Social Media and Privacy: The Philippine Experience

Published by Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA) on October 30, 2015

1. Introduction

Social media[1] serves as the Internet to majority of Filipino online users. Over 80% of
the Philippine Internet population uses social media. In Universal McCann’s 2008 Wave
3 study on social media, the Philippines has the highest penetration of social networking
among Internet users at 83%, compared with the global average of 58%. [2] Among the
available social media platforms, Filipino online users prefer using Facebook over
Twitter, Tumbler, Pinterest among others, with 92% having profile and with women as
the most active users.[3] For Filipino online users, Facebook is the easiest and
cheapest to access. Mobile networks in the Philippines offer it for free as package for
data plan or as an incentive for subscribing to their network. [4]

The pervasive use of social media in the Philippines greatly affected the manner by
which Filipinos interact and communicate. Many live in the “always available mode”.
While the Philippines is not an information based society, it is very much a networked
culture.[5] This development in information and communications technology (ICT)
impacted Filipinos conception of privacy. The concept of privacy is not, as we like to
imagine, a universal one. Privacy is hard to define as it is set differently in different
jurisdiction. Traditionally, the right to privacy is concisely defined as the right to be left
alone. It has also been defined as the right of a person to be free from undesired
publicity or disclosure and as the right to live without unwarranted interference by the
public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned. In the Philippines,
privacy is traditionally viewed as a person’s right against unreasonable seizure which is
the person’s right over his/her house, office or any place where he/she has expectation
of privacy wherein the state/government cannot enter without warrant.[6] However,
developments in technology brought about informational privacy – the person’s right to
control information about him/her. In the context of social media this refers to a person’s
selective control over who accesses his/her personal information, including contact
information and personal communication, and control over the contexts in which the
information can be used.[7]

Nonetheless, privacy in the context of social media is less understood and has resulted
to rising cases of violations of privacy occurring in online spaces specifically in social
media. News reports and anecdotal evidence revealed many cases of invasion of
privacy are committed against women and girls. The multiple platforms for posting and
reposting information in social media make it hard to control and regulate the personal
data women want to share. Viral circulation of private pictures and videos is a common
problem in social media. Women and girls are punished for the act without
understanding the interconnectedness of technology, privacy and violence against
women. In the light of these foregoing, FMA undertakes an issue brief to understand
privacy in social media in the context of the Philippines. The study highlights the
Philippine Supreme Court’s decision on the case of St. Theresa’s College Cebu. [8] The
case stemmed from students of a Catholic school who were not allowed to participate in
graduation exercise due to their provocative posts in Facebook. The paper analyzed the
case, identified legal, political and social implications of the decision.
The study is presented in the following manner: (1) Scope and Methodology of the
Study, (2) Privacy and Social Media Policy in the Philippines, (3) St. Theresas’s College
Cebu Case, (4) Filipino Perception of Privacy, (5) Analysis: Is privacy still present in
social media?; and (6) Conclusion and Recommendation.

2. Scope and Methodology of the Study

The paper aims to explore privacy in social media in two levels. The first level of the
paper covers the overview of available laws, policies, jurisprudence on privacy and
social media in the Philippines. It covers six major pieces of legislation.

The second level is the conduct of focus group discussions (FGD) to gain
understanding on social media usage in the country, and key informant interview (KII) to
surface perspectives on privacy in social media. The FGD targets young women social
media user ages 10-18 years old due to the high prevalence of social media usage
among these age group. The FGD covers young women’s experiences in using social
media. It identifies the primary social media platform they use, their purpose of using
social media, their activities, violations/harms they experience, and their awareness of
the policy and terms of use. The FGD surfaces as well their perspectives on privacy and
their view on school’s authority to monitor social media accounts of students.

The KII targets lawyers whose works include handling cases involving privacy issues in
the advent of information and communications technology, a case involving the use of
ICT or specializing on privacy. KII with lawyers covers legal perspectives of privacy in
the Philippines and their limitations when applied in social media. The KII also targets
parents and teachers and specifically surface their perspectives on the extent of
authority the school has over children’s social media activities.

