Bragging rights
Brainless children boast of their ancestors,” an Asian proverb says. Sen. Vicente Sotto III basked in his grandfather’s achievements, notably the “Sotto Press Freedom Law.”
Authored by senator Vicente Sotto, Republic Act 53 shielded scores of journalists from revealing news sources. Remember the scandal of leaked test questions for 300,000 teachers in a civil service exam? In a probe, Lower House members tried to ferret informants. The late Philippine News Service journalist Romeo Abundo and I invoked the Sotto Law. We are thankful and endorse the long overdue move to expand the law’s shield for broadcast.
At a Cebu Press Freedom Week panel discussion on Friday, Don Vicente’s grandson ran into a buzzsaw. “Did you snip the Penal Code’s libel provision, then paste it in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012?” reporters badgered Sotto III.
On Jan. 24, 2012, Sotto piggy-backed the rider on the pending cybersex crime measure, Raissa Robles blog on ABS-CBN documents. Without a public hearing, he expanded the old clause on libel to those “committed through a computer or any other similar means that may (emerge) in the future.”
Sotto III denied wedging Section 4-C(4) on libel into the new law. Not my fingerpints, thank you. But he backed the libel rider. Mainstream media are professionally trained and observe ethical standards, Sotto told Cebu Daily News. “But currently, social media doesn’t.” A number of online writers post without verifying data. “They are not accountable to anyone.”
He’s right. But gagging is not the answer. Presenting better reasons is. As a result, he is twisting in the storm that his first-denied-now-admitted amendment uncorked.
President Benigno Aquino III signed the bill into law on Sept. 12. His signature came days before he visited the new museum, in a military fort, where his father and senator Jose Diokno were secretly imprisoned under martial law censorship.
“The Spanish inquisition has long been disbanded… Why we are reviving it today through constitutionally-prohibited “prior restraint?” asked Sen. Teofisto Guingona. He was the only senator who bucked the bill because of, among other things, the Sotto rider. “A Supreme Court challenge is an option.”
“We will see the Aquino administration in court on this one,” Prof. Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines College of Law added. “There can be nothing sadder than suing the son of icons of democracy for infringement into a cherished right… Oher laws enjoy presumption of regularity. This cybercrime law, insofar as it infringes on freedom of expression, will come to court with a very heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.”
Prior restraint restricts material from being heard or distributed at all. This is the “most extreme form of censorship” and is a constitutional no-no.
UP Diliman and the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, meanwhile, banned showing of the controversial anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims”. Roque pushed through showing the film in his Bill of Rights law class. Asked by the MTRC to explain, Roque twitted back: “I do not have a license from your office. (But) I have the Constitution.”
The new law’s rider offered “no distinctions, no qualifications” as to who shall be held liable for libel noted Inquirer’s editorial “A Blow Against Free Speech. ” It does not even say “what actions constitute the crime.”
Let me count the ways then, suggests a Rappler roundup of comments by legal experts and press organizations..
The Revised Penal Code already includes online publication as a platform for crime, De La Salle College of Law Dean Jose Manuel Diokno notes. Sotto’s rider is “redundant.” Ateneo School of Government Dean Antonio La Viña agrees. The word “publication” refers to all kinds, whether online or not.
The new law has “50 shades of liability.” Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Law Dean Ernest Maceda says. A “computer system,” is the gateway to the online world. If someone uses this gateway to tweet a defamatory comment, is he liable? “Given the vast domain of the online universe, will expanding liability for libel and allow the arbitrary closure of websites?” And does the phrase “any similar means” in the new law refer to the Internet? Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court or Congress that should define what the phrase “any similar means” really means.
Are we dealing here with a “borderless crime?” asks a lawyer who requested anonymity. Section 21 states that the “Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction… if any of the elements was committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country…” What does “partly” mean?
Government ignored the 2011 declaration of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the libel law is “excessive” because it puts violators behind bars, said the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. “Criminalizing libel violates freedom of expression”.
Instead, the new law ratchets penalties for libel. Section 6 states: “the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code.” Ordinary libel is punishable with imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years. But those who commit libel using a “computer system” may stew in the slammer from 6 to 12 years. They would not be entitled to parole. All would serve time under the Sotto rider.
As being written, the legacy of Sotto III will bear no resemblance to broad freedoms of Sotto I. So what? One can always brag of ancestors.
