Supreme Court flooded with appeals vs. Cybercrime Law

No less than 15 groups are moving to file a slew of petitions seeking to reverse a Supreme Court ruling that largely upheld the legality of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act.

 

Among the latest motions for reconsideration were ones filed separately on Wednesday by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), the Philippine Bar Association (PBA), Bayan Muna party-list, and the Bloggers and Netizens for Democracy (BAND).

 

The latest motion for reconsideration was filed Thursday afternoon by a group of lawyers and journalists led by Davao-based radio broadcaster Alexander Adonis, who had been convicted of libel in the past.

 

In its its February 18 ruling, the SC upheld  the constitutionality of online libel "with respect to the original author of the post but unconstitutional only where it penalizes those who simply receive the post or react to it."

 

Under the rules, the 15 petitioners have 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration, starting from the day they received a copy of the SC ruling. 

 

In its petition, the NUJP insisted that the online libel provision of the law under Section 4(c)4 should be struck down as unconstitutional as it constitutes prior restraint and curtails basic rights to free speech and expression.

 

According to NUJP chairperson Rowena Paraan, online libel would be an "anachronism in an age when, around the world, libel has been decriminalized."

 

International covenant

 

Both the NUJP and Adonis' group cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Philippines is a party. "The said covenant upholds the right to free speech and expression, and maintains no defamation law shall be passed stifling these freedoms," the NUJP said.

 

The groups also sought to invalidate sections that give "unduly delegated judicial and legislative powers" to the Philippine National Police, the National Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Justice.

 

For his part, Adonis said: "Hindi dapat pinahahalik sa rehas na bakal ang mga peryodistang ginagawa lamang ang kanilang katungkulan."

 

Adonis' lawyer, Harry Roque, chairperson of Center for International Law, meanwhile said that as a "civilized country, we should be complying with the UN Human Rights Committee view. We are violating our Constitution and the Philippine state obligations under the ICCPR."

 

Bloggers, netizens

 

Like the NUJP and Adonis' group, the group of bloggers and netizens from BAND - in a 41-page motion for reconsideration - also opposed online libel as well as other controversial provisions in the law, including that on harsher penalties for offenders (Section 6).

 

"If unchallenged and unchanged, the remnants of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, together with the Questioned Decision will make the Constitution and the people's way of life collateral damage in the fight against new forms of crimes involving technology and the economy," said the BAND.

 

The group added that the country's criminal libel law was "a throwback to the Spanish and American colonial era when authorities criminalized all forms of dissent."

 

The BAND also asked the high court to reverse its ruling that removed spam commercial messages as a form of cybercrime. The group cited concerns that those who use and spread spam messages do so by violating the right of citizens to privacy of communication.

 

Meanwhile, in its 97-page reconsideration plea, Bayan Muna criticized the law because it "lacks investigatory, prosecutorial and judicially determinable standards in the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of libel."

 

The group said this would create a "chilling effect that infringes on the freedom of speech clause under the [1987 Philippines] Constitution."

 

Bayan Muna said the fact that the high court clarified that online libel applied to original authors but not to "likers" or "commenters" was already a "judicial recognition that said penal provision is overbroad."

 

The group also stressed that the government's duty to protect people from libel was limited to civil remedies only.

 

Bayan Muna said Section 15 (power and duties of law enforcement agencies) "on its face... [gives] undue powers functionally equivalent to a subpeona against any person who lies outside the scope and description of the warrant,"

 

Youth, teachers groups

 

The first motion for reconsideration on the Cybercrime case was filed last Tuesday by a separate group of petitioners that include lawmakers from the Kabataan and Alliance of Concerned Teachers party-lists.

 

The group said Sections 4(c)4 (online libel), Section 5 (aiding or abetting in cybercrime offenses), and 6 (penalty one-degree higher) of the law should have been declared unconstitutional due to “vagueness and overbreadth.”

 

The petitioners said because of the recent SC ruling, "people will have a difficult if not impossible way to delineate what is considered a crime and what is protected speech." — TJD, GMA News