1

Ma. Josie Mae Abueva

Andrei Quinn Amper

Midori Nebre

Rhee Jan Talo

Carlnell Jaze Tan

Cyberlibel: Opposing Freedom of Expression in Cyberspace and Modern Philippines

The Internet has altered every aspect of our lives including how we gather information,

communicate with friends and family, and conduct our businesses. But the good always comes

with the bad. While the Internet has revolutionized every sphere of human activity, it also

facilitated the criminal activities of nefarious individuals. The legal system of the Philippines

concerning the matters of cyberspace has become a serious matter since the start of the new

millennia. Recently, it seems that we are drawn towards an unclear stage of development of the

system that aims to protect the people of the country regarding internet use. As stated by

Gonzales (2012), the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) the Philippines is yet to

have a national policy for safeguarding from online threats like viruses and malware in the

digital space. These issues necessitate a piece of legislation to protect netizens from potential

threats. Various threats, including cyberlibel, are published in the wide scope of the internet are

considered in the creation of laws regarding cyberspace. Like in the case of one of 2012’s most

controversial laws, Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act 10175. Despite the law

protecting potential targets from Cyberlibel, it should be abolished because there is no standard

for which statement is considered as cyberlibel, which in turn suppresses the peoples’ freedom of
 2

speech on various issues online unjustifiably, and because the imprisonment duration of

committing cyberlibel, which is still under RA 10175 lasts up to sixteen years, while the Libel

and Related Provisions under Act No. 3815 in the Philippine Institution lasts only up to 4 years,

and the former’s conditions for sending a person to prison under the context of cyberlibel is so

vague that it makes punishing people for committing such acts unjustified and needs to be

reconsidered.

Cyberlibel is a term used to describe defamation that takes place within cyberspace,

meaning through the Internet. This includes false and damaging statements made towards

another person through e-mail, message boards, blogs, chatrooms, on Web sites, or any other

Internet-based communication medium (Beal, 2014). This means that online statements against

the reputation of an individual or an entry may result in Cybercrime lawsuits from committing an

act of libel, but with the punishments within the Cybercrime law. According to the Official

Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines (2012), Republic Act 10175 of Cyberlibel under the

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was signed into law last September 12, 2012, by President

Benigno S. Aquino III. The law was enacted by the 15th Congress of the Philippines. The law is

divided into 8 chapters which are composed of 31 sections that contain matters on

cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, illegal usage of data, identity theft, and the

controversial cyberlibel. This new law defined and punished various offenses, which may be

grouped as follows: offenses against confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data

systems; computer-related offenses, such as computer forgery, fraud, and identity theft, and

content-related offenses, such as cybersex, child pornography and, most significantly, cyberlibel.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 vaguely defines cyberlibel. It penalizes acts of libel as

defined under the Revised Penal Code, but imposes a higher penalty because of the use of
 3

information and communication technology, which in turn automatically makes it a crime within

the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Therefore, more severe punishments are given.

In Disini, the Supreme Court explained this qualifying circumstance arises from the fact that in

using the technology in question, the offender often evades identification and can reach far more

victims or cause greater harm.

According to an article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (2012), the cyberlibel

provision was inserted into the act by Senator Tito Sotto without any public hearing over the

matter. In the last minute, he inserted a libel clause in the anti-cybercrime law, according to

Senate records and his chief of staff. Journalist and blogger Raïssa Robles revealed that Sotto's

Chief of Staff, Atty. Hector Villacorta, confirmed that his boss added libel as a "content-related

offense" in Republic Act No. 10175 that was signed in 2012 by President Benigno Aquino III.

Sotto, who has received heavy criticism online for allegedly plagiarizing the work of several

people, including US bloggers and even the late American senator Robert Kennedy, earlier

warned his critics to be wary of the anti-cybercrime law. He claimed that he was "cyberbullied"

on the Internet and decided to propose this cyberlibel provision. "Ako na po yata ang kauna-

unahang opisyal na naging biktima ng cyberbullying. Buti na lang mayroon na tayong batas na

tinatalakay diyan," said Sotto (2012). The senators who approved the anti-cybercrime law

proposal on third and final reading were Sotto, Loren Legarda, Francis Escudero, Gregorio

Honasan II, Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III, Pia Cayetano, Bong Revilla Jr., Jinggoy Ejercito-

Estrada, Panfilo Lacson, Lito Lapid, Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Ralph Recto, and Manny

Villar. This issue began and held in Metro Manila, on Monday the Twenty-fifth day of July two

thousand eleven. The recent case of Maria Ressa brought up the Cybercrime law once more,
 4

which had attracted public attention in 2014 when opposition constitutionally challenged its

cyberlibel provision, among others.

