Vloggers:

 Based on studies, 80% of Filipinos use social media platforms as their source of
news and information
 All Filipinos, celebrities and everyday folks alike, have the right to express their
beliefs and convictions and to participate in activities in line with these beliefs.
The Constitution guarantees our freedom of thought, expression, and
participation. But does it go without boundary?
 Fortunately, there are laws applicable to every vlogger that make sure they don’t
trample on law and order as well as other people’s rights.

Fake news?
Cause of action? Against the state – crime against public order

Unlawful Use of Means of Publication and Unlawful Utterances

The crime of unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances
contemplates even mere possibility to cause danger or damage brought by the
publication of the false news which may cause public disorder or damage to the interest
or credit of the State. Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the following acts
as unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances:

1. Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing, lithography or

any other means of publication, as news any false news which may endanger
the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State;
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by
praising, justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means
or by words, utterances or speeches;
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or
document without proper authority, or before they have been published
officially; or
4. Printing, publishing or distributing books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets
which do not bear the real printer’s name, or which are classified as
anonymous.
The following are the elements of the crime of Unlawful use of means of publication
and unlawful utterances:

1. Any person who commits any of the acts mentioned under Article 154 of the
Revised Penal Code;
 2. That the offender must know that the news is false.

Sample: Covid-19 fake news posts

Should there be actual damage? - No.

The penalty for violations of Article 154 is imprisonment of arresto mayor, but the fine
was increased to a range of P40,000 to P200,000, pursuant to  Republic No. 10951 (“An
Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is
Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, amending for the Purpose
Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as “The Revised Penal Code”, as Amended”), which
was signed by the President on 29 August 2019.

-----

Article 154 does not cover all news which may be shown to be false. The RPC covers
only false news “which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest
or credit of the State”. Fake news affecting individuals, on the other hand, may be
covered by other laws or provisions of the RPC, including libel.

But with Cybercrime –

1. Cyberlibel

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or
of a vice or 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 to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

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.

The following are the elements of cyber libel, based on Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175, in
relation to Articles 353 and 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; allegation of discreditable act or
condition concercning another; pambibintang

b. The imputation must be made publicly, which requires that at least one other person
must have seen the libelous post, in addition to the author and the person defamed or
alluded to in the post; publication

c. The imputation must be malicious, which means that the author of the libelous post
made such post with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard as to the
truth or falsity thereof. (Yunchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation,
G.R. No. 184315, 25 November 2009.); malice - with reckless disregard whether it is false
or not

d. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead,
which requires that the post must identify the person defamed, or at the very least, the
person defamed is identifiable by a third person; identifiable - need not be named so
long as maa identify through descriptions

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 which may be devised in the future. (Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175)

Persons liable:

1. The author of the libelous post, which includes the person who shall publish,
exhibit or cause the publication of the libelous post. The person who created the
libelous post would fall under this category.
2. The editor or business manager, in case the libelous post is contained in a book,
pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or serial publication.

Safe Spaces Act “Bawal Bastos” Act – unwanted sexist remarks;

a. Vlogger in Benguet sentenced to pay a fie of PhP150,000.00 for violation of
the act by his gender-based online sexual harassment (“kulang ka lang sa
dilig”) (pag nagkita tayo dadalhin kita sa walang hanggan”
2. It should be noted that an employee may be dismissed only if the grounds
mentioned in the pre-dismissal notice were the ones cited for termination of
employment. (Erector Advertising Sign Groups v. Cloma, (2010))
3. These rulings reinforce the State policy of protecting the workers from being
terminated without cause and without affording them the opportunity to explain
their side of the controversy. (Deoferio v. Intel Technology, (2014))