Bullying on social
THE ANTI-BULLYING ACT OF 2013 (RA
media:
The Philippines’
current legal platform
by Amicus Curiae, Cyndy P. dela Cruz,
Businessworld, Feb. 1, 2017
The pen is mightier than the sword or so the adage
goes.
When this was once said, it was to highlight the
power of thought and idea over brute force and
violence as a way to effect change.
Today, the pen can very well be a “tap” of a
button, as social media has reinvented our way of
life anew — for good or for bad. Regardless of
political affiliation or social philosophy, it is
undeniable how the power of social media has
shaped recent events.
In the Philippines, many attribute President
Duterte’s electoral victory to a strong social media
presence and awareness from supporters and
detractors alike. Similarly, in the United States,
President Trump’s astounding victory may not
have been predictable on the basis on old measures
of popularity, but perhaps to a more subtle, even
subliminal influence, perhaps attributable to social
media as well.
Unfortunately, when people log into their social
media accounts, some tend to shed normal
sensibilities or even basic civility. This is the same
phenomenon that perhaps gives rise to the anomaly
of Philippine vehicular traffic, where the polite and
non-confrontational is shed for disrespectful and
sometimes barbaric behavior leading to the
Gordian knot that is Philippine traffic.
Part of this is the cloak of perceived anonymity
that social media brings. We therefore sometimes
see posts or commentaries meant to embarrass
competence and intelligence, gender, or just plain
rumor-mongering.
However, even when done behind the cloak of a
social media platform may have legal implications
under our present laws.
10627)
This law finds applicability in school-related
bullying incidents which cover those uttered on
social media platforms. “Bullying” under this law
refers to any severe, or repeated use by one or
more students of a written, verbal or electronic
expression, or a physical act or gesture, or any
combination thereof, directed at another student
that has the effect of actually causing or placing
the latter in reasonable fear of physical or
emotional harm or damage to his property;
creating a hostile environment at school; infringing
on the rights of another student at school; or
materially or substantially disrupting the education
process. (Sec. 2, RA 10627) When done through
the use of the Internet, the law categorizes the
same as “cyber-bullying.” (Sec. 2-D, RA 10627)
This covers social bullying aiming to belittle
another individual or group or gender-based
bullying which humiliates another on the basis of
perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender
identity. (Sec. 3, B-1, RA 10627, Implementing
Rules). However, this law only addresses student-
student bullying. Hence, a teacher who belittles a
student in Facebook or any other social media
account, on account of grades or class
performance, social standing or gender may not be
held liable under this law.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND THE
CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT
One who publicly or maliciously imputes to
another a crime, vice, defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or blacken the memory of one who is dead
may be liable for libel under the Revised Penal
Code. (Art. 353, RPC) These acts, when done in
social media, will be punished more severely in
addition to the civil action for damages which may
be brought by the offended party. (Sec. 4 (c-4), RA
10175)
Cyberlibel holds liable only the original author of
the post (Sec. 5 (3), Implementing Rules of RA
10175) hence, if you are one of those who are fond
of liking or reacting to a post of this character,
cyberlibel is not the crime for you.
Slander may also be applicable to one who, in heat Social media is a powerful tool. It is always best to
of anger, utters statements that are highly set a limit on which issues to react to or which
defamatory in character. (Art. 358, RPC) people direct a post to.
Intriguing Against Honor may also find While freedom of speech is well-enshrined in our
applicability when the principal purpose is to Constitution, this right is not without any
blemish the honor or reputation of a person. (Art. limitations.
364, RPC) However, the requirement is that the
post be directed to a specific person. Hence, a In the end, it is always best to devote the stroke of
blind item is not as actionable as a named-post in our fingers and the clicks of our mouse to
social media. intellectual discourse rather than risk being held
liable under our present laws. After all, the power
THE CIVIL CODE ON DAMAGES of our minds should be mightier than any sword
there is.
One who is aggrieved by a defamatory post in
social media may nonetheless find refuge in the The views and opinions expressed in this article
provisions of the Civil Code on Damages. (Art. are those of the author. This article is for general
2176, Civil Code) One who posts in social media, informational and educational purposes only and
causing damage to the reputation of another may not offered as and does not constitute legal advice
be liable to the subject for damages and this can be or legal opinion.
a valid cause of action under the law. Such post
must tend to pry to the privacy and peace of mind Cyndy P. dela Cruz is connected with Angara
of another, meddle or disturb the private life or Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices
family relations of another, intrigue to cause (ACCRALAW).
another to be alienated from his friends or vex or cpdelacruz@accralaw.com
humiliate another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth,
physical defect or other personal condition. (Art.
26, Civil Code)
The recent popular posts in Facebook featuring
over-weight people who are victims of body-
shaming may rely on the Civil Code for an action
for damages.
THE LABOR CODE ON JUST CAUSES FOR
TERMINATION
An employee who spreads rumors or intrigues
against a coworker or his superior or vice versa, or
who does any act similar to cyberlibel, slander,
intriguing against honor or even prying into the
privacy of another may be a just cause for his
termination if embodied in the company policy in
addition to all other causes of action available to
him under the laws mentioned. (Sec. 5.2 (g), D.O
147-15)
However, all the laws mentioned will only be a
valid cause of action to one who is the subject of
the post and who is aware of the post directed to
him. Those who simply react and call foul because
a post imputes to another an act which tarnishes
one’s reputation without them being the subject of
the same has no remedy under any of our present
laws.