Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)

Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,512|Likes:
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Philippine Press Institute (PPI), Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR), Melinda Quintos de Jesus, Rowena Carranza Paraan, Alwyn Alburo, Ariel Sebellino and the petitioners in the e-petition http://www.nujp.org/no-to-ra10175/ petitioners versus the Executive Secretary, et al., respondents

G.R. No. 203453
National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), Philippine Press Institute (PPI), Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility (CMFR), Melinda Quintos de Jesus, Rowena Carranza Paraan, Alwyn Alburo, Ariel Sebellino and the petitioners in the e-petition http://www.nujp.org/no-to-ra10175/ petitioners versus the Executive Secretary, et al., respondents

G.R. No. 203453

More info:

Published by: Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility on Mar 12, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Supreme Court
ManilaEn BancNATTONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OFTHE PHILIPPINES (NUJP), PHILIPPINEPRESS INSTITUTE (PPI), CENTER FORMEDIAFREEDOM AND
RESPONSIBILITY, MELINDA QUINTOS-DEJESUS, ROWENA CARRANZA PARAAN,ALWYN AI-BURO, ARIEL SEBELLINOAND THE PETITIONERS IN THE C-
PETITIONrat0175
Petitiaten,
- uers *THE EXECUTTVE SECRETARY, ETAL.,Respmde s.
Petrtioners, hrougl-r ndersigned ounsel, espectfullythe Decision dated i8 February 2014, md copy received 27grounds:
1.
Republic of t}le P[ilippinesb-ttp:,1-l-v1vry.-a-uip.qtg,/-rlo-Jg:.
MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
G.R. No. 203453For: Certiorari, Prohibitlonand Injunction withApplication tbr ImmediateRestraining Order nnd Od.rerExtrzordinzrn Legal andEquit'rble Relief move tbr partral reconsideration fFcbruary 01'1, pon dre tbllorving
A. Section a(c)(4), which penalizes online libel' is
unconstitutional,' not only in regard to those whoreceive or react to a postr but also in regard to the
In its Decision, he Honorable court upheld he constitutionality f online ibel, bydeclaring hat section 4(c) 4), which penaLzes nline ibel, s constirutional n regardto the original author of a posg hough not in regard o drose who merely eceive drepost or react o it. Petiuoners eg a second ook upon dle matter'Article III. section 4 of the 1987 Constrtr-rtion f dre Philippines, whicl'r guaranteesfreedom oF speech, of erpression, or oF the press, or the right of the peoplepeaceably o assemble nd petitron he govemment or redress f grievances, houldbe read n conjunction with article 19 of the Intemational Covenant on Civ and
 
3.Political ughts, o which the Philippines s z pany. Article 19 of the ICCPR similarly$rarantees ree speeclr.Intemational reaties hat the Phi[ppines rattf-tes, r to which the Philippines accedes,such as ntemational human rights treaties, ike the ICCPR, become part Philippinelaws through transformation.l t is a process uncler:rticlc VII, sectron 21 of theConstrtution, which provides that '[n]o treaty or intemational rgreement hall bevalid and etfective unless concurred n bv at least wo-thirds of all the members ofthe Senrte.'Increasingly, n its Decisions nvoh.ing undamental reedoms and human rights, hisI{onorable Court has cited and relied on intemational human rights reaties, rnd herich internatronal ase aw, and other intemational documents, explarning }rem, ninterpreting counterpart human rights provisions n the i987 Constitutron of thcPhilippines.'? etitioners assert hat this case calls or a similar nterpretation of the1987 Constitutron f the Phrlippines.In this regard, rticle 19 of the ICCPR states n part:2. Everl'one hall rre the ight o ieedom iexpresston: his rglrt h,rllinclude reedom o scek, eceive nd mpart nfbrmiition rrncl deas oi'; lkrnds, eg:rdless f frontiers. either or.:rlh'. n rvriting or in pnnq in the tbrmof art, or tlrough anv other medi'r oi his chorce.6. In aplaining artide 19 of the ICCPR *re L nited Nations Human fughtsCommittee, dre bod.r charged wr*r the dutv to supenise he implementation of theICCP\ has stated:47. Defamation aws must be cratted with care o ensure hat they complywith paragraph , and that drey do not serve, n practice, o stifle freedom ofexpression. ll such aws, n partrcular enal defamation arvs, hould ncludesucl-r efences s the defence of trudr. and they should not be applied vithregard o those forms of expression iat are not, of d-reir nature, subject overification. At least .*-ith regard to comments about public figures,consideration hould be grven o avoiding penalizing or odrerwise enderingunlawful untrue statements hat have been published n error but withoutmalice. n any event, a public interest n the subject matter of d.re criticismshould be recognized s a defence. Care should be t:rken by St2ltes arties oavoid excessively uniuve measures nd penalties. Where relevant, Statesparties should place easonable imits on dre requirement or a defend'ant oreimburse he expenses f the successful arty. States artles should considerthe decrimina.lization f def-amation and, in any case, he applicatron of thecriminal aw should only be countenanced n the most serious oi cases ndimprisonment s never an appropriate enaliv. t is impermissible or a Stateparty to indict a person or criminal defamation but dren not to proceed otrral expedrtrously such a practice has a chilling efl-ect hat may unduly' Pharmacwtical nd Health Carc ssociatiox f he Phi/)ppitus ,Heath ecrenry,G.R. O. 173034, October 2007.' See, or example, Sendary fNational Defense Mana/0, G.R. No. 180906, October 2008; and Ralonu Tagitit, G.R. No. 182:198, December 2009.
n
 
