RESEARCH PAPER IN

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Submitted by:

Gracer Erick D. Enriquez

LIB 1-E

Submitted to:

Atty. Jose Edmund Guillen

Introduction

Libel committed through the internet before is a novel issue in the Philippines. Unlike other highly industrialized countries such as the United States of America and the countries in Europe where the developments in technology has urged such countries to enact new laws in order to update existing laws, the Philippines before has no law on internet libel. In 2000 however, the Philippine legislature enacted the Republic Act 8792, otherwise known as the E-Commerce Act which paved way to A.M. NO. 01-7-01-SC - RE: Rules on Electronic Evidence which was made applicable in the Revised Rules of Court. Although the E-Commerce Act did not specifically provide a provision on internet libel, it none the less provided for a the liability of the service providers in case the electronic data message or electronic document is unlawful and the service provider fall in any of the circumstance presented in Section 30(a) of Republic Act 8792.Jurisprudence on the issue of libel committed through the internet is not available. As of October 2009, there are was no Jurisprudence as decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in such matter. There have been a number of cases filed in court involving libel committed through the internet but such cases which will be further discussed in this study have been discontinued after an amicable settlement or are still pending before the lower courts.

By September 12, 2012, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded as Republic Act No. 10175, is now an approved law in the Philippines. It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel. While hailed for penalizing illegal acts done via the Internet that were not covered by old laws, the act has been criticized for its provision on criminalizing libel, which is perceived to be a curtailment in freedom of expression.On October 9, 2012, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a temporary restraining order, stopping implementation of the Act for 120 days, and extended it on 5 February 2013 "until further orders from the court." On May 24, 2013, The DOJ announced that the contentious online libel provisions of the law had been dropped. On February 18, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that section 5 of the law decision was constitutional, and that sections 4-C-3, 7, 12 and 19 were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines just upheld the constitutionality of most parts of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, including the contentious provision that punishes online libel. However, with this new ruling of the Supreme Court, a person or entity who posts something (in words or pictures) which can be proven false, and is intended to harm the reputation of another by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others may be arrested, detained, and imprisoned because of libel. Statement of the problem

Is the Cybercrime Prevention Act provision on internet libel (which was signed into law by President Aquino in September, 2012, and now has been declared as constitutional by the Supreme Court), a violation of the Bill of Rights in the 1987 Constitution ?Definition of TermsLibel - a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.Online - controlled by or connected to another computer or to a network.Defamation - is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation as well as other various kinds of defamation that retaliate against groundless criticism.

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.Social Media - are computer-mediated tools that allow people to create, share or exchange information, ideas, and pictures/videos in virtual communities and networks. Social media is defined as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content. Furthermore, social media depend on mobile and web-based technologies to create highly interactive platforms through which individuals and communities share, co-create, discuss, and modify user-generated content. They introduce substantial and pervasive changes to communication between businesses, organizations, communities, and individuals.Libel in the Philippines

In Philippine jurisdiction, the truth is not always a defense. While something is true, if the purpose is to besmirch, then liability still exists. To be liable for libel, the following elements must be shown to exist: (1) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (2) publication of the charge; (3) identity of the person defamed; and (4) existence of malice.

As a rule, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive is shown (Art. 354, RPC). As an exception, the presumption of malice does not apply in privileged communication, which may be absolute or conditional.Libel in the Philippines is defined by Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code as A libel is a public and malicious imputation of the 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.Libel is a form of defamation or defamacion in the Spanish text of the Codigo Penal of which the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines originated from._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Cebu Citizens-Press Council (2013). Basic Philippine law on libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basic-philippine-law-on-libel/2. Abogadomo.com (2014) Libel Laws of the Philippines. . Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libel-laws-of-the-philippinesLibel is a form of defamation or defamacion in the Spanish text of the Codigo Penal of which the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines originated from. It is that which tends to injure the reputation or to diminish the esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the plaintiff. (MVRS Pub. Inc.vs. Islamic Dawah Council of the Phils., Inc., 230 Phil. 241)The protection of any person whether natural or juridical for any interference on his privacy or attacks on his honouror reputation is protected under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as provided in Article 12 thereof to wit:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.In libel cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but what the words used by him mean. Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory character of words used in the following manner. Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Cebu Citizens-Press Council (2013). Basic Philippine law on libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basic-philippine-law-on-libel/2. Abogadomo.com (2014) Libel Laws of the Philippines. . Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libel-laws-of-the-philippinesare sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule. [Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988) citing U.S. v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918)]An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstances which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for a mans reputation is the estimate in which others hold him in, not the good opinion which he has of himself. [Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51 (1995)] On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement. In the case of Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807) the Supreme Court ruled that in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable (People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962),_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Cebu Citizens-Press Council (2013). Basic Philippine law on libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basic-philippine-law-on-libel/

