Edsa Special | Prepys' Homepage

The story of EDSA: Memories and ironies

February 26, 2014February 26, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

ON THE 28th anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolt, both EDSA veterans and the younger generation discovered the ultimate irony – the EDSA Shrine, dedicated to the millions of Filipinos who fought for freedom by ousting Ferdinand Marcos through a peaceful protest in the same place in 1986, is a no-rally zone.

No one sees the irony more clearly than Jojo Borja, who helped stop pro-Marcos tanks at the corner of EDSA and Ortigas in 1986. Borja, who hails from Iligan City, even brought a newspaper photograph showing him trying to push back a Marine LVT-5 Amtrak that was trying to advance on mutinous rebel soldiers in Camp Crame on Feb. 23, 1986.

The photograph showed a younger Borja wearing a t-shirt and a vest, with head bowed and hands on the camouflaged slab-side of the 39-ton Amtrak along with other civilians, as if wishing the vehicle to go away.

But when Borja joined more than a hundred other people at the EDSA Shrine on the 28th anniversary of the People Power Revolt to protest a variety of issues, they were told to leave because the Shrine was private property, and a no-rally zone. The activists were protesting the cyber libel provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act, the Priority Development Assistance Fund, or the pork barrel, and the continued prevalence of corruption in government.

Borja bristled at the idea that no one is allowed to demonstrate at the Shrine, saying he had earned the right to demonstrate in the same place where he helped hold back tanks 28 years ago.

“I was here in 1986, we stopped the tanks here,” he said. “If there is a place we can voice our sentiments out, it is this place, and it is today.”

The Shrine’s private security at first tried to persuade the demonstrators, mostly protesting against the Cybercrime Act, to leave the Shrine.

“Hindi po ito public, private property po ito,” a private security officer of the Shrine told the demonstrators. (This is not a public place. This is private property.)

“What private property?” Borja countered. “Before we gave it to them, we captured this place in 1986. Kung wala kami, wala kayo rito!” (If we had not been here, you would not be here now.)

When persuasion failed, more than a hundred policemen with riot shields and batons tried briefly to push back the demonstrators. Cooler heads later intervened, and the demonstrators were allowed to hold their rally at the foot of the Shrine. Police officers said church officials were complaining that the noise from the demonstration would disrupt the mass inside the Shrine.

Senior Superintendent Wilson Caubat, deputy director for operations of the Eastern Police District, appealed to the protesters to vacate the area. Caubat showed a letter written in 2004 by Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales to the Shrine’s vicar then, Monsignor Soc Villegas, affirming the Church’s policy not to allow non-religious and non-Catholic demonstrations at the Shrine.

The Shrine’s website says the property was donated by the Gokongwei and Ortigas families to the Archdiocese of Manila for the construction of the Shrine of Mary, Queen of Peace, Our Lady of EDSA to commemorate the EDSA Revolt. The Shrine was constructed on the empty lot at the corner of EDSA and Ortigas, where Marine armored vehicles were forced to retreat after civilians prevented their advance by kneeling in front of the vehicles.

The Shrine was also the scene of several protest actions during the time of then President Gloria Arroyo. It was during this time that the Shrine’s no-rally policy was first made public. During the time of Arroyo, several demonstrations at the EDSA Shrine were dispersed, sometimes violently.

But Borja says this policy goes against the spirit that made EDSA possible to begin with.

“Others have their own reasons to be here,” Borja added. “Galit sila sa DAP (Disbursement Acceleration Program), galit sila sa PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund), galit sila sa mahal na kuryente, then why can we not say it here so long as we do it peacefully?”

Red Tani of the Filipino Freethinkers said it was ironic that they were being prevented from demonstrating in the same place where, years ago, people stood their ground against another administration that would have prevented the same demonstration from happening.

Activists who gathered to oppose the cyber libel provision in Republic Act 10175 said this was one of the many ironies that mark the 28th anniversary of EDSA. While press freedom and freedom of expression were restored in 1986, government has been passing laws that are more restrictive of civil liberties.

The activists are protesting the Supreme Court ruling affirming the cyber libel provision in R.A 10175, which expands the coverage of libel into the digital domain and increasing the penalty for the offense. The ruling comes at a time when media organizations, netizens, and civil society groups are pushing for the decriminalization of libel.

“Instead of signaling that the decriminalization of libel would happen, we are disappointed that the Supreme Court instead increased the scope of libel,” Tani said.

Scenes from Black Tuesday

February 25, 2014February 25, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

MEDIA GROUPS, online activists, students, and civil society groups gathered at the EDSA People Power Shrine on Tuesday to commemorate Black Tuesday in protest over the Cyber Libel provision of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The protest was also timed with the 28th anniversary of the People Power Revolution. On February 25, 1986, Ferdinand Marcos fled the country at the climax of a four-day rebellion that saw millions of Filipinos spilling out into EDSA to demonstrate against his regime.

Today’s activists however commemorated the 28th anniversary of EDSA differently, by decrying what they called the sliding back to a more restrictive regime that is intolerant of criticisms, online and offline.