3. Privacy and Social Media Policy in the Philippines

In the Philippines, there is no specific and direct policy on social media privacy.
However, there are several laws including jurisprudence that deal with privacy in
general and in relation to social media. A range of privacy policies can be found in the
Constitution, Revised Penal Code, Rules of Court and Civil Code.

Overview of Available Laws

The 1987 Constitution

The Constitution tries to provide provisions with regards to right to privacy under the Bill
of Rights namely: (a) the right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and (b) the
right to privacy of communication and correspondence. From the two sections, it can be
surmised that right to privacy can be defined as the right to be left alone. It is the right of
a person to be free from undesired publicity or disclosure and as the right to live without
unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not
necessarily concerned.

The Civil Code of the Philippines

Provisions related to privacy can be drawn out from Chapter Two of the Civil Code of
the Philippines under Human Relations in which Article 26 states that, “Every person
shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons.” Though not considered as criminal offense, it identified acts that can
produce a cause of action for damages and other relief, and in which social media can
be used as a medium and place of commission of the offense. These include meddling
with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another, intriguing to cause
another to be alienated from his friends, vexing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal
condition.

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009  

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 was passed as a response to the
proliferation of intimate/private photos and videos, most notably of women, without their
consent. The law itself recognizes invasion of privacy as a criminal offense. The law
penalizes those who take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area
of a person or persons without the latter’s consent, under circumstances in which such
person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Likewise, the act of selling,
copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet,
cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s
involved are punishable.

Human Security Act of 2007

The law has provisions that affect the right to privacy. The Human Security Act of 2007
was enacted to counter and manage terrorism in the Philippines. The law is said to be
heavily influenced by the United States’ Patriot Act, which provides tools required to
intercept and obstruct terrorism.[9] Section 17 of the Human Security Act defines
terrorism as a one that “causes widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace”. It allows authorities to arrest terror suspects without warrants and
temporarily detain them without charges. Like most counter terrorism measure, the law
has been criticized to violate international certain human rights standards. The law
allows for unchecked invasion of privacy, e.g., permitting wiretapping and investigation
of bank accounts.

Data Privacy Act of 2012

The Data Privacy Act of 2012 is an act protecting individual personal information in
information and communications systems in the government and the private sector. It
mandates the public and private institutions to protect and preserve the integrity and
confidentiality of all personal data that they might gather including the processing of
personal information and sensitive personal information. It also sets the parameters on
when and on what premise data processing of personal information can be allowed with
basic premise when a data subject has given direct consent.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was enacted to address crimes committed in
cyber space and use of ICT. The law is divided into 31 sections split across eight
chapters, criminalizing several types of offense, including illegal access (hacking), data
interference, device misuse, cybersquatting, computer-related offenses such
as computer fraud, content-related offenses such as cybersex and spam, and other
offenses. The law also reaffirms existing laws against child pornography, an offense
under Republic Act No. 9779 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009), and libel, an
offense under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, also
criminalizing them when committed using a computer system.

Jurisprudence

There are two available jurisprudences decided by the Philippine Supreme Court
dealing with privacy in relation to social media: 

Judge Ma. Cecilia Austria Case

The case involved Ma. Cecelia Austria, Batangas Regional Trial Court Judge, whose
profile picture in Friendster was deemed inappropriate for her profession as an officer of
the court. According to the Supreme Court, a member of the court cannot and should
not have a public Friendster account as her position and stature limits her to what she
can do on the Internet. It further added that a an open public account on Friendster
exposes the judge to influence and pressure, and gives litigants and lawyers an open
access to communicate with her especially those attempting to influence her decisions.
[10]

St. Theresa’s College Cebu Case

The case stemmed from students of St. Theresa’s College who were not allowed to
participate in graduation exercise due to their provocative posts in Facebook. The
parents of the students filed a case against the school over invasion of privacy. The
Philippine Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school stating that nothing is ever private
in Facebook. 

