Category: cybercrime law

That’s the question lawyer Harry Roque posed to the Supreme Court justices to underscore the dangers of the Cybercrime Law. He referred to the three photos posted here:

There were a number of compelling issues that were highlighted in last Tuesday’s oral arguments on the Cybercrime Law (R.A. 10175) at the Supreme Court. One was its being unconstitutional because of overbreath as forwarded by Atty. Harry. Roque.

The online Free Dictionary explains that “In American jurisprudence, the overbreadth doctrine is primarily concerned with facial challenges to laws under the First Amendment.”

The First Amendment (to the United States Constitution) “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”

Roque cited Section 4 (C)1 of the Cybercrime Law which is about Cybersex which lists among punishable acts Cybersex.

The law defined cybersex as “The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.”

Using the “void for vagueness” doctrine, Roque asked, “What is defamatory? Who is liable for libel? What are justifiable motives? What are good intentions? What is lascivious?”

Then he presented acclaimed works of art with nude figures from the Museum of Modern Arts (New York), Tate Gallery in London, and Sydney Opera House, asking the justices , “Are these slides lascivious?’
Roque noted that the Cybercrime Law didn’t even use the word “pornography.”

Another argument against the Cybercrime Law was the unconstitutionality of the libel provision.

Also included in the list of punishable acts is Libel . Section 4C (4) of the law states “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.”

Roque pointed out the judgment of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that in the case of Alexander Adonis who was imprisoned for two years for libel that the penalty of imprisonment is incompatible Article 19 of the ICCPR which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

The Philippines has signed and ratified the ICCPR.

Asked by Carpio what happens when a government ratifies an international treaty, Roque replied, “It becomes part of domestic law.”

Carpio noted that the Cybercrime Law may be unconstitutional since it adopted the libel provision of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which may no longer be in conformance with Supreme Court decisions and international law.

Anti-Cybercrime law rally at Supreme Court Oct 2012. Photo by Mario Ignacio of VERA Files.

Please click here for:

Amended Petition

“We” refers to our group VERA Files and fellow petitioners namely Davao-based radio broadcaster radio broadcaster Alexander Adonis, lawyers/bloggers Harry Roque, Romel Bagares, and Gilbert Andres, legal officer of Media Defense Southeast Asia.

Our earlier petition filed last Sept 28 asked the Court to declare only the provision of the Cybercrimes Prevention Law on libel as being unconstitutional. In our amended petition, we asked the Supreme Court to expressly declare Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code providing for the crime of libel also to be unconstitutional.

As explained by our lawyers, Harry Roque and Romel Bagares of The Center for International Law and the Southeast Asia Media Defense, “We’ve had to clarify that pursuant to the View of the UN Human Rights Committee in Adonis vs. Republic of the Philippines, libel under the Revised Penal Code is contrary to freedom of expression. In its annual report this year on the Philippines, the UN Human Rights Committee also decried that instead of complying with this view and repeal Art 355 of the RPC, the Philippines even expanded the coverage of libel through the Cybercrime Prevention Act.”

Roque said, “It is important to have both libel under the RPC and under the new law be declared as illegal. Prior to the amended petition, the petition only asked the Court to indirectly declare the ordinary crime of libel as unconstitutional by implication. Since Art. 355 was reproduced by way of reference in the definition of electronic libel with the additional element that it should have been published electronically, it is incumbent for the Court to also consider the issue of whether ordinary libel is constitutional. The amended petition was necessary since the law does not favor implied declarations of unconstitutionality.”

Our petition is one of the 15 filed against the Cybercrime law signed by President Aquino on Sept. 13, 2012. The Supreme Court issued a 120-day temporary restraining order on the implementation of the law that has generated widespread concern on its effect on basic freedoms. The High Court has scheduled oral arguments on Jan. 15.

Our petition stressed on the human rights issue of the law especially the provision on libel. Our co-petitioner Adonis was imprisoned for three years after he was convicted for libel in a suit filed by former House Speaker Prospero Nograles.

Nograles brought the suit against Adonis in 2001 over a radio report citing newspaper accounts that the congressman was seen running naked in a Manila hotel shortly after the husband of a woman he was allegedly having an affair with caught them in bed.

Adonis was sentenced to four years and six months in prison.

With the help of Atty. Roque, he questioned his imprisonment for libel as a violation of his right to free expression and brought it to the UN Human Rights Committee, which declared that criminal libel in the Philippines conflicts with the country’s obligations under Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

According to the United Nations, Philippine criminal libel is contrary to Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because it is disproportionate to the ends that it seeks, that is, the protection of privacy of private individuals; and that there are an alternative in the form of civil libel.

Roque said those whose right to privacy may be violated by the media after criminal libel is declared unconstitutional or repealed by a law of Congress can still have recourse to a civil case for damages and recourse to the media’s self-regulating mechanisms such as the Philippine Press Institute for the print media and the Kapisanan ng Brodkasters ng Pilipinas for radio and television.

Our petition against the Cybercrime Prevention Act is the only petition that challenges the constitutionality of libel law in the country. Roque said: “We’re excited to argue this issue since we believe that there are now changed circumstances to warrant a reversal of previous Supreme Court decisions upholding the legality of libel. Some of these include our ratification of the ICCPR itself and the View of the UN Human Rights Committee.”