The demonstrators said the cyber libel provision in the law further restricts freedom of expression and freedom of the press, by expanding the coverage of libel to the digital domain.

THe Philippines has one of the most restrictive libel laws among so-called democratic states, punishing those found guilty with fines and a prison term. In addition, Philippine libel law also provides that malice is presumed in an allegedly libelous material, unless proven otherwise by the accused in court.

The following are today’s scenes from the EDSA People Power Shrine, where ordinary people blocked soldiers and tanks loyal to Marcos 28 years ago. Protesters, mostly composed of the youth, resisted attempts to be driven out of the shrine by local security and police. The protesters also offered flowers to policemen in scenes reminiscent of the peace demonstrations during the Vietnam War.

#JunkCyberLibel! – A new call for People Power

February 25, 2014February 25, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

MUCH has changed since Ferdinand Marcos was toppled during the People Power Revolt in 1986. But as many have pointed out, there are many things that have also remained the same.

As the nation celebrates the 28th anniversary of the revolt that toppled an overstaying regime, media and civil society groups have banded together for a new call for People Power: A call to junk the Cyber Libel provision of Republic Act 10175.

For this, media, netizens, and civil society leaders are launching an online and offline campaign to junk the Cyber Libel provision of R.A. 10175 and decriminalize libel.

Members and supporters of these groups are encouraged to post anti-cyber libel memes on Facebook and Twitter, and press their local legislators to act on calls to amend the libel provisions contained in the Revised Penal Code.

The groups will also assemble at the Edsa People Power Monument at 3 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 25, to mark the 28th anniversary of People Power as Black Tuesday.

The recent Supreme Court decision affirming online or cyber libel had raised an outcry from advocates of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. At a time when the same groups are having difficulty convincing government to pass a freedom of information law, R.A. 10175 moves these freedoms backward by expanding the coverage of libel to the digital domain and increasing the penalties for the crime.

For these groups, the decision is a regression of the gains made in EDSA 1986, when press freedom was restored. Now, more than ever, everyone, not just journalists, are in danger of being slapped with the charge of libel, a crime that now carries a six-year prison term if committed online.

The greatest irony of all: While freedom of expression and freedom of the press advocates have been campaigning to decriminalize libel, government has in fact expanded the scope of the crime and increased the penalty. This, even as the government continues to delay passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill, which has been waffling in the legislature for a decade and a half.

The Philippines, touted as having the freest press in Asia, still subscribes to an archaic and restrictive libel law. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code considers libel a criminal offense punishable with a prison term, and presumes that the allegedly offensive material is malicious until proven otherwise.

Freedom won, freedoms lost; Black Tuesday on EDSA anniv

February 25, 2014February 25, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

FREEDOM WON 28 years ago. Freedoms lost last week.

Media organizations and netizens mark the 28th anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolt with a Black Tuesday campaign to protest the Cyber Libel provision of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The Supreme Court last week declared the Cyber Libel provision of R.A. 10175 as constitutional, effectively expanding the coverage of the country’s 80-year old libel law into the digital domain.

Media and online groups have protested the ruling, saying the decision reverses what already appeared to be a libertarian trend in the courts in the interpretation of libel laws.

Libel is defined in Article 323 of the Revised Penal Code as a criminal offense, punishable with both a prison term and damages. Media and lawyers groups have been pushing for the decriminalization of libel, saying the law has been used to harass and cow the Philippine press.

In addition, the Philippines is unique in that an allegedly libelous statement is presumed to be malicious until proven otherwise by the accused. This implies that the accused is already presumed to be guilty until he proves himself innocent before the courts.

Exactly a week ago today, Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of R.A. 10175′s cyber libel provision, which recognizes that libel can be committed online, but only by the original authors and producers of the material. Not included in the crime of cyber libel are those who receive or respond to the material.

At the same time the Tribunal struck down several provisions of the law as unconstitutional, particularly the “take-down” clause which would have allowed the government to deny or restrict access to digital hardware and material even without a warrant, and the real-time collection of traffic data.

The decision came exactly a week before the nation commemorates the 28th anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolt, when press freedom was restored in the country.

Media organizations have pointed out that the Cybercrime Act and the SC ruling on the law effectively reverses many of the freedoms gained in EDSA by unduly restricting freedom of expression and freedom of the press even in the internet.

To mark this day, online groups and media organizations including the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, have declared today as Black Tuesday.

The groups are launching this noon an online protest to ask the Supreme Court to reverse its ruling on cyber libel, and to press legislators to amend the libel provisions in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code.

At noon today, Feb. 25, the media groups will release several memes to show their opposition to cyber libel, and to highlight the regression of basic freedoms that had been won in 1986.

Several groups will also be assembling at the EDSA People Power Shrine at 3 p.m. today to make their voices heard, online and offline.

Media, netizens to mark EDSA with ‘Black Tuesday’ protest

February 21, 2014February 21, 2014 Ed Lingao Leave a comment

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 on Tuesday, Feb. 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 Black Tuesday. 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 secretary general 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.