4. Theresa’s College Cebu Case (STC)

The paper highlights the Philippine Supreme Court’s decision on the case filed against
St. Theresa’s College Cebu. It is the first ruling made that explicitly deal with privacy in
social media, specifically privacy in Facebook. It sets the parameters as to what is
considered private and public in social media. [11]

The Supreme Court issued a ruling saying that nothing is ever private on Facebook,
even those tagged as private never really escape public viewing, including unintended
audiences. The decision stemmed from the case involving photos posted on Facebook
of two minor students from STC. The photos, which were uploaded by one of their
friends, showed the students drinking and smoking in a bar, and wearing just
undergarments on a street. The photos were shown by one of the Facebook friends of
the girls to the school officials prompting them to ban the students from marching in
their graduation rites in March 2012. According to the STC, the students violated the
school code of conduct.

The parents of the students in defense filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas data and asked the court to order STC to surrender and deposit all soft and
printed copies of the photographs, and to declare they have been illegally obtained in
violation of the children’s right to privacy.

The court dismissed the parents’ petition and ruled that, “STC did not violate the minors’
privacy rights.” According to the court, the school cannot be faulted for being “steadfast
in its duty of teaching its students to be responsible in their dealings and activities in
cyberspace, particularly in [social networks], when it enforced the disciplinary actions
specified in the Student Handbook, absent a showing that, in the process, it violated the
students’ rights.”

The decision of the court stated that the students cannot invoke the protection attached
to the right to informational privacy because the photos were seen by other STC
students, who in turn showed them to the computer teacher who reported the incident to
the school authorities. In the language of the court, “the photos, having been uploaded
on Facebook without restrictions as to who may view them, lost their privacy in some
way.” The court further added in its ruling that setting post privacy to ‘Friends Only’ is
not an assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another user who is not Facebook
friends with the source of the content. The decision read that, “Without proof that they
placed the photographs subject of this case within the ambit of their protected zone of
privacy, they cannot now insist that they have an expectation of privacy with respect to
the photographs in question.”

The decision of the court puts the burden of ensuring safeguarding privacy online users
and expects them to exercise due diligence in their online dealings and activities.
According to the court, not discounting the role of schools and parents in disciplining
and educating their children to be good digital citizens, self-regulation is the “best
means of avoiding privacy rights violations.”

5. Social Media Usage and Privacy Practices of Adolescent Girls

Facebook is the primary online gathering place for adolescent girls

Social media sites have become primary gathering places for Filipina adolescents. In
the Philippines, interviews and FGDs with teenagers aged 10-17 revealed that most of
them are in Facebook. Their participation in the social networking site was encouraged
by their friends where they connect with others, ’hang out’ and otherwise feel part of a
community. Many joined or formed groups to keep each other updated of school
activities and share common interest. Facebook as well has become a convenient way
to stay connected with family members in distant provinces or abroad. Most of the
participants use mobile phone to access Facebook, saying telecommunication
companies provide promo or at times unlimited access to Facebook for a very cheap
price.

Adolescent Girls have both good and bad experiences in using Facebook

The FGD revealed girls have both good and bad experiences in using Facebook. Many
shared it facilitated group activities such as school works in which creating a Facebook
group serves as a forum to discuss a certain project, providing real time feedback. One
girl who came from a broken family shared, it is also a safe space to communicate with
her mom without the knowledge of her father. However, some also talked about the
harassment they suffered in using Facebook including violations of their privacy. One
shared that a certain person grabbed the photo of her former boyfriend and edited it
alongside her photo. The edited photo was circulated online and she started receiving
demeaning comments. Another girl said her photo was used without her consent in a
Facebook contest called “Face-Off”, a game wherein two photos of girls are placed
alongside each other and the girl with the most number of likes is declared as the
winner or the most beautiful. People started posting comments including offensive
remarks and eventually led to physical fight.

Adolescent Girls do not diligently practice privacy in Facebook

The FGD revealed varying privacy practices in Facebook. As a response to the

harassment the girls experienced in Facebook, their action is to either block, ignore or
unfriend people on their friends list. Adjusting the privacy setting of their Facebook
account was not intuitive for them. Majority was aware of privacy concerns in Facebook
but did not see the importance of meticulously applying privacy settings in their
accounts.

Majority of the girls have over thousand friends in Facebook. Some said they add only
people they know, either they have a close relationship with the person or know them by
name. However, they shared as well that they do not mind adding another person in
their network as long as they have a common friend. One girl for example admitted she
has over 4,000 Facebook friends but only 20% of them are known to her personally.
Like other studies of teenagers’ social media practices, they are even happy to
overshare information online. The girls’ personal homepages contained information
about their daily activities with friends and families ranging from important occasions
such as birthdays, school events to activities they do on their idle time. They also post
status about their relationship may it be with friends or romantic ones.

