Cyber libel law a tool for press suppression, harassment of media
Last of four parts
CEBU congressional representative Duke Frasco’s senseless libel suit against me is entirely due to his ignorance of several Supreme Court rulings that bribery is bribery even if the proceeds are used not by the bribed but by others, and even if used for a noble cause. In one decision handed down by the high court, a mayor was even convicted of bribery for accepting rice donations that he distributed to flood victims.
Frasco insists that I libeled him when I wrote that “in effect, he was bribed by the House leadership for accepting benefits he used for his constituents in exchange for his vote to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte.” But he himself admitted so. Frasco is simply trying to delete from his mind his fiasco by filing the libel suit.
However, Frasco’s imbecilic suit actually was encouraged by this regime’s campaign that violates the Constitution’s provision that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press.” The Marcos government, mainly through the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and partly the Philippine National Police (PNP), has been using the Cybercrime Law (Republic Act 10175 passed in 2012 during President Benigno Aquino III’s term) to stifle media and suppress freedom of expression and thought.
The NBI and PNP initiated or received complaints from private parties and forwarded to the Justice department these against at least 40 journalists and bloggers for allegedly violating the libel provisions of the Cybercrime Law. The actual number initiated by the NBI and the PNP may be several times bigger since the two agencies do not publicly report such statistic. The 40 refers to figures of the Department of Justice, recorded as part of all the prosecution pleas it has received.
Why has the Cybercrime Law been used and not merely the Penal Code’s provision on libel as a crime?
Newspapers
First, because of the fact that while libel statements are more often made in newspapers, nearly all of these now have internet editions.
Also, cyber libel charges have been on a steep uptrend because of the proliferation of social media and internet-only websites where the alleged libel appeared don’t have print editions. For instance, Rappler’s libel case for calling respected businessman Wilfredo Keng a human trafficker and drug smuggler, for which its editor Maria Ressa and the researcher who wrote the article were convicted in 2020. The case, which is now on appeal, could only be filed under the Cybercrime Law as Rappler doesn’t have a print edition.
It is conceivable that a columnist or a reporter in a newspaper can appeal to the court that he cannot be tried under the cyber libel law as he had not given his express permission for his piece to be published in the paper’s internet version.
Harsher
Second and more importantly, the real reason why the PNP and the NBI charge cyber libel and not just traditional libel is because of the harsher penalties for the former. The cyber libel law prescribes harsher penalties than traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC); the latter imposes a prison term of from six months and one day to four years and two months, or a fine, or both. The cyber libel law, however, imposes a penalty one degree higher than that under the RPC, which can result in prisión mayor (up to eight years) in some instances, and potentially up to 10 years in severe cases, per Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014). Cyber libel moreover has a 15-year prescription period due to the higher penalty, against one year for traditional libel.
The real situation though is that the Marcos government, especially with the NBI, has been using the cyber libel law to suppress free speech, with the costs of defense in a cyber libel suit being a huge deterrent. At least four journalists are already accused of cyber libel.
The PNP’s cybercrime division operatives tried to arrest popular blogger Mark Anthony Lopez last April 30 without even informing him what specific cyber libel he was being arrested for that he had to cough up P40,000 for bail. Lopez would later find out the charge was for a Facebook post he made a year ago! Here’s where the cyber law’s 15-year prescription period becomes deadly. Columnists can be charged for cyber libel for columns they wrote 15 years ago! The House of Representatives “tri committee” held hearings in February accusing 40 popular bloggers of spreading fake news, and they reportedly asked the NBI to file charges against them for cyber libel. It was this tri committee hearings that prompted the action against the broadcaster Lopez, who was issued a subpoena without specifying the charges. I wouldn’t blame these 40 if they become very cautious in their posts, or give up posting entirely, what with that NBI Damocles’ sword hanging above them.
The NBI or the PNP, or in my case a rich and powerful person like Frasco, can quite easily shoulder the expenses of having a lawyer file a libel case. Journalists like me obviously would have to scrimp or borrow money to hire a lawyer, which would cost at the very least P100,000 for accepting the case and P50,000 per appearance. The PNP and NBI authorities in one city are usually close to the ruling politicians who can quite easily request the PNP or NBI branch there in the favor of filing cyber libel charges against someone.
In my case, the NBI Cebu head Rennan Oliva, as I’ve previously written, even tried to “set me” up in the libel case that the congressman Frasco filed against me. And, as I’ve also written, Oliva even undertook a media campaign to demonize me. It turns out that the executive assistant of Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia (Frasco’s mother-in-law) is a son of a Region 9 NBI head, a colleague and most likely even a friend of Oliva.
Lawyers
Ressa has reportedly hired two of the country’s most expensive lawyers for which she has spent P10 million, using part of the proceeds from her Nobel Prize money. This explains why after seven years, and a conviction in 2020 on what is really an open-and-shut case, Ressa still goes scot-free, traveling regularly between New York and Bonifacio Global City. What about journalists like us who didn’t win the Nobel Prize? A high-ranking NBI official has claimed that the cyber libel law is effective in fighting fake news. But he doesn’t seem to know what fake news is. For instance, is the purported cocaine-ingesting video of Marcos Jr. fake news? That has not been established even if the NBI, naturally, claimed its evaluation showed it to have been a manipulated video. “Maharlika,” the vlogger who released the video, claims that it was authenticated by a US firm as genuine. Neither the NBI nor Marcos allies apparently, however, dare bring the case to court to determine whether it’s fake or not.
Fake news ultimately is rejected by netizens themselves, without government or policemen having to get involved, as less and less of them would like to be embarrassed by posting fake news. Having a cyber libel case hanging over them like a Damocles’ sword will stifle the free expression of ideas and, as important, the unearthing of corruption in government.
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Archives: www.rigobertotiglao.com
Book orders: https://ift.tt/jWTMNAI
The post Cyber libel law a tool for press suppression, harassment of media first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.
Cyber libel law a tool for press suppression, harassment of media
Source: Breaking News PH
No comments: