The Supreme Court has an uncanny way of commemorating the 28th anniversary of the People’s Power Revolution. On a day when the whole nation was celebrating the restoration of freedom in the country with the downfall of strongman Ferdinand Marcos following four days of massive protests on EDSA in February 1986, twelve justices of the Supreme Court opted to curtail freedom of speech when they upheld the constitutionality of the libel provision of the Cybercrime Law.
On September 12, 2012, almost exactly 40 years after Marcos curtailed the people’s freedom with the declaration of martial law, President Aquino cracked down on one of the freest internets in the world when he signed the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which, among other things, penalizes online libel with imprisonment of up to 12 years and a fine of P1 million.
The high tribunal upheld most of the provisions of the cybercrime law, including the contentious provision on online libel. And Aquino, the only son of the eminent icons of democracy – the martyred former Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. and the late President Cory Aquino – was quick to defend the SC ruling. He said the new law does not curtail freedom of expression.
“As responsible journalists, you have your rights, and those rights like all other rights have limitations,” the President said. “We were taught in school that our rights end when we impinge on the rights of others.”
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, Aquino’s latest Supreme Court appointee and the youngest among the justices, disagrees. He said, rightfully, that the continued criminalization of libel, especially in platforms using the Internet, “unqualifiedly produces a chilling effect that stifles our fundamental guarantees of free speech.”
Leonen is the lone SC justice who dissented to the majority decision of 12 other magistrates declaring the libel provision in the cybercrime law as constitutional.
Leonen not only opposes online libel but also supports the decriminalization of libel — both online and under the Revised Penal Code — which he describes as “an anachronistic tool that may have had its uses in older societies: a monkey wrench that will steal inspiration from the democratic mob.”
“Criminalizing libel contradicts our notions of a genuinely democratic society… The constitution requires that libel… be struck down as infringing upon the guarantee of freedom of expression,” he stressed in his opinion.
With the stiff penalties against defamation committed online, journalists, bloggers and ordinary individuals will be constrained from expressing their opinion against people, particularly wealthy businessmen, politicians and government bureaucrats, who, in their belief, are committing acts that are inimical to the country and the people’s interests.
Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, an acknowledged expert in constitutional law, urged netizens to stage protests against the SC ruling. She cited a provision in the Constitution that guarantees absolute freedom of speech, which states: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech.” She said the constitutional language was absolute about the protection of the freedom of speech.
There is now a move, led by Santiago and four administration senators, to decriminalize libel, following examples in other countries, including most of the states in the US.
“Libel in many countries is no longer criminal. Here, it’s criminal and worse, it’s now considered a crime on the Internet. The Cybercrime Law can really stifle the use of technology and threaten the right to free press and freedom of expression,” said Bayan Muna partylist representative Neri Colmenares.
Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, who has filed Senate Bill No. 2128 to decriminalize libel by repealing Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, said the right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Sen. Sonny Angara has also filed a measure that would impose lighter penalties for libel. He said decriminalizing libel has been the trend worldwide.
Senate Majority Leader Alan Cayetano and Sen. Chiz Escudero said the cybercrime law’s provision on Internet libel should be repealed like all libel laws. Cayetano pointed out that the provision suppresses the netizens’ freedom of speech. He said the Internet should still be regarded as a different kind of medium where anyone has the right to express his views and opinions.
The Washington DC-based advocacy group Freedom House rated Filipino netizens the freest in Asia and sixth in the world when it comes to Internet freedom. Not anymore. With the Cybercrime Law placing a Sword of Damocles on every Filipino netizen’s head, I’m certain Freedom House would rate the Philippines side by side with China, the least free in the latest ratings.
The Internet allows the people, who otherwise would not have access to regular media, to ventilate their opinion, which is the very essence of democracy. Threatening the people with stiff penalties is tantamount to curtailing their freedom, as much as the brutal martial law stifled dissent.
For a government that rose to power on an agenda of transparency, accountability, freedom and justice, the Aquino administration has moved to the opposite side of the democratic fence. This is clearly a betrayal of EDSA.
(valabelgas@aol.com)