Cybercrime Law Ruling: a Case of Philippines Behaving like China

We have been accusing China of violating international laws when it laid claim on a large part of the South China Sea. In fact, we have filed an arbitration proceeding before the arbitral tribunal of the International Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague pursuant to the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) to prosecute our cause. The Philippines claims the contested area as part of its 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), among a country’s maritime entitlements, which under the UNCLOS are “rights that lawfully demand respect from State-Parties.”

At the Expanded Asean Maritime Forum (EAMF) in Kuala Lumpur in October last year, Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)-West Philippine Sea Center-Assistant Secretary Henry Bensurto Jr., said:

“To maintain order and stability in the South China Sea, we need predictability in the way we all behave with each other.  To be predictable means, we need to have certain agreed standards, rules and norms,”

“These standards, rules and norms in turn must be objective, impartial and non-discriminatory. International law is one objective standard.”

Ironically, the Philippines finds itself in the same place as China on the issue of Cybercrime Law. In April of 2007, Alexander Adonis, a broadcast journalist now based in General Santos and an anchorman for Socsargen Broadcasting Network, while working as commentator for Bombo Radyo-Davao City, was sentenced to four years and six months in prison in a libel case filed by then Davao representative--later House Speaker--Prospero Nograles.

The case stemmed from a report brought over the radio by Adonis, echoing newspaper reports, alleging that Norgrales was seen running naked in Manila Hotel after the husband of the lady he was having an affair with caught them in flagrante delicto in bed. While doing time, Adonis filed a Communication

before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) entitled Adonis v. The Philippines, and recorded as Communication 1815/2008.

In the Communication, he questioned his imprisonment for libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as constituting unlawful restriction of his constitutional right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, thus, a violation of Article 19 of United Nation Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UNCCPR).

After deliberation, the Committee issued a view citing that Philippine criminal libel conflicts with the country’s obligations under Article 19 of UNCCPR, particularly paragraph three thereof. Continuing, it further stated that the Philippines is “also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future, including by reviewing the relevant libel legislation.”

Clearly, we have state obligations under UNCCPR, which we ratified on October 23, 1986 just a year before we ratified, in a plebiscite, our very own Constitution. Our Constitution commands us to honor said obligations by virtue of its provisions, to name a couple:

“Article II, Section 2. xxx adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land”;

Article VII, Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”

With the UNHRC’s view, though not binding on State-Parties, we thought we would move towards decriminalizing libel. But lo and behold, we have taken the opposite direction. We have not only kept our criminal libel law, we have made it more potent under RA 10175 by punishing online libel with imprisonment of six years and one day to twelve years, compared to only six months and one day to four years and two months for ordinary libel under the Revised Penal Code.

The irony of it all is these are all unfolding under an administration whose leadership comes from a lineage of iconic Freedom fighters. 

Just two years after Pnoy took office under the platform of–picking up where his parents left off—good governance and democracy, his party-controlled Congress, the House of Representatives and Senate on June 4 and 5, respectively, passed Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.” On September 12, 2012, Pnoy signed it into law. Immediately thereafter, freedom advocacy groups and individuals petitioned the Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction, which it promptly issued.

Two days ago, the Court, widely perceived as sympathetic to Pnoy administration, ruled to uphold the constitutionality--generally and save for some provisions, but particularly online libel--of RA 10175, or The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. As argued, notwithstanding the Court's decision, which does not become final until the lapse of period for MR without one being filed, this is in violation of State obligations under UNCCPR, and international law in general.

How can we effectively argue against China’s alleged disregard of international law, when we ourselves seem inclined to invoke it only when convenient and expedient?

For over two decades now, we have heralded, and thrived under, in between times, heroes of Democracy that has made our beloved Philippines its cradle and bastion. Under the youngest yet of supposed bloodline of freedom advocates, though, we are being pushed to rethink that proposition.

We expect an MR to the Court’s decision, and hope that at last look, it sees through the haze of issues in the case and rule in favour of our Constitutional rights.

Tacloban, Two Months After Typhoon Yolanda

I was on Vacation in Calbayog City, Samar the week of January 25, and on January 30^th I went to Tacloban City, hardest hit by Typhoon Yolanda (international name: Haiyan), if only to take a firsthand look at the development some two months after Yolanda made its fateful landfall that would later claim an estimated 6,000 to 10,00 lives (depending on your source of information). People are struggling to paint normalcy in what chaotic situation they have. A handful of business outfits have reopened to the public, including Robinson’s Place, which was among those heavily looted in the aftermath of the storm.

As I strolled around the city, I could imagine how horrendously powerful the storm was with buildings, or their parts, turning into masses of mangled metals, steel roofs blown off, massive water tanks tossed tens of meters away, and glass walls and windows shattered. I could sense the harrowing process that people go through in dealing with their new and sudden reality. For most, notwithstanding the news on incidents of looting, materialism has taken a backseat to plain survival. No one seemed interested in filing insurance claims even when they are covered. It seemed, commercial spirit has been overtaken by the primordial human virtues of compassion and benevolence.

I stared at the four Vessels (passenger ships) that have strayed into the city’s coastal communities, mostly of shanties, as Yolanda pummeled it with 315 kph of wind. Two months have opened the idea, to the mind of the locals, of making tenements out of these vessels, and some could already be seen making subdivisions in them for living quarters.

Of course, I made sure I did not miss to visit the place where the controversial bunkhouses sat. I am not an engineer, architect, or contractor, but I surely would not buy any of those at the price the government had put on them. I heard its construction has temporarily stopped following an investigation commenced by the office tasked to rebuild from Yolanda, headed by former Senator, now Czar, Panfilo Lacson.

As I wound up my short tour of the city, I could not help but feel sad for the people of Tacloban, and the rest of the places that have suffered from the typhoon, not because they have to deal with the consequence of the typhoon –they are no stranger to it, though Yolanda is nothing like any that came before it—but mainly because they have to contend with bureaucrats who did not seem to miss any opportunity to make a killing, even in the face of devastation brought by the worst typhoon that the country has seen, if not the world. In the face of overwhelming generosity that the country is receiving from the international community, it is appalling that our very own government—at least the agencies responsible—has failed to rise to the occasion to match the gallantry that foreign governments have shown us.

I hope that with the creation of the office—and with Lacson at its helm—tasked especially to oversee the rehabilitation and reconstruction of localities destroyed by Typhoon Yolanda, the people left wounded and scarred by the disaster will have a fair chance at rebuilding their lives. In the end, people vigilance will go a long way in helping the government ensure its efforts go to their intended beneficiaries.