SC defers hearing oral arguments on cybercrime law

(Updated 2:53 p.m.) The Supreme Court has postponed Tuesday's resumption of the oral arguments on the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. In an interview with reporters, SC clerk of court Enriqueta Vidal said the proceeding was deferred "upon a motion from Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza." Asked to elaborate, Vidal said she did not exactly know Jardeleza's reason for such a request, only saying: "Malalaman niyo na lang sa TV kasi kailangan daw siya [Jardeleza] sa Palace." Vidal said the oral arguments will resume Tuesday next week at 2 p.m. Learning about the postponement, petitioners who showed up early at the Supreme Court expressed disappointment with the development. "We were looking forward pa naman to this para makapagbigay na rin kami ng rebuttal," petitioner and law professor Jose Jesus Disini told reporters. Disini said he hopes this would be the last time the oral arguments would be postponed, emphasizing that the temporary restraining order against the implementation of the cybercrime law expires in two weeks' time, or on February 6. "Sana lang malaman namin ang dahilan kung bakit napatawag si SolGen sa Palasyo. Kasi malaking kaso ito at maraming umaasa na hindi ito ma-delay, so sana huli na ito," he added. Despite the postponement of the proceedings, members of the College Editors Guild of the Philippines-University of the Philippines Manila chapter threw black confetti from the adjacent UP Manila building toward SC grounds. A total of 16 petitioners have been filed with the SC questioning the legality of the law, which they said violates a person's right to due process, free expression, and against double jeopardy. Last week, the petitioners took turns in raising their arguments against specific sections of the law, including on electronic libel, cybersex, the authority given to the Department of Justice to take down websites seen to be violating the law. Last week's oral argument was opened by petitioner Sen. Teofisto "TG" Guingona III, who described the law as a "Cyberdracula... with fangs that instill fear in the hearts of people." University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque Jr., meanwhile, presented arguments against the section on electronic libel and cybersex.   In his presentation, Roque criticized the law for its "overbreadth" and for being "overbroad."   Roque cited social networking sites Twitter and Facebook, saying "the statute does not tell you who is responsible if you click on the like button." He also said the law's use of the word "lascivious" was vague.   To demonstrate how statements in social media could become defamatory, Associate Justice Marvic Leonen -- the newest addition to the high court and formerly an avid user of social media -- cited the 2011 case of then-UP law student Chris Lao, who was bullied online after a TV report showed him losing his cool after driving his car into a flooded street in Quezon City.   Leonen, a former UP Law dean who publicly expressed sympathy for Lao at the time, said: "Because of what happened to him in cyberspace, he was transformed."   In interpellating Roque, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno stressed Leonen's stand against cyberbullying.   "By taking such a stance [against cyberbullying], Justice Leonen demonstrated that those who are free in expressing their thoughts can also be the most capable of inflicting harm," Sereno said.   Sereno also expressed her concern about cases of victims of cyberbullying who took their own life because of the experience.   "I'm concerned about those who commit suicide, those who cannot wait for the deleting of posts against them," she said.   "Does the State not have a right to regulate the invasion of lives of these people so that [the government] cannot be faulted?" Sereno asked. Roque expressed fears that the law could "lead to the chilling of rights." He said there is a possibility that even Internet service providers (ISPs) could be held liable as the law also punishes those that "cause" the publication of libelous statements online.   Associate Justice Roberto Abad, however, said that ISPs do not necessarily have to be made liable, citing a comparison to prove his point.   "For instance, we can post a bulletin board for people to post things. But if someone posts something libelous, does that make the Supreme Court liable?" Abad said. In response, Roque emphasized the need to have a "very delicate balancing of rights," emphasizing the importance of the freedom of expression.   Asked by Leonen what alternative protection can be given to victims of online libel in case Section 4(C)(4) is struck down, Roque said balance can be achieved in preventing electronic libel by imposing civil damages instead of incarceration.   In the middle of interpellation, Abad and Leonen separately emphasized that their line of questioning during interpellation does not reflect how they would vote on the case.   "We try to keep an open mind until the case is submitted for resolution," Abad stressed. "Our opinions will not be affected by our interpellation," Leonen said for his part. — Mark D. Merueñas/RSJ/KG/KBK, GMA News