The law lessens the spread of false information throughout the internet. According to Lim

(2012), reckless ranting on the internet is soaring uncontrollably and the practice of online

bashing is dangerously being considered by many to be part of their Constitutional right to free

expression but the law will protect the people from being targeted with false information posted

on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. The law tries to protect people’s reputations

while also finding the right balance between protection, and the right to freedom of speech to

prevent acts such as obscenity and defamation through the internet (Zvulony 2012). It is worth

mentioning that Philippine authorities deemed cyberlibel sufficiently important enough that the

Congress enacted the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, precisely to deal with several crimes

committed online, including cyberlibel to protect citizens from being targeted, said Lee &

Villonco (2012). One of the problems with the internet is that it is full of false information posted

by users, and people tend to believe in such without confirming its validity. To keep track of

false information spread throughout, especially damaging ones. The Cybercrime law can be

utilized by the person being victimized and can sue a person responsible for such an act. Thus, it

will make the users of the internet more responsible, thinking twice before spreading invalid

information throughout the internet, therefore lessening offensive opinions on social networking

sites, while also validating information by finding other sources that may further validate the

claims or statements found on the internet, while also suppressing unnecessary widespread

criticism from journalists, human rights groups and other political parties.

The Cybercrime Act presents a wide range of problems, most especially on violating

freedom of speech and expression. It suppresses people from expressing their freedom of speech
 5

on specific issues online. A widespread dilemma over the so-called “E-Martial Law” is spreading

through the Philippine Cyberspace setting because it seems that cyberlibel hampers the right of

oneself to express through the usage of the internet. According to Sanchez (2012), “Our libel law

is incompatible with The Filipino’s freedom of speech because being a democratic country, one

of the most important rights given to the citizens of the Philippines is to express and speak out

opinions on several issues that might affect the welfare of the community.” Regardless of media,

cyberlibel is understood not as a mere crime but a restriction on free speech. Our democracy

embraces that such restrictions must be minimal, given this right’s fundamental nature. Republic

Act 10175 is oppressive and dangerous. It demonizes the computer user and extends its reach to

an internet user’s freedom of expression and speech according to Guingona III (2012). People

who post on Facebook, Twitter and write comments on news websites can be sued for libel in

much more insidious ways than those in the traditional news media. According to Brion (2019),

“In my view, cyberlibel provision, insofar as it qualified the crime of libel, violated our cherished

freedom of speech because it unreasonably increased the prohibitive effect of libel law on online

speech.” There should be other means crafted to give people protection against cyberlibel that

are appropriate to the Internet. As a person using the internet, we don’t want to be limited and

restricted when expressing ourselves. Every user of the internet is bounded by his/her rules of

rationality and values that dictate his words used in posting or tweeting. This is a clear violation

of the international and Philippine rules on the rights of people. People have the right to practice

expressing opinions through social media without being punished for doing so.

The ambiguity on the imposition of fines, punishments, or penalties is a great problem

that must be addressed. The usual libel has a penalty of 4 years in prison, while online libel when

committed and proven yields a punishment of imprisonment up to 16 years (Panela, 2012). There
 6

are no specified criteria for cyberlibel and it is very different from the 4-year penalty from

committing libel. As stated by CMFR (2012), “The libel provisions of the RPC have been

problematic for free expression and press freedom since 1932, when the RPC was implemented,

primarily because of the penalty of imprisonment, which has been used in many instances to

silence journalists.” This shows how the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines limits the

dissemination of information of many journalists that contradicts in revealing the actual

situations within the country. Thus, it does not only restrain press, but it also prevents the actual

emancipation and responsibility of media; to inform and to create awareness about serious issues

that need to be addressed. According to Brion (2019), the increased penalty for Internet libel

effectively leads to self-censorship on the Internet and unreasonably limits an otherwise robust

medium for debate and discussion of public issues. Online dialogue may contain both libelous

and non-libelous matters; the deterrent effect of the harsher penalty can prevent even

constitutionally protected non-libelous speech from being uttered. Furthermore, it certainly

conveys on how cyber libel confines for creating an environment that excels in robust research

and studies as a reason that it deteriorates information from being openly-used and contained just

to avoid any castigation. In addition, it does not only prohibit people from having rights to speak

and be heard, especially in social media where there is a vast medium of communication used in

sharing of knowledge and information among different groups of people. It also denies the

transparency of the institution as it manipulates and censors varying content to be published, not

considering the democratic rights apprehended by the law. As per stated by Roque (2012)

“Conviction for Cyberlibel now comes with a definite prison term. Increased prison term

provided by new law makes convicts ineligible for parole.” Henceforth, the cyberlibel provision

is a threat to the constitutional freedom of the people, criminalizing it invalidates the civil
 7

liberties of the society. It suppresses freedom of expression as this legislation doesn’t only

discourage the free-will thoughts of many but it also obscures the truth from being told. Not to

mention that, there are irrationality of provisions and punishments that the cyberlibel has than the

actual forms of libel under the Revision Penal Code which deter the minds of people having the

fear of gaining possible penalties in accordance to the criminal suit applied.

