Provide your email for confirmation

Tell us a bit about yourself

country *
province *

why we ask about location

Please provide your email address

Login

To share your thoughts

Don't have an account?

Login with email

Check your inbox

We just sent a link to your inbox. Click the link to continue signing in. Can’t find it? Check your spam & junk mail.

Didn't get a link?

Sign up

Ready to get started

Already have an account?

Sign up with email

By signing up you agree to Rappler’s Terms and Conditions and Privacy

Check your inbox

We just sent a link to your inbox. Click the link to continue registering. Can’t find it? Check your spam & junk mail.

Didn't get a link?

Join Rappler+

How often would you like to pay?

Monthly Subscription

Your payment was interrupted

Exiting the registration flow at this point will mean you will loose your progress

Your payment didn’t go through

Exiting the registration flow at this point will mean you will loose your progress

[PODCAST] Law of Duterte Land: The problems with the Cybercrime Law

Earlier this June, Cagayan de Oro City 2nd District Representative Rufus Rodriguez filed a bill seeking to amend Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Law to explicitly say that cyber libel has a prescription period of only one year.

The measure was in response to the case of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former researcher-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr, who would not have been charged and convicted if cyber libel's prescription period is only one year.

The prescription period is the specific time period one can be sued for an offense.

Libel in the Revised Penal Code prescribes only one year, but the Cybercrime Law was silent on the prescription period of cyber libel, one of the among the problematic provisions the law enacted by the Aquino administration in 2012 and upheld mostly by the Supreme Court in 2014.

During the 2013 oral arguments before the Supreme Court, then Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza categorically said that cyber libel has a prescription period of only one year.

Still, because of the silence of the law, the Duterte-time Department of Justice (DOJ) found a way to extend the prescription period to 12 years.

Law experts believed that this interpretation, as upheld by Manila Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa, is unconstitutional.

Aside from the prescription period, dissenters on the Bench had also wanted to raise the bar for determining malice. They lost.

"Malice in law" or presumed malice was retained. Presidential spokesperson Harry Roque would cite that principle today, when 7 years ago he stood before the Supreme Court and opposed it.

Listen to the podcast to learn more.

For past episodes:

If you have tips and suggestions for episodes, email the host at lian.buan@rappler.com. – Rappler.com