6. Is privacy still present in social media? An Analysis of the Philippine

Experience 

Perspectives on Privacy 

The overview of the legal landscape of privacy in social media and the lived
experiences of adolescent girls in the Philippines showed contrasting views on privacy
online in the Philippines, it is either an anomaly or a human right.
Privacy is an Anomaly

The very purpose of the Internet and the Web is to increase the accessibility of persons
to information. Social media are created primarily for communication, often
interpersonal communication. It embeds itself into the lives of users and plays many
roles, providing entertainment, supporting friendships, and hosting debates. Facebook
identifies members of an online extended social community as “friends,” though often
the social connection may be rather loose, such as a classmate or “friend of a friend.”
Thus, a Facebook profile, which makes the user’s friend base visible to others, provides
a means of creating and displaying the person’s social sphere. Facebook also links its
users to others in the same “network”, or example, a university or place of employment.
Social networking platforms encourage users to post and share personal information as
part of their online social interactions.

The term hyper-sharing has been used to describe the rapid sharing and exchange of
information in the use of social media. In Facebook, everybody can track a person by
just following likes and shares. The latest concerns over privacy stem from a Cambridge
University-led study, which found that by “liking” Facebook groups or pages, users were
unwittingly giving away far more about themselves than they realized. [12] As the
Guardian reported, the researchers were able to infer “race, IQ, sexuality, substance
use, personality or political views” from the data – and so could anyone else who
wanted to.[13] The prevalence of federated authentication in which one has to use
Facebook account to be able to use a certain service has resulted as well to the
movement of information across border. Many are also in the habit of snacking in which
one access mobile net when there is an opportunity to do so, allowing one to keep track
of online behavior. In some instances context aware applications force many into
behavior that actually allows people to collect more information about them. It goes right
away to one’s computer. The pieces of information people routinely collect are location,
browsing behavior, relationship status, pictures and facial recognition and contacts. The
era of social media has seen personal data collected everywhere and every time with
many saying that privacy nowadays is an anomaly.[14]

Privacy is a fundamental human right.

The right to privacy is a human right and an element of various legal traditions, which

may restrain both government and private party action that threatens the privacy of
individuals. The international human rights law provides the universal framework against
which any interference in individual privacy rights must be assessed. In 2013, the
United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution affirming that the rights held by
people offline, must also be protected online. It called upon all States to respect and
protect the right to privacy in digital communication.[15]

According to some privacy lawyers, the Supreme Court’s decision contradicted a

person’s rights to privacy and a dangerous precedent as well as it appears the court
lacked understanding of the context and dynamics of social media interaction. Privacy
advocates underscore the existence of privacy in social media which is the person’s
right to selectively control who accesses his/her personal information, including contact
information and personal communication, and control over the contexts in which the
information can be used. The control over the contexts in which information is used
should be emphasized because of the ease with which web content can be recycled or
forwarded. This is particularly relevant in the STC case. One lawyer shared that STC
did not violate privacy of the students as the school was merely a recipient of
information. The school acted based on the photos presented to them. The photos
showed acts that were contrary to the school’s policy regarding students’ conduct. The
posting on the photos online, constituting a different act, was a repeat violation.
According to her, it was the friends of the students who violated the privacy. She
questioned the extent of authority of the friends to share and use the photos.

Policy Gap

Gender perspectives are significantly missing

Women’s ability to take advantage of social media is dependent on enabling policies

and environment that takes into account their lived experiences. For instance, women
were not consulted in the creation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, thus, they
called for the removal of the cybersex provision as it discriminates women. The
elements of the crime are not well-defined, too vague and overboard that it endangers
women’s sexual rights and freedoms. The crimino-legal approach to online violations
experienced by women generally looks at these online spaces as site of women’s
oppression and does not consider it a space for women’s empowerment. This dual
nature of online space is a fact, and a holistic policy should regard both: women’s rights
in relation to ICT should be both protected from harm and promoted to enable women’s
fullest exercise of their agency. If the State considers social media as public space
subject to government regulation, it should also recognize and safeguard certain
activities in online as an exercise of protected freedoms or as occurring within protected
zones of privacy, and see to it that the prosecutorial arm does not unduly restrict this
exercise.

