What the Cybercrime Law really means

Share:

I cannot stress enough the importance of making sure that the present Cybercrime Law does not go into effect.

Ever.

The Supreme Court earlier issued a temporary court injunction which may end by February 6, 2013.

Congress goes on recess by February 9 this year, or three days after  SC’s TRO lapses. Either  Congress radically amends the present Cybercrime Law or the SC declares it unconstitutional. Those are the only choices for me.

Netizens have only this month to make their voices heard on the Cybercrime Law. Oral arguments are set this January 15.

I will be writing several articles on the Cybercrime Law and why the present law – as legislated – needs to be junked.

I will write as well on the Freedom of Information Act, and of course on the coming elections and how we can choose our leaders in a better way.

Meanwhile, I’d like to share this article that Alan wrote on the Cybercrime Law. Please note though that Alan made an error in the date when the TRO expires. January is when the oral arguments will take place.

Nevertheless, Alan is one of the authorities on Internet, Politics and Freedom. I can say that, not because he is my hubby, but because he has lectured on these topics extensively in the International Institute for Journalism in Berlin and has attended the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva and Tunis.

Please take the time to read his piece, which Asian Dragon Magazine published last month. The magazine has allowed me to post it here:

What the Cybercrime Law really means

By Alan Robles

Government is perplexed. President Benigno Aquino says he can’t understand why the public is so angry. After all, what’s wrong with a law that chills free speech online, allows warrantless surveillance of Internet traffic, and promises specially stiff jail sentences for Filipinos who commit crimes using digital technology or a digital device (such as a smartphone)?

A law, furthermore, that allows government to block websites without warning and provides no oversight or accountability of the implementing agencies?

Oh, and did I mention the law’s most repressive provisions were inserted stealthily and without any public hearings?

If Aquino seems clueless — he says he’s read the document at least thrice — citizens are not. Civil society recognizes Republic Act 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Law, as a crude and blatant attempt to censor the Internet and trample the Bill of Rights. The good news: barraged by outraged petitions, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the law’s implementation. The bad news: the TRO expires in January. The worse news: if the law takes effect, surfing the Internet will never be the same for Filipinos. They face a surveillance and censorship state in the making. As Senator Teofisto Guingona III says, the Cybercrime Law is an attempt to dictate what Filipinos may and may not see on the Internet. It’s also an effort to control what they may and may not say online. Plus, it offers law enforcers exciting new possibilities for abuse and extortion.

How could such a draconian law have come into being? Simple. Most of the country’s politicians and leaders neither use nor understand the Internet. Back in the 1990s, Internet visionary Nicholas Negroponte already had a term for these people: the“digital homeless.” He described this as the part of the population that is neither young (who’ve grown up knowing nothing but the Net) nor elderly (who have the time to go online). Unfortunately, according to Negroponte, the digital homeless “tend to be the decision makers, executives, and politicians” despite the fact that they “are really out of it. They are not part of this digital world; they don’t understand it.”

There seem to be three main characters behind RA 10175: Department of Justice (DOJ) Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy, Senator Edgardo Angara, and Senator Vicente Sotto. The law started life in Congress as a bill to fight cybercrimes like hacking, spam, destruction, theft of data, and child pornography. Sy seems to have given identical drafts of the bill to at least four senators, who promptly put their names to their copies and submitted them as their own without bothering to change them much — and apparently without understanding the contents. Angara delivered the sponsorship speech, becoming the bill’s padrino.

The bill was supposed to follow an international agreement on specific cybercrimes, the Budapest Convention (by the way, the Philippines is not a signatory). But, in a fit of creative legal engineering, it looks as if Sy and congressmen went above and beyond what the agreement calls for. To cite an example: the Budapest Convention has a section on safeguards to protect human rights and liberties —the Philippine Cybercrime Law drops that totally. And, where the Convention lists the very specific crime of “child pornography,” RA 10175’s framers invented and added a new vague category, “cybersex”— the “willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.” Looking nervously at the porn stash in your smartphone?

