‘First important test for Sereno Court’

Purple S. Romero

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

Lawyer Theodore Te says he hopes Chief Justice Sereno's perspective on technology will 'spread' through the Supreme Court

 

BAD LAW. Te said the Cybercrime Prevention Act poses 'real danger' to people who earn their living online.

MANILA, Philippines – Deciding on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act is the “first important test” for the Supreme Court (SC) under Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, a lawyer said. 

UP professor Theodore Te said on #TalkThursday on September 27 that he hopes the Sereno court would come up with a “clear, substantive ruling” on the cases challenging the legality of the law that is seen to create a “chilling effect” on press freedom. 

Four petitions have so far been filed with the Supreme Court to seek the nullification of some provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. 

The 4 petitions raised alarm over Sections 4(c)4, 6, 7, 12, 19, 20, which include online libel and unsolicited advertisement as cybercrimes, increase penalties for all crimes in the Revised Penal Code and allow the Department of Justice to shut down sites that based on mere prima facie evidence contain harmful content. 

Te said he hopes the SC does not dwell on technicality when it rules, noting that the Court has used the “transcendental importance” exception at times – when the Court decides on the merits of the case in the name of public interest even if parties may lack the locus standi, or the legal standing to file cases.

“I basically hope the SC takes on the challenge and separates the important and offending provisions of the law,” he said.

Sereno’s influence

Te said he hopes Sereno’s perspective about technology will “spread” through the SC. 

“I’m hoping that perspective spreads, she’s able to influence the court and say, hey this is an important issue,” he said. 

Te pointed out that Sereno came from the academe (Sereno taught law at the University of the Philippines for almost 20 years) which utilizes technology. He added that the 52-year-old chief justice is fairly young, which consequently makes her aware of the emergence of social media.

“She’s young enough to have been exposed to social media,” he said. 

Sereno herself said that the judiciary must learn how to deal with a public that uses social media. “We have a young population which is technologically savvy, opinions are shaped not just by school, media or family, but by social media,” she said at the Presidents of Law Associations in Asia conference on August 29.

Dangerous to online world 

Te said the law “poses real danger” to people who make a living online.

He noted that the law is not clear on who should be held liable for online libel as compared to libel in the Revised Penal Code, which sets clear standards on authorship. A story’s byline bears the name of the author.

In online libel, however, the extent of the liability is ambiguous. Does the person who “likes” a libelous statement on Facebook or re-tweets a defamatory tweet also become liable?

“It’s the unsettled question: what happens to a person who does republish?” Te asked. 

Te said increased penalties on libel and practically all crimes in the Revised Penal Code also make the law dangerous.

 “What happens is that ‘conventional libel’ transpose and make it graver by one degree,” he said.

Another lawyer, Harry Roque, said that online libel is punishable with imprisonment of 6 years and one day to up to 12 years, while those convicted of ordinary libel could only be sentenced from 6 months and one day to 4 years and two months. 

Te pointed out that this eliminates the option for probation law, which only applies to imprisonment of less than 6 years. 

Powerful DOJ 

Te said what makes the law “suspect” is that it gives the Department of Justice (DOJ) “broad-ranging powers.”

Under Section 19, the DOJ is authorized to shut down sites that have harmful content based on prima facie evidence, which has “very low standards,”  Te said.

Prima facie means “on the face.” Te said that if an authority from the DOJ “perceives” that the content is dangerous, then he or she can easily have the site closed even without a court order.

“It could be whimsical,” he said.

Te said there is no need to integrate libel into the cybercrime law. A separate law with no penal provisions that regulates online publications could have been passed, or a magna carta for netizens. 

If the government aims to punish cybersex offenders, he said lawmakers could just have amended the revised penal code. 

He said people could sign petitions urging Congress to repeal the law.

“You can’t be forever demonizing technology,” he said. “We can’t stay in a time bubble and pretend this doesn’t exist.”

Sen Teofisto Guingona III has already asked the SC to repeal certain provisions of the law, particularly on online libel. Sen Francis Escudero has also said he will file a law amending the law’s provision on online libel. – Rappler.com 

More on the cybercrime law:


Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!