For women’s rights advocates, the decision of the Supreme Court disproportionately
affects women and girls. Gender is important for understanding privacy in social media.
Women and girls’ vulnerability to privacy problems are rooted to the perceived notion
that they are inferiors, ancillaries and safe targets. Women’s privacy is sometimes
probed by others who implicitly assume that they should be more accountable for their
private conduct than their male counterparts. This attitude stemmed off from the
historically unequal power relations between women and men in public and private life,
patriarchy and men’s desire to control women’s sexuality.[16] Women’s privacy online is
often violated and policed due to imposed modesty and chastity and to ensure that
‘women stay in their place’. The case of high school students from a Catholic school,
who were not allowed to graduate or participate in graduation rites due to their alleged
immodest posts in Facebook, is just one of the many examples. STC legal counsel
shared this view and justified their action to discipline the students as guardian of
Filipino society’s moral.
Under the law schools have some form of authority over the students more so if they
are minors. They shed their right to privacy once they enter school. Internet blurs the
line as to when a student is inside or outside of school. However, one should question
the extent of authority the school has over the students. The school’s intention of
disciplining them is suspicious as well. Are they after the welfare of the students or the
reputation of the school as Catholic institution?

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

Affordability and accessibility to Internet

Despite increasing trend in Internet penetration in the country, many areas have limited
or at times no access at all to Internet and broadband services. There is an inadequate
communal/collective public access to ICT facilities throughout the country. For those
living in urban poor communities or rural areas, their means of access are public
Internet shops where they have to pay five pesos for every 10 minutes. Everybody
should have access to affordable Internet as this is a precursor to a person’s other
rights such as right to information. The FGD with Cebu students revealed that lack of
access to ICT/internet resulted to vulnerability of young people to privacy breaches.
One gay student shared, many times his Facebook account was vandalized and hacked
due to accessing it in Internet shops. He said, “The computer closes before I could log
out. I don’t check the time always as it takes away my Internet time for Facebooking.”
Further, he shared that his lack of knowledge for privacy measures in Facebook is due
to lack of regular access to Internet. Adding,

“The time I spent on Facebook is talking with friends rather than checking on privacy
settings. I have limited money and limited time.”

Social Media Education and Etiquette

Being considered social media capital of the world, there is a need to stress for social
media education and etiquette. The interview conducted with parents and teachers of
high school students underscored the need to use social media responsibly. All agreed
for the inclusion of social media etiquette in the education curriculum either as a
separate subject or integrated in good manners and right conduct. Social media can
attain many can things in terms of social good. How can social media be use to affect
positive change?

“Protection of teens is a parental responsibility. But the education of teens and their
parents to the growing privacy problem will require an educational effort that involves
schools, social networking organizations, and government agencies.”[17]

Women and Girls’ Safe Participation in Social Media

Ensuring women’s safety and privacy online requires the involvement of all online users,
Internet intermediaries, organizations, the state and the media. For women, the first
defense in protecting their privacy online is the awareness that both in an online and
offline environment they are entitled to have their human rights respected, protected
and fulfilled. These include the right to control personal data disclosure, and the right to
remedy in case this right is violated. It is important as well that women are responsible
social media users. There are precautionary measures women can exercise when
engaging in social media such as keeping their passwords safe, checking privacy and
security settings and making sure to log out of any accounts when finished surfing the
net.

Internet and mobile providers have a responsibility in ensuring the privacy and safety of
women using their services. It is imperative that they adequately inform users of
available safety features such as privacy mechanisms. There should also be an
effective redress mechanism that allows users to report violations they experience in
social networks and that women should be involved in developing such a mechanism.

A Woman-Centered Privacy Policy and Legislation

The availability of multiple platforms for posting and re-posting information and the
speed to which information is being shared has affected women’s privacy. Viral
circulation of private pictures and videos is a common problem in social media along
with unwanted comments, sexual solicitation, obscenity and stalking. A woman-
centered perspective on privacy is necessary because only with such a perspective can
we begin to evaluate how the proliferation of social media has affected the privacy
predicament. A central challenge to governance is the need to strengthen data privacy
and security measures that benefits women and allows them to better engagement
online. There has to be a principle based ecosystem that ensures the protection of
privacy of individuals but at the same one that is fluid enough to make sure there are no
hindrances to the exchange of information whether that is cross border or within the
country.