In the final stages of preparation, someone tampered well and truly with the bill’s DNA, producing the patchwork Frankenstein creation sent to Aquino for signing. The Budapest Convention does not at all mention libel as a cybercrime, but apparently Senator Sotto shoehorned it in while his fellow senators (Guingona exempted) nodded or dozed. Sotto’s insertion was neither easily noticed nor subjected to a public hearing. Completing the mutilation, other congressmen threw the entire Revised Penal Code into the bill, wildly changing the bill beyond the Budapest Convention’s intended scope. Nobody objected, least of all Sy. By the way, RA 10175 calls for the creation of a DOJ Office of Cybercrime and an interagency, Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC). Assistant Secretary Geronimo Sy will head the first and be a member of the second.

Adding insult to injury, rather than brief the public on the act while it was being legislated, the Justice Department only called for “public consultations” after the bill had been signed into law. Fortunately, Filipinos had already been alerted long before that when Senator Sotto, smarting from online mockery of his speeches, taunted his detractors by warning them a law on cyber libel was coming. As a result, much of the outrage has centered on the Cybercrime Law’s provision on libel, which promises to create a mess.

Now, anyone who’s at all used the Internet (and social networks in particular) knows it’s rife with harsh insults, mockery, badinage, and naughty language. It’s the way the Internet has always been. The Cybercrime Law apparently wants to change all that: it empowers anyone and everyone to sue at the drop of the proverbial hat. If you’re among the nearly 30 million Filipinos using Facebook, you see those buttons,“Like,” “Comment,” and “Share”? Start treating them with lots of respect. Wait, maybe “respect” isn’t the right word — “fear” is. Because should you happen to use them the wrong way, those buttons could land you in prison.

What, you ask, is the “wrong way”? The concise legal answer to this question is, “Your guess is as good as mine.” If you post a comment on FB about a celebrity, politician, neighbor, or even total stranger, that person could sue you for libel. It’s conceivable that if someone else makes such a comment and you share it, you could also be sued. What if you neither comment nor share, but indicate you “like” the comment? You could still be included in the libel suit. Senator Angara even helpfully suggested that if enough people “like” a libelous post, they could all be charged with conspiracy. He said on a TV show that “if you agree to destroy the reputation of this person, then that is conspiracy.”

The Cybercrime Law’s libel provision threatens to unleash a tidal wave of suits which could flood a court system already legendary for its backlogs, delays, and corruption. If you’re accused of cyber libel, even if you eventually beat the rap, in the process you’ll still be forced to spend time and money fighting the case, a process that could take years. In the Philippines, libel has always favored the rich and powerful.

Libel aside, there’s also the fact that the Revised Penal Code has been folded into the Cybercrime Law. Should RA 10175 come into effect, any crime committed with the aid of information and communications technology (ICT) will incur a much harsher jail sentence than the same crime committed with no-tech. Charged with theft? Trespassing? Estafa? If you happened to have used digital tech during those crimes (a call on your iPhone? An email?) your possible jail sentence will be increased. Plus, you could face a separate charge for “misuse” of the device. And, by the way, every Filipino, no matter where in the world he or she happens to be, is covered by the Cybercrime Law and can be sued at a low level Regional Trial Court here.

Ironically, the Cybercrime Law will certainly not stop your kids from accessing porn, visiting banned content, or insulting each other. Internet users have a variety of ways to circumvent blocks and it’s doubtful Aquino, Angara, and Sotto know about sockpuppets, fake accounts, proxies, spoofers and tunnels. Even banning websites will not work, not when the contents can simply displace to another site, or millions of other channels (the term for this is the Streisand Effect). Assistant Secretary Sy, in one forum, pointed to sites that give instructions on how to build Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) as pages that could be blocked. A Google search “how to build IEDs” yields 16 million results. Will the government block them all? Will it block Google? If government proposes to give us China’s repressiveness, shouldn’t it at least also give us China’s economic growth?

 

207 Responses to “What the Cybercrime Law really means”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. 42

    BAYCAS #40

    I just watched this link below provided by Baycas, thoughts I told you so (see previous posts) comes to mind when anachronisms get invoked here In cyber space and time. Atty TED TE, lawyer of the hour, did not debunk explicitly obsolescence of cobwebs, he did not even say outright the mental legal inadequacies of those involved in the nourishment and passage of the anti-cybercrime law. If this the spirit and letter of this their law is applied to these self-protectors and punishers , all of them should be prosecuted and be subjected to one degree higher penalties. Atty TE mentioned names, the origins of this legal pathology. From there alone and the subsequent adherents the people can have a measure of human dignity that went absent in crafting the law.