2. Abogadomo.com (2014) Libel Laws of the Philippines. . Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libel-laws-of-the-philippines

*(People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962)

*Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51 (1995)

*Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988)*U.S. v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918)*Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807)*People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962although it is not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116). In an earlier case, the high court also declared that defamatory matter which does not reveal the identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast, affords no ground of action unless it be shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the personality of the individual defamed. (Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons 42 Phil. 760). In the Philippines, libel is still a criminal offense. It is defamation in its very essence, but covers published work on print, television and other traditional media. The same is now true for new media like the internet. This online/internet libel law, however, punishes only the original author of the post. Those who liked, shared, retweeted or re-blogged a post will not be criminally liable, unless (and I am presuming here) the person added a comment that may deemed to be libelous by a complainant. In this case, I am deducing that he/she becomes an original author of his/her comment and may have to defend himself/herself in court if charged with online libel.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Cebu Citizens-Press Council (2013). Basic Philippine law on libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basic-philippine-law-on-libel/

2. Abogadomo.com (2014) Libel Laws of the Philippines. . Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libel-laws-of-the-philippines

*(People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962)

*Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51 (1995)

*Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988)*U.S. v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918)*Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons 42 Phil. 760Libel in the USIn the United States, there are NO criminal defamation, libel or insult laws on the federal level. Libel is deemed as a civil offense, where a person or entity suing for libel may only collect monetary damages from the person who published or posted libelous materials. This is meant to remind people or entity not to abuse press freedom or freedom of expression. Law.com states that while it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it needs only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. But rules on libel covering government officials and other public figures are special, based on US Supreme Court decisions. To uphold the right of people to express opinions or fair comment on public figures is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, therefore, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Malicious means the defendant knows that what he or she is publishing is false, or has reckless regard of whether it is in fact true or false, because of the intent to injure a persons or an entitys reputation. However, it is important to note that there are 17 states that have criminal libel. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Punay, E. (2014). Internet libel in cyber crime law constitutional. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/02/19/1292003/internet-libel-cyber-crime-law-constitutional

2. Merueas, M. (2014). Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional SC. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/348945/scitech/technology/internet-libel-in-cybercrime-law-constitutional-sc/While rarely prosecuted, it still exists in the books of Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, along with Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. This is true, despite the US Supreme Courts ruling more than 40 years ago in Garrison v. Louisiana, that state criminal libel statutes that permit prosecution for publication of truthful information violate the First Amendment. According to the website of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP): Traditional journalists are almost never prosecuted under these statutes, leaving online content providers and other publishers to serve as targets of allegedly defamed people who wield significant political power. In the absence of a court decision declaring them unconstitutional, they remain good law. RCFP warns that criminal libel may be used to silence online publishers. A blogger or other online content provider in a state like Colorado or Wisconsin would be prudent to take some time and try to identify any community members who have influence with a prosecutors office and may try to exert that power if they are ever the subject of widely published reports, even wholly truthful ones. This principle has been recognized to be of vital importance, especially where a group or class of persons, as in the case at bar, claim to have been defamed, _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Punay, E. (2014). Internet libel in cyber crime law constitutional. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/02/19/1292003/internet-libel-cyber-crime-law-constitutional

2. Merueas, M. (2014). Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional SC. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/348945/scitech/technology/internet-libel-in-cybercrime-law-constitutional-sc/for it is evident that the larger the collectivity, the more difficult it is for the individual member to prove that the defamatory remarks apply to him. (Cf. 70 ALR 2d. 1384).How is libel committed.

Under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, libel may be committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.