In addition, capacity building in the form of education and trainings for judges and
lawyer is essential to help them understand gender concerns. A regular training on
women’s rights, gender perspectives and women’s issues would be valuable in their
legal practice as it would give them a nuanced understanding of women’s problems and
concerns, therefore, it would result to better judgement.

New technologies as well presented new legal challenges. Cyber-related crimes such
as violence against women and invasion of privacy have implication on jurisdiction and
sometimes definition of the crime is not adequately defined or it is not defined at all.
There is a need too to conduct capacity-building on how law can catch up with new
technologies. Legal professionals themselves should take an effort to understand these
new technologies so that they are better guided in their decisions.

This paper was written by Karen Brutas for FMA.

[1] For this paper social media or social networking sites refers to Facebook, Twitter,
Tumbler, Instagram etc.
[2] http://wave.umww.com/assets/pdf/wave_6-2011_international_results.pdf

[3] http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2013/2013-
Southeast-Asia-Digital-Future-in-Focus

[4]http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-
internet/

[5] http://www.academia.edu/9642794/Political_Participation_through_Social_Media_in_
the_Philippines

[6] https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/tag/constitutional-law-chapter-v-the-right-to-
privacy/

[7] http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1819&context=facpub

[8]Supreme Court Resolution, GR No. 202666 of 2014.

[9] http://ojs.st-andrews.ac.uk/index.php/jtr/article/view/226/243

[10] http://pinoyspy.com/judge-ma-cecilia-austria-sexy-photos-on-friendster-account-
tickles-congressman-padillas-fantasies/

[11]Supreme Court Resolution, GR No. 202666 of 2014.

[12] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/11/facebook-users-reveal-
intimate-secrets

[13] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/privacy-facebook-
lesbians-relax-online

[14] http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1394/1312%2523

[15] The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, Report of the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx

[16] WLB’s Unpublished paper on ICT, VAW and Sexuality

[17] http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1394

In response to developments in technology and the ever-growing use of multiple forms of social
media in the Philippines, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
R.A. 10175 deals with many crimes, including Cyberlibel. Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 states:

“(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Art. 355 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which
may be devised in the future.”

On the other hand, Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, referred to in R.A. 10175, provides:

“Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to
the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.”

Culled from these provisions are the following elements of Cyberlibel, as punished under
Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code:

a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance.

b. The imputation must be made publicly.

c. The imputation must be malicious.

d. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.

e. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed. (Reyes, Luis B., Revised Penal Code, Fifteenth Edition, 2001, page 932.)

f. The imputation was done through the use of a computer system or any other similar means.
(Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175)

Malice is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such remarks
with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof.
(Yuchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, G.R. No. 184315, 25
November 2009)

Also, even if the name of the person is not indicated in the post, the owner of the post is still
liable so long as the other persons who read the libelous post can identify the person alluded to.
Thus, in the case of Philippine Journalists’ vs Thoenen (G.R. No. 143372, 13 December
2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the element of identifiability is met if it is shown that at least
a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement.

On the matter of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court held that the public interest involved in
freedom of speech and the individual interest in the maintenance of private honor and reputation
need to be accommodated one to the other. In the balancing of these interests, the law prohibits
the reckless disregard of private reputation by publishing or circulating defamatory statements
without any bona fide effort to ascertain the truth thereof. (Erwin Tulfo vs. People of the
Philippines and Atty. Carlos T. So, G.R. No. 161032, 16 September 2008.)
A violation of R.A. 10175, particularly Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 (Cyberlibel) can result, not only
in the filing of a criminal complaint, but also a civil complaint for damages.

Article 2219, paragraph (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case
of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. This provision of law establishes the right of an
offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages for injury
to his feelings and reputation. The offended party is likewise allowed to recover punitive or
exemplary damages. (Occena vs. Icamina, G.R. No. 82146, 22 January 1990)