    Watching Maria Raissa and TED TE surely made my day.

  2. 41
    baycas says:

    @saxnviolins and @JoeAm,

    Even The Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.

    • 41.1
      saxnviolins says:

      Agreed. And Ben Franklin used to publish pamphlets anonymously, in his youth. Chief Justice Steele was quoting the following lines from Justice John Paul Stevens of the US Supreme Court:

      Justice Black reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.

      On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.

      McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995).

      • 41.1.1
        raissa says:

        That’s one use of anonymity.

        Another is to ensure that canards can be thrown at will without attribution and retribution.

        • 41.1.1.1
          Joe America says:

          “canard” In cooking, a duck intended for food.
          “canard” In aeronautics, an airplane that has its horizontal stabilizer and elevators located forward of the wing.
          “canard” In blogging, a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.

          A canard aimed at a congressman is a libel unless you write under a pseudonym, then it is just edgy writing.

        • 41.1.1.2
          saxnviolins says:

          You fight a lie with the truth, not jail time. As quoted from CJ Steele below, one can just as easily post the truth or clarifications on the same blog. It is so untrusting of people’s intelligence, to think that they will fall for the canard over the truth, that one has to stifle the truth, or force an anonymous writer to reveal his/her identity.

          True, there is the danger of misuse of speech and anonymity. But

          “[t]he right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”

          Chief Justice Myron Steele, quoting Justice John Paul Stevens.

          Free speech is like a vaccine. You may get nauseated, but its therapeutic value is greater than the nausea.

          I cannot say the same for guns.

          • 41.1.1.2.1
            saxnviolins says:

            Perfect example. The Abnoy issue, versus the Villaroyo issue.

            Which is the canard, and which, the truth?

            Which of them was bought by the market?

          • 41.1.1.2.2
            saxnviolins says:

            Forgot to highlight.

            our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”

            That is true of the US society. Is it true of ours as well?

            Do we trust our people to have discernment? Or are they all witless nobs? That is why need to shield them from lies and canards. And that is why we need to shepherd the ignoramuses – we from the good schools, we, the college graduates, we the intellectuals (fill in the blanks ad nauseum).

  3. 40
  4. 39
    saxnviolins says:

    Re 37.

    As promised, baycas2, here is the case: the type Raissa may face, if the cyber libel law is not voided.

    A City Councilman (Cahill) in Delaware sues an anonymous commenter on a political blog for defamation. The judge is requested to force Comcast (internet provider) to reveal the identity of John Doe. Two comments of John Doe are as follows:

    Cahill is a prime example of failed leadership.

    Gahill [sic] is as paranoid as everyone in the town thinks he is. The mayor needs support from his citizens and protections from unfounded attacks…

    The case goes up to the Delaware Supreme Court. My new idol, Chief Justice Steele, writing for the court en banc, had the following choice statements, which beautifully sums up all the issues relative to the petitions before our Supreme Court. There is the issue of democratization of public debate brought about by the internet, the empowerment of commenters with no money to access traditional media, and the reason for respecting anonymity over the internet.

    Hats off Your Honor:

    The advent of the internet dramatically changed the nature of public discourse by allowing more and diverse people to engage in public debate. Unlike thirty years ago, when “many citizens [were] barred from meaningful participation in public discourse by financial or status inequalities and a relatively small number of powerful speakers [could] dominate the marketplace of ideas” the internet now allows anyone with a phone line to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Through the internet, speakers can bypass mainstream media to speak directly to “an audience larger and more diverse than any the Framers could have imagined.” Moreover, speakers on internet chat rooms and blogs can speak directly to other people with similar interests. A person in Alaska can have a conversation with a person in Japan about beekeeping in Bangladesh, just as easily as several Smyrna residents can have a conversation about Smyrna politics.

    Internet speech is often anonymous. “Many participants in cyberspace discussions employ pseudonymous identities, and, even when a speaker chooses to reveal her real name, she may still be anonymous for all practical purposes.” For better or worse, then, “the audience must evaluate [a] speaker’s ideas based on her words alone.” “This unique feature of [the internet] promises to make public debate in cyberspace less hierarchical and discriminatory” than in the real world because it disguises status indicators such as race, class, and age.