Who are the persons responsible. Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted. Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Diola, C. (2014). SC: Online libel in cybercrime law constitutional. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/02/18/1291806/sc-online-libel-cybercrime-law-constitutional

2. Olea, R. (2014) Online libel, other provisions assailed in appeals vs SC ruling on Cybercrime Law. Retrived on April 4, 2015 from http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/03/15/online-libel-other-provisions-assailed-in-appeals-vs-sc-ruling-on-cybercrime-law/unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.It is important to remember that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true; if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed. Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends.Libel And Its Rise On The Internet

The Internet has had a massive impact on many areas of personal and professional life. Defamation laws and libel lawsuits are one such area and many individuals, businesses, and website owners have fallen foul of the belief that they can write anything about anybody when they are online. In light of the increase in libelous comments governments, judges, and courts _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Diola, C. (2014). SC: Online libel in cybercrime law constitutional. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/02/18/1291806/sc-online-libel-cybercrime-law-constitutional

2. Olea, R. (2014) Online libel, other provisions assailed in appeals vs SC ruling on Cybercrime Law. Retrived on April 4, 2015 from http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/03/15/online-libel-other-provisions-assailed-in-appeals-vs-sc-ruling-on-cybercrime-law/

3. Reputation Hawk (2013) Online Defamation And Your Rights. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.reputationhawk.com/onlinedefamation.htmlaround the world have extended their own laws and regulations to include comments made online as well as in other more traditional forms of media.In recent years, defamation or libel on the Internet has become one of the hot topics of Internet law. Many gallons of both real and virtual ink have been spilled in computer and legal journals, as well as on-line electronic fora, as the impact of "terrestrial" defamation law on both suppliers and consumers of Internet services has been debated. Users of the Internet are more likely than ordinary citizens to be found publishing comments which are actionable as defamatory, and what problems (or, looking at it from the other side of the fence, opportunities) arise if those who are the victims of defamatory comments on the net attempt to seek compensation by taking legal action.While defamation, in the shape of slanderous and libelous comments, has been around for many decades, the problem has been exacerbated by the advance of the Internet as a reporting and social tool. While comments made in newspapers and even on the TV have a limited shelf life, those made on the Internet can remain on the website where they were first added as well as on other blogs and websites and even in the cache of search engines for many more years.

Fortunately, this same problem also leads to a possible resolution. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________* Reputation Hawk (2013) Online Defamation And Your Rights. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.reputationhawk.com/onlinedefamation.htmlWhile successfully trying an online defamation case can prove difficult, positive comments can be used to beat defamatory comments by consigning them to lower search engine positions. This may not be an absolute solution but it can certainly help to rebuild character and improve online branding following a defamatory attack.Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 defined

Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is a Philippine Republic Act signed by President Aquino on 12 September 2012. It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel, but the new Act received mixed reactions upon its enactment especially on the grounds of freedom of expression, freedom of speech and data security. Several petitions are currently submitted to the Supreme Court of the Philippines questioning the constitutionality of the Act.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is the first law in the Philippines which specifically criminalizes computer crime, which prior to the passage of the law had no strong legal precedent in Philippine jurisprudence. ________________________________________________________________1. Reputation Hawk (2013) Online Defamation And Your Rights. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.reputationhawk.com/onlinedefamation.html2. Wikipedia (2015). Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime_Prevention_Act_of_20123. Tupas, T. (2014) Online libel legal, SC rules. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/578801/online-libel-legal-sc-rulesThe Act, divided into 31 sections split across eight chapters, criminalizes several types of offenses, 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 377 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, also criminalizing them when committed using a computer system. Finally, the Act provides for a "catch-all" clause, wherein all offenses currently punishable under the Revised Penal Code are likewise punishable under the Act when committed using a computer, with corresponding stricter penalties than if the crimes were punishable under the Revised Penal Code alone.Enforcement and Implementation

According to the said law, law enforcement authorities, such as the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall be responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this Act. The Department of Justice (DOJ) shall be responsible for assisting in investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer systems or data, in collection of electronic evidence of criminal offense and in ensuring the provisions of the law are complied with. ________________________________________________________________1. Wikipedia (2015). Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime_Prevention_Act_of_20122. Tupas, T. (2014) Online libel legal, SC rules. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/578801/online-libel-legal-sc-rulesLibel defined under Republic Act No. 10175According to Republic Act No. 10175, Libel is the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 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. The Supreme Court has come out with its decision on the validity of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act. In its decision penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad, the High Court found most of the law to be consistent with the Constitution and only found the following provisions to be unconstitutional:

Section 4 (c)(3) (unsolicited commercial communications);

Section 12 ( real-time collection of traffic data);

Section 19 (restricting or blocking access to computer data); also known as the take-down clause as it authorized the Department of Justice to restrict computer data on the basis of prima facie or initially observed evidence.

