
Expression, have signified their protest on
this provision of the new law on Internet Libel, raising
possible abuses by the government. Some
arguments are valid, though these are more
classified as perceptions and assumptions
which are better left to the courts of law
to decide on the merits.
Though
some concerns (on the possible abuses on the
said provision of the law) are rather valid, l cannot
accept some of the arguments raised more
specially if it came from people known to
have violated the law on libel (as defined by
the Revised Penal Code), albeit in the guise
of freedom of expression, but cannot be
prosecuted just the same simply because there is no law or
jurisprudence yet on Internet libel
(according to him). And now that Internet
Libel has become part and parcel of the Cybercrime law,
this guy is protesting to the high
heavens.
For
several years, I have been confronted with
cases relating to Online Reputation Attacks,
not against public officials but against
private persons, mostly women, whose
reputation are maligned, greatly maligned in
the Internet. The immediate relief then was to
push these bad, malicious, libelous,
negative and compromising articles,
pictures, and video materials down the
various search engines' page results so
these
cannot be seen at least on the first three
pages of Google (first 30 sites). I went a step further in
TOTALLY REMOVING the malicious blog sites,
not only from the Google (and Yahoo) page
engine search results but from the Internet
as well, so that these can no longer be seen or
accessed by anyone anymore.
But
not everyone can afford the services of an
Online Reputation Manager (or a SEO
practitioner specializing in pushing down
these malicious articles down the lowest
pages of the search engines' page results).
Not only that, even if the victim was able
to successfully remove the malicious blog
site, the offender can easily create a new
one. Hence, while some advocates are
protesting the inclusion of Internet Libel
due to some perceived (or assumed) evils
which are sought to be avoided, I welcome, support
and appreciate
the inclusion of Internet Libel in RA 10175
for the following obvious reasons:
(1)
While these possible abuses are PRESUMED to
happen (and are thus perceptions of the
evils sought to be avoided), the ACTUAL
CASES our ordinary people - the victims
confronted with online reputation attacks are REAL, EXISTING and
CONTINUING. Yes, a continuing crime of
defamation and libel committed in the
borderless cyber world, accessed by hundreds
of millions of people worldwide to the
prejudice and damage of the target and
his/her love ones.
(2)
These perceived abuses are better left for
the courts to decide.
(3)
We simply cannot set aside the provision on
Internet Libel simply because we need to
protect the people from FUTURE ABUSES (which
are yet imaginary, non-existing) as other
freedom of expression advocates would like
to imply, while taking a blind eye on the
EXISTING CASES of Internet Libel suffered by
ORDINARY PEOPLE as victims. This law, really
gives hope to existing victims of reputation
attacks who has suffered more than enough
and without any relief.
(4)
We simply cannot set aside the law on
Internet Libel in the premise that it may be
used by public officials as a tool to abuse
the right of freedom of expression and of
the press as guaranteed by the highest law
of the land. It is a KNOWN FACT that the ordinary
people who fell victim to Internet libel are
significantly (or exponentially) higher in
numbers compared to these public officials
who might abuse the law in the future. Again, it is for
the prosecutors to decide if there is
probable cause to prosecute Internet Libel.
Let us leave the issue to the courts of law
and not to these imaginary, perceived, and
non-existing evil some advocates ought to
avoid.
(5)
Malicious imputations of imaginary,
non-existing acts and events (alluded to the
victim), compromising articles
and videos are not the ones protected by the
fundamental law of the land - neither under
the freedom of expression nor under the
freedom of the press. These freedoms are not
absolute. These freedoms cannot be violative
of the law, morals, public policy and good
customs. These freedoms should be exercise
with due diligence observing honesty and
good faith. In other words, Internet Libel
should not be removed simply because it may
violate freedom of expression when in fact
the law is made to protect the privacy and
reputation of individuals currently
suffering from the evils of Internet Libel
and Defamation.
One
house representative even declared on a
national television that those who are
suffering from reputation attacks can simply
answer and defend themselves in the
Internet. Is the good congressman presuming
that these victims of Internet Defamation
are computer-literate? That these victims
all have Internet access, and that answering
the reputation attacks would bring the
relief sought? Isn't it unfair to the
victims to "monitor" all reputation attacks
against him/her and spend his/her precious
time answering all these things? Where are these arguments
coming from? Has the good congressman
been with actual victims of Internet
defamation? Our laws are supposed to give
life and not take away life and decent
living from our ordinary people.
RA
10175 is a good law, though it lacks some
provisions in protecting the rights of
online buyers from scam artists in the
Internet, most specially now that we are
fast approaching the Christmas season. Scams
in the Internet, in fact, are estimated in
the amount of P12M to P20M annually and our
law makers has failed to include such
provisions. We still has to relate Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code on Swindling
just to prosecute crimes committed in the
Internet thru swindling. But then again,
this ACT on Cybercrime Prevention is good
enough for a start.
With
this provision of the law on Internet Libel,
never again will the victims be left to just
rely on the provisions of the new Civil Code
of the Philippines on INTRIGUING AGAINST
HONOR, UNJUST VEXATION, violations of
Articles 19, 20 and 21 on Human Relations,
or Libel under Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code to prosecute Internet Defamation,
this provision of the law on Internet Libel
is good enough. I just hope and pray that
the venue, this time, should not be on the
place where the act or any of its elements
is committed but the venue as provided for
by the Rules of Court in the prosecution of
Civil Cases. I simply could not imagine
giving the victim the additional burden of
coming to the place "where the crime of
Internet Libel or any of its element is
committed" because to discourage such
prosecution, the offender would simply be in
the remotest possible place and these won't
be any case filed against him anymore. I am
speaking not on the point of view of the
Rules but on the point of view of the
ordinary victims who has suffered more than
enough.
Hence, I
fully support the inclusion of Internet
libel in Republic Act No. 10175.
Engr.
Antonio E. Jimeno, Jr., ECE is a Cyber Crime
Consultant. He is a resource speaker in
various training and seminars to the
government agencies, Armed Forces of the
Philippines, Philippine National Police,
Private Corporations and Business Entities
as well as Schools and Universities since
1989. He also conducts training and seminars
on Ethical Hacking, Cyber Crime Forensics
and Techniques, Data Communication, Web Page
Design, Website Development, Website
Administration and E-Commerce among others.
Engr. Antonio E. Jimeno, Jr., ECE is also a
SEO Practitioner, specializing in removing
bad, malicious and libelous articles not only from the
search engines' page results but from the
Internet as well. Engr. Antonio E. Jimeno,
Jr., ECE founded the International Portal
Cyber Crime Complaint Center as well as
Online Reputation Management Philippines.
|