    It is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. This protection extends to anonymous internet speech. Anonymous internet speech in blogs or chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.

    Note the highlighted phrase. The internet forces the reader to evaluate only your words (or ideas). It does not come with the baggage (positive) of fame, or (negative) obscurity (some walang tinapos, but with good ideas, who will be relegated to the sidelines by the posturing elite.)

    Read the full text here:

    courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=67130

    • 39.1
      raissa says:

      Thanls.

      This is quite useful.

    • 39.2
      baycas says:

      Thanks.

      • 39.2.1
        Rolly says:

        This Delaware Supreme Court decision is a must read for the Malacañang Palace officials.

        • 39.2.1.1
          baycas says:

          @Rolly,

          I am very hopeful that the petitioners are preparing well for the oral arguments.

          If they need to amend their petitions, may they do them ASAP!

      • 39.2.2
        saxnviolins says:

        In a comment below, it is stated that there is no such thing as a false opinion. That is a key concept here, because Chief Justice Steele distinguishes asserted fact from expressed opinion.

        In deciding whether or not a statement is defamatory we determine, “first, whether alleged defamatory statements are expressions of fact or protected expressions of opinion;

        Earlier, he said:

        a reasonable person reading a newspaper in print or online, for example, can assume that the statements are factually based and researched. This is not the case when the statements are made on blogs or in chat rooms. “When one views…allegedly defamatory statements in context – both the immediate context and the broader social context – it becomes apparent that many of the allegedly defamatory statements cannot be interpreted as stating actual facts, but instead are either ‘subjective speculation’ or ‘merely rhetorical hyperbole.’”

        So there is a difference between stating that “a woman has slept with many men”, as against stating “She comes across as rather slutty.”

        Similarly, stating that “Politician xyz exacts commissions from government projects” is different from “I think politician xyz is corrupt.”

        The first is an assertion of a fact, and the second is an unreliable opinion. Opinions, as ruled by CJ Steele are not defamatory by definition of law.

        • 39.2.2.1
          baycas says:

          yep, “there is no such thing as a false opinion”.

          the “marketplace” has full “of ideas”…lots of them…

      • 39.2.3
        saxnviolins says:

        As always, there is the axiom that one fights speech with speech, not jail time. Chief Justice Steele puts it as follows:

        Besides the legal remedies available to a plaintiff wronged by internet
        defamation, the potential plaintiff has available a very powerful form of extra-judicial relief. The internet provides a means of communication where a person wronged by statements of an anonymous poster can respond instantly, can respond to the allegedly defamatory statements on the same site or blog, and thus, can, almost contemporaneously, respond to the same audience that initially read the allegedly defamatory statements. The plaintiff can thereby easily correct any misstatements or falsehoods, respond to character attacks, and generally set the record straight. This unique feature of internet communications allows a potential plaintiff ready access to mitigate the harm, if any, he has suffered to his reputation as a result of an anonymous defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements made on an internet blog or in a chat room.

        This is also the consummate rebuttal to the right of reply advocates. Why mandate it, when you can just reply? If the aggrieved politician has the meatier morsel of truth, then surely the marketplace will buy his assertion over the alleged falsities of the blogger or commenter.

        • 39.2.3.1
          baycas says:

          the comments section is as vital as the blog post.

          the reaction, the reply, the message…they are just a click or a tap of the “submit” button in order to convey what needs to be brought up for discussion…

    • 39.3
      Rene-Ipil says:

      Saxnviolins@39

      Facts vs. opinion. A very enlightening piece for all including lawyers. Facts are meant to build or destroy. Facts fortify one’s knowledge. Opinion embellishes such knowledge. But facts can also demolish a person. And opinion can likewise resurrect him. Facts can put one in jail while opinion can destine one to oblivion like Tiglao, Doronilla and Olivarez. Following closely are Magno, Pedrosa, Maceda and similarly minded journalists.

      • 39.3.1
        Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        Oh, yes, @Rene-Ipil dear, FACTS ARE INCONTROVERTIBLE. In 1stworld country WITNESS ACCOUNTS TAKES A BACK SEAT over