Section 5, which is aiding or abetting in the commission of a cybercrime and to the attempt to commit a cybercrime, was declared unconstitutional only in the following cases: child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications, and online libel and will apply to all other cybercrimes outlined in the law. ________________________________________________________________1. Wikipedia (2015). Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime_Prevention_Act_of_20122. Tupas, T. (2014) Online libel legal, SC rules. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/578801/online-libel-legal-sc-rulesMoreover, Section 7 which provides that apart from prosecution under the law, a cyber criminal can also be prosecuted for same offenses under the Revised Penal Code is unconstitutional only in relation to sections 4(c)(4) (online libel) and 4(c)(2) (child pornography).As to the provisions on online libel, the SC said that this is constitutional but only the original author of the material shall be held liable. Those who share, like, retweet or reply to the libelous material will not be prosecuted.

Constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10175 according to the Supreme Court

In September 2012, the Philippines put into effect the Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Before this law, authorities were powerless against cybercriminals. It deals with child pornography, hacking, cybersex, cyber squatting and other illegal online activities. But many consider the new law to be inherently flawed and rallied against it, especially with its inclusion of a libel clause that prevents people from making negative comments about government policies or officials, lest you want to be jailed for 12 years.

The Tribunal upheld the constitutionality of online libel, saying the provision in the new law merely incorporates what had been stated in the Revised Penal Code. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Pedrasa, I. (2014) SC tempers Anti-Cybercrime Act, but Internet libel a go. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/18/14/sc-declares-constitutional-internet-libel

2. Olea, R. (2014) Online libel, other provisions assailed in appeals vs SC ruling on Cybercrime Law. Retrived on April 4, 2015 from http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/03/15/online-libel-other-provisions-assailed-in-appeals-vs-sc-ruling-on-cybercrime-law/The SC went further in making the distinction between online libel committed against public officials or public figures as againstonline libel committed against private or ordinary persons.Because of the uproar, RA 10175 was suspended and a 120-day Temporary Restraining Order was put in place. In January 2013, those who lobbied against the law and those who support it, presented their oral arguments in front of Supreme Court judges. And now, after months waiting for the outcome, the Supreme Court has finally given its decision regarding the constitutionality of some of the provisions.

The Supreme Court ruled that the libel clause is constitutional which means anyone who engages in defamatory posts can be sent to jail. But there is somewhat of a silver lining in the SCs ruling, as it stated that only the original author can be accused and sent behind bars. Those who like, share or comment on the post will not be held liable.

Still, isnt this a bit too much? The internet is supposed to be free, and deeming the libel clause constitutional is just absurd. Is the government, its agencies and officials, that sensitive that they cannot take criticism? Where will people voice their concerns and angst against the government? To make the long story short, people in the Philippines are not happy with the Supreme Courts decision._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Pedrasa, I. (2014) SC tempers Anti-Cybercrime Act, but Internet libel a go. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/18/14/sc-declares-constitutional-internet-libel

2. Olea, R. (2014) Online libel, other provisions assailed in appeals vs SC ruling on Cybercrime Law. Retrived on April 4, 2015 from http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/03/15/online-libel-other-provisions-assailed-in-appeals-vs-sc-ruling-on-cybercrime-law/Questions on the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10175The SC ruled that imposition of cyber libel on the original author of the post is constitutional, but clarified the same is unconstitutional insofar as it penalizes those who simply receive the post and react to it. This means only the source of a malicious e-mail, post on social media like Facebook or any website, tweet on Twitter can be held liable under RA 10175.

It was not, however, clarified whether forwarding, commenting, sharing or retweeting the item could be considered a crime under the law. SC spokesman Theodore Te said it would be best to wait for the issuance of the decision penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad for the actual text used by the high court.

Petitioners went as far as asking the SC to void the libel provision in the Revised Penal Code, which the high tribunal did not allow.If it (libel under RPC) is not in the ruling, that means its constitutionality remains, Te told reporters in a press conference.