restrict the exercise f freedom oi expression t the person concerned andothers.'(emphasis urs)
7. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the fugllt toPreedom oi Opinion and Expression has cl:rrit-red urther:72. 'the Special R,rpporteur remrins conccmed thirt lcgitimrrtc onlint:expression s being criminalized n contrilyention of States'. nternationnlhuman rights obligations, rvhether it rs through tl.re rpplication -oi cxistingcriminal larvs to online expression, or d-rrough dle creation oi nerv lltrvsspecificallv lesigned o crimtnrlize expression n the Internct. Such arvs areotlen justit-ied zrs being necess^q' to protect indir-iduals' reputrtion, nationrllsecuritv or to counter terrorism. IIo*'ever, ir.r practice, thcv are ficquentll'used o censor content that the Govemment irnd othcr porveriul entities clonot like or asree rvitlr.73. The Special Rapporteur reiterates the call to all States to decriminrrlizedetamatron. Addition'all,v, he underscores thiit protection oi nirtion'rl securttvor countenng terronsrn clnnot bc used to iustifv restricting the rigl.rt toexpression unless it cm lte clemonstrirtccl hlt: (ir) the expression s intendedto incite imminent violence; (b) it is likclv to incite such r-iolence; ancl (c)there is a direct and immediate connection benvccn ie cxprcssion ntl thehkcl:hood r occurrenc( l'such tolcnct o(emphirsis ours)Besides, in Administratire Circular No. 08-2008, this Honorable Court 69[- l.rirsdeclterl 21n emergent rule of preterence tbr the imposition oi fine only rather drrnimprisonment in libel cases.' This Honorable Court h:rs thus instructed th:rt 'Allcourts and juclges concerned should hencetbrd.r take note oi dle foregoing rule ofpreference set bv the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposrtion of penalties brtl.re crime of libel.'
9. The penaltv f imprisonment br online ibel under section'l(c)J -rolzrtcs tee speecl1,as guaranteed y article II, section oithe 1987 Constinrtion, ead n coniunctionr.vith article 19 of the ICCPR. Furtl.rermore, ection't(c)-t oes against his FlonorableCourt's orvn preterence or not imposing penaltv i imprisonment n libel crrses' pret-erence erhaps nspired bv nothing ess dran he constitutionztl uarttntee f treespeeclr. he questioned arv departs rom this I Ionor;rble Cor.rrt's osition rvice over'Not onl,v s tl.rere penaltv of imprisonment n the questionetl arv, but this penaltvof imprisonment s l.rear-ier y 1009i, htrn tl-l^t tbr libel uncler he Revised Pen',tlCode.
3 United Natior]s Humafl Rights Committee, Gene[al Comment No. 3'1, 12 September 011, UN DocccPR/c/GC/34. See 2lso Repo .t f the Humzr Rights corlrnittee (2013), UN Doc A/rr8l.+t-) ''ol. I).o Report of the Special Rapporteut on the Promotion and Protection .rf he Right to F-r,eetlom f C)pinit.'nzurd Expression, tank La Rue, 16 NIa,v 011, UN Doc .\/F{RC/17/27. The Special Rapporteur s anildepericlent rpert appoirted by the UN Human Rights Coutcil to exiur.rine trcl cpor-t 2rck u his specifjchrunan ights herle. He ultir.r.utely races is authorin* o dre UN Charter', o s'-hich hc Phiiippines s a partv.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->