Feeling the heat
When Sen. Tito Sotto took to the podium yesterday to defend anew the passage of the cybercrime law, with his his pet copy-pasted online libel provision, you knew that he’s feeling the heat.
Sotto was emphatic that contrary to the public backlash, the online libel provision passed through first, second and third reading in the Senate before it was sent for review to the Lower House.
“At that time the bill was out of the Senate’s hands,” the senator said. He repeated with exasperation that the online libel provision wasn’t passed as a reaction to heavy criticism he received for allegedly plagiarizing a US blogger’s online post and a speech by the late US senator Robert Kennedy in his speeches against the Reproductive Health bill.
The bill’s author, Sen. Edgardo Angara was even more emphatic but thankfully, unlike Sotto, was sensitive enough to public opinion that he made known his plans to amend the online libel provision by removing the “takedown clause” which would empower the Department of Justice (DOJ) to shut down websites that it deemed offensive and libelous.
As of latest report, Senator Angara said he was confident the Supreme Court would not scrap the anti-cyber crime law as unconstitutional though he considered that some provisions would be amended including part on online libel.
Let it be clear that the opposition is not against the anti-cybercrime law per se but the online libel provision that Sotto lifted from the Revised Penal Code and made more deadly by increasing the penalty a degree higher and adding a takedown clause against violators.
We realize that the government’s campaign against cyber pornography, online prostitution and even online spamming should be reinforced with a law to enable law enforcement agencies to crack down on purveyors of these sordid trades.
By copy-pasting the online libel provision, Sotto lumped ordinary citizens with strong opinions about the government and/or people in power, in the company of criminals.
By declaring online libel a special crime, Sotto is saying that it’s criminal for people to speak out their minds on anything that affects them directly or indirectly or even on trivial issues that catch their fancy.
As democracy’s last bastion or resort, the Supreme Court should resolve the petitions filed against the online libel provision of the anti-cybercrime law.
Chief Justice Lourdes Serreno should make this a priority and reel in absentee justices who weren’t there when the petitions were filed ahead of the Oct. 3 deadline for the law’s effectivity.