The high court also declared constitutional the imposition of penalty on those aiding or abetting the commission of cybercrimes under Section 5 of the law.But the SC declared unconstitutional its application on the crimes of child pornography, unsolicited commercial communications and online libel._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Rufo, A. (2014). Making sense of online libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/52027-making-sense-online-libel

2. Magdirila, P. (2014). Philippines Cybercrime Law now in effect, punishing online libel is constitutional. Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from https://www.techinasia.com/philippines-cybercrime-law-effect-punishing-online-libel-constitutional/In other words, one who willfully abets or aids the author in posting a malicious online item cannot be held criminally liable.The SC also voided Section 7 of the law, which allows prosecution of online libel and child pornography both under RA 10175 and RPC. The court said such provision violates the constitutional right against double jeopardy. This means a netizen prosecuted for online libel under the cybercrime law could no longer be charged with a separate case for libel under the Revised Penal Code. The high court dismissed the constitutional questions raised in the 15 consolidated petitions on 19 other provisions of RA 10175. Among the key provisions declared constitutional by the SC were the sections penalizing illegal access, data interference, cybersquatting, computer-related identity theft, cybersex, child pornography and allowing search and seizure of computer data.

The SC, however, struck down as unconstitutional three other assailed provisions of the law: Section 4 (c) (3), which penalizes unsolicited commercial communication; Section 12, which authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time; and Section 19, which authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected computer data. Activists who questioned the legality of the law had asked the court to strike down several activists who questioned the legality of the law had asked the court to strike down

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Rufo, A. (2014). Making sense of online libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/52027-making-sense-online-libel

2. Magdirila, P. (2014). Philippines Cybercrime Law now in effect, punishing online libel is constitutional. Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from https://www.techinasia.com/philippines-cybercrime-law-effect-punishing-online-libel-constitutional/activists who questioned the legality of the law had asked the court to strike down several of its provisions for violation of the right to free speech. The petitioners said that imposing a punishment for people found guilty of libel while also allowing them to be charged separately under the countrys Revised Penal Code violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a provision penalizing anyone who "aids or abets" the commission of cybercrimes, and anyone who attempts the commission of cybercrimes, involving "illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, cyber squatting, computer-related fraud, computer-related identity theft and cybersex."A wide array of information technology professionals and activists immediately condemned the court's decision. "The people have long expressed its verdict to junk the [law], said Gladys Regalado, deputy national coordinator of the Computer Professionals Union. She said the law looks more like "a recipe for a surveillance society rather than an instrument to fight so-called cybercrimes." She said that while the government is bestowed with more powers to monitor its citizens, "full disclosure of its operations to the people is absent".

Renato Reyes Jr of Bayan, an alliance of leftist militant organizations, said the Supreme Court ruling constitutes a continuing threat against free speech, adding that it is another huge step back for freedom of expression.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Rufo, A. (2014). Making sense of online libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/52027-making-sense-online-libel

2. Magdirila, P. (2014). Philippines Cybercrime Law now in effect, punishing online libel is constitutional. Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from https://www.techinasia.com/philippines-cybercrime-law-effect-punishing-online-libel-constitutional/Congressman Terry Ridon of the Youth Party said that even if the court excised some portions of the law, it remains a threat to internet freedom.We believe that it will still impede our civil liberties in the cyber world. The upholding of the provision for online libel, for example, poses imminent threats to many content creators, said Ridon, who served as legal counsel in one of the 15 petitions filed before the court. He said that libel in itself has been abused to harass and malign journalists. What's stopping cunning individuals from exploiting the new online libel provision? I see none, Ridon said.Bayan Muna partylist representative Neri Colmenares stated in an interview that, Libel in many countries is no longer criminal. Here, its criminal and worse, its now considered a crime on the Internet. The Cybercrime Law can really stifle the use of technology and threaten the right to free press & freedom of expression.The funny thing is that, many government officials now have Facebook and Twitter accounts, or even have their own web pages, claiming they are a way to hear directly from the people so they know what they can do to help them. With the libel clause approved, how will people now voice their opinions? What I see happening in the future is a surge in dummy Facebook, Twitter and email accounts, a move that would hinder government officials from finding out the real identity of those who want to voice out their harsh opinions about the government._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________1. Rufo, A. (2014). Making sense of online libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/52027-making-sense-online-libel

2. Magdirila, P. (2014). Philippines Cybercrime Law now in effect, punishing online libel is constitutional. Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from https://www.techinasia.com/philippines-cybercrime-law-effect-punishing-online-libel-constitutional/Legal BasisIts legal basis is that anything on Facebook is in writing and it is online therefore its public. If the shoutout and other statements on Facebook is a malicious imputation then it will cause dishonor. If the subject of the imputation is named then it is specific. If the statement stays for a while and not removed even the attention of the doer is called repetitive. The current trends of high technology, such as internet mails, chats, web posts and blog posts, fax machines, text messages or short messaging through cellular phones may be referred to as similar means of writing because they contain letters. Since on-line is considered to be written material, on-line defamation is considered to be libel.

