Online libel removed in proposed ‘enhanced’ cybercrime law

(Updated 5:13 p.m.) The Supreme Court might have upheld the legality of online libel as a cybercrime offense, but the particular crime has already been removed from an "enhanced" version of the Cybercrime Prevention Act that the Department of Justice plans to submit to Congress.

This was confirmed by Justice Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy, head of the DOJ-Office for Cybercrime in an interview with reporters Wednesday.

 

"We never had an Internet, online libel. The position of the DOJ has been very consistent. Hindi naman kailangan iyang online libel," Sy said.

 

"Cybercrime prevention has to do with cybercrime na core. Ano ba yung core? (That includes) hacking, phishing, yung using it for child pornography. Iyon iyong mas malaking kaso so dapat yun ang lagyan ng pansin at resources," Sy said, adding that the DOJ objected to the online libel provision when it was "inserted."

 

Sy maintained that online libel should not be considered a "new crime" since it its the same as libel as contained in the Revised Penal Code, only done in a different medium.

 

"It's never an issue with us in the department that libel should be part of any cybercrime law. Libel is just a traditional crime," Sy said.

 

"With or without that (online libel provision), we will use existing legal framework to deal with libel issue. We don't need it," said Sy.

 

Sy said they will endorse their "enhanced version 2" of the Cybercrime Law to Congress.

 

Sy said the government should devote more time, effort and resources to stamping out other more serious cybercrimes.

 

"Sa Pilipinas kasi, lahat ng mga gossip, tsismis, mga away ng mag-boyfriend, away ng pamilya, pikon eh... so syempre magkakaroon ng libel. So kung sa 100 cases, 99 of those cases [are] libel," Sy said.

 

He added that crimes like child pornorgraphy are much worse, "kaysa sa libel na nag-aaway sa Facebook, sa Twitter. Sayang naman resources, ang taxpayers money."

 

Likewise, Sy said the government values the freedom of expression but it has to be balance to a person's right to reputation.

 

Sy also said the high court was only being "practical" when it upheld the provision setting a penalty for cybercrimes that is one-degree higher.

 

"Mas mabigat ang pag-upload kase ang diperensya, if example mag-upload ka ng private video, kung sa traditional media iyan, puwede mo sunugin, puwede mo punitin i-shred," Sy said.

 

"Pero kung i-upload iyan sa social media, once it's uploaded hindi mo na mabubura iyan," he added. "Paano kung 16 years old na bata iyan, hanggang 80 na sya, lola na the picture will always be there hosted sa web."

 

Last year, the DOJ announced that the online libel provision of the law was among the more unpopular provisions it had decided to exclude from an "enhanced" version of the much-derided la. The "enhanced" law also omits the portion that empowers the government to shut down websites suspected of violating the law.

 

In 2012, media reports said the online libel provision was inserted in the bill that was to become law upon the suggestion of Senator Tito Sotto, who was then being pilloried on social media for alleged plagiarism. There were fears that even retweeting an offensive comment could land one in jail.

 

On Tuesday, the high court – after several rounds of voting – finally upheld the constitutionality of most of the contested provisions in the law, like the one on online libel.

 

But the high court clarified that online libel applies only to original authors of libelous materials, and not those who merely received or reacted to them.

 

The provisions struck down by the high court as unconstitutional were:

 

— with Andreo Calonzo/RSJ, GMA News