The act in the context of the law is vague and broad. As Senator Miriam Defensor

Santiago (2012) said, “There are problems on the provisions on Cyberlibel. As a citizen of this

country, we must not allow ourselves to be bounded by vague and hasty rules. Those who

inserted the provisions on Cyberlibel are very liable of not drafting the provisions carefully

without public hearing too. “ As lawmakers, vigorous study and multiple public hearings over

the matter is required before inserting such provisions. The law provides a broad and vague

standard for cyber libel in the country, without adequate protection provided for journalistic

expression or opinions said Krahulcova (2019). Philippines must work towards amending such

provisions, to bring them in line with their commitments as a signatory to the ICCPR. Roque

(2013) said that cyberlibel, as defined by the law is vague and overly broad. Given the nature of

the internet and computer systems, it will be difficult to identify who will be held liable. The

hasty inclusion of cyberlibel by senator Sotto was never reflected in any piece of legislative

document that was made publicly available making it. The ambiguity of Cyberlibel makes it an

ineffective provision in the law, therefore it must be removed or revised. Regarding Senator

Santiago’s statement about Cyberlibel having vague and hasty rules, citizens of the country

following such rules may be considered unjust. Laws are made so that people are treated equally.

Cyberlibel under the Cybercrime Act should have been drafted carefully, considering the

individuals to be protected and punished by the law. Because in its current state, it is difficult to
 8

identify the person responsible for the act because of the insufficient technology to realistically

trace people guilty of the act. Furthermore, the Cyberlibel provision under the Cybercrime Act

imposed sanctions higher than the actual libel law provided by the Revised Penal Code.

The Cyberlibel provision under the Cybercrime Act should be abolished because it

invalidates justice and punishment instead of ideally protecting potential targets from it.

Imprecise standards on what statements can be considered as Cyberlibel revokes the people's

freedom of speech online unjustifiably. The law's context is obscure that crimes under Cyberlibel

should be reconsidered and given justice to. The Cyberlibel provision under the Cybercrime Act

did not only consider internet use to be a qualifying aggravating circumstance that cannot be

offset by mitigating circumstances; it also presents a wide range of problems, most especially the

violation of freedom of speech and expression; the ambiguity on the imposition of fines,

punishments, or penalties as a problem that must be addressed; the circumstances under the

provision is so vague and broad in the context of the law. These effects, taken together, unduly

burdened freedom of speech as these extended beyond what was necessary to prevent the

commission of Cyberlibel. The society should never see the internet as an instrument of fear.

Instead, the internet should give people the power to empower and demand responsive

governance, justice, and public accountability, and at the same time progress a better definition

for democracy.
 9

References

Beal, V. (n.d.). Cyberlibel. Retrieved from

https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/cyberlibel.html

Brion, J. A. (2019, February 20). Thoughts from the past on Cyberlibel. Retrieved from

https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/02/20/thoughts-from-the-past-on-cyberlibel/

Divina, N. (2019, February 24). About cyber libel. Retrieved from

https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2019/02/25/about-cyber-libel/

INFOSEC (2014, October 29). What is Online Defamation /a.k.a. Cyberlibel and How it

Pertains to some Contemporary Legal Systems. Retrieved from

https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/online-defamation-k-cyber-libel-pertains-

contemporary-legal-systems/

Inquirer, P. D. (2012, September 28). Inquirer's concerns on Cyberlibel 'exaggerated'. Retrieved

from https://opinion.inquirer.net/37626/inquirers-concerns-on-cyberlibel-exaggerated

Krahulcova, L. (2019, February 14). Philippine government must drop cyber libel

charges against Maria Ressa. Retrieved from https://www.accessnow.org/philippine-

government-must-drop-cyber-libel-charges-against-maria-ressa/

Lee, K., & Villonco, J. P. (2013). An Examination of Cyber-libel in the Philippines: A

Study of the Current State of Online Defamation [VOL 57]. Retrieved from

http://ateneolawjournal.com/main/varticle/677

Lim, F. (2012, September 26). Is the place of access the proper venue to file an Internet

libel case? Retrieved from https://business.inquirer.net/84102/is-the-place-of-access-the-

proper-venue-to-file-an-internet-libel-case
 10

Malig, J. (2012, September 19). Sotto added libel in anti-cybercrime law. Retrieved from

https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/09/18/12/sotto-added-libel-anti-cybercrime-law

Mafe, Lin, J., Linsao, J., DeDios, A., Mel, LahingPikutin, … First Time Comment. (2013,

February 24). Who inserted that libel clause in the Cybercrime Law at the last minute?

Retrieved from https://www.raissarobles.com/2012/09/18/who-inserted-that-libel-clause-

in-the-cybercrime-law-at-the-last-minute/comment-page-2/

Olea, R. V. (2014, February 19). Cybercrime law to be used against critics, netizens, groups

fear. Retrieved from https://www.bulatlat.com/2014/02/19/cybercrime-law-to-be-used-

against-critics-netizens-groups-fear/

Olea, R. V., Netizens, & Toronto Filipino Newspaper Serving the Greater Toronto Area. (2013,

February 1). Justices cite loopholes in Cybercrime law. Retrieved from

https://www.bulatlat.com/2013/01/16/justices-cite-loopholes-in-cybercrime-law/

The Daily Tribune (2019, March 4). About Cyber Libel - DivinaLaw: Law Firm in the

Philippines: Law Firm in Makati: Litigation Law Firm in the Philippines. Retrieved from

https://divinalaw.com/about-cyber-libel/