Not all government officials agree with the Cybercrime Prevention Act, as they view it as something that oppresses freedom on the Internet. Terry Ridon, a congressman representing the youth sector in parliament, was not happy with the ruling and vowed to challenge the SCs decision.The fight against e-Martial Law is far from over. We call on everyone to up the ante and once again show our collective dissent against this repressive law, Ridon said. While the high court reportedly aimed to strike a balance between the protection of civil liberties and government control, we still believe that the law is potent enough to impede our freedom of expression, he added.

ConclusionTo conclude, defamation and defamatory comments are as much a problem on the Internet than in other forms of media if not more so. However, the same rules govern online publications as newspaper and other forms of media so there are steps and actions that can be taken to remedy the situation. Ensuring that hate sites and defamatory comments appear lower down search listings by employing sound and counteractive measures should be your first consideration but if legal action is necessary then there are records of numerous successful legal campaigns for you to take heart from.It should be noted that personal opinion on any topic can be posted on blogs, websites, and other sources but according to defamation laws and statutes, libelous comments cannot be thinly veiled as personal opinion and judges and courts will consider each statement or comment accordingly to ascertain whether or not it truly is an expression of personal opinion or is, in fact, a defamatory comment.

While it is true that the Supreme Court has no established jurisdiction to the said matter, this case will be given its due course in the long run. Internet has become a means of communication and may be considered publication which can be used as evidence in the crime of libel against its author. There is an increase of defamation cases with the use of social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others as a medium. Such is the speed at which information travels through social networks that one unchecked comment can spread into the mainstream media within minutes, which can cause irreparable damage to the subject who has been wronged. To rule otherwise would allow unscrupulous individuals to abuse others resulting to mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock and social humiliation. The internet has been labeled as a tool of democratization. The internet provides instantaneous and worldwide exposure to ones ideas and works. But freedom is not absolute. It has its limitations. Libel is one of those limitations. References

Magdirila, P. (2014). Philippines Cybercrime Law now in effect, punishing online libel is constitutional. Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from https://www.techinasia.com/philippines-cybercrime-law-effect-punishing-online-libel-constitutional/

Santos, G. (2014). What you need to know about online libel in PH Cybercrime. Retrieved on April 1, 2015 from http://asianjournal.com/editorial/what-you-need-to-know-about-online-libel-in-ph-cybercrime-law/

Rufo, A. (2014). Making sense of online libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/52027-making-sense-online-libelCebu Citizens-Press Council (2013). Basic Philippine law on libel. Retrieved on April 3, 2015 from http://www.cebucitizenspresscouncil.org/basic-philippine-law-on-libel/Diola, C. (2014). SC: Online libel in cybercrime law constitutional. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/02/18/1291806/sc-online-libel-cybercrime-law-constitutional

Punay, E. (2014). Internet libel in cyber crime law constitutional. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/02/19/1292003/internet-libel-cyber-crime-law-constitutional

Merueas, M. (2014). Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional SC. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/348945/scitech/technology/internet-libel-in-cybercrime-law-constitutional-sc

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (2014). Supreme Court declares Cybercrime Law unconstitutional. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from https://www.ifex.org/philippines/2014/02/20/libel_clause/

Pedrasa, I. (2014) SC tempers Anti-Cybercrime Act, but Internet libel a go. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/18/14/sc-declares-constitutional-internet-libel

Tupas, T. (2014) Online libel legal, SC rules. Retrieved on April 4, 2015 from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/578801/online-libel-legal-sc-rules

Olea, R. (2014) Online libel, other provisions assailed in appeals vs SC ruling on Cybercrime Law. Retrived on April 4, 2015 from http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/03/15/online-libel-other-provisions-assailed-in-appeals-vs-sc-ruling-on-cybercrime-law/

Dictionary.com (2015). Libel defenition. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel

Wikipedia (2015). Defamation. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Wikipedia (2015). Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime_Prevention_Act_of_2012

Abogadomo.com (2014) Libel Laws of the Philippines. . Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/libel-laws-of-the-philippines

Reputation Hawk (2013) Online Defamation And Your Rights. Retrieved on April 5, 2015 from http://www.reputationhawk.com/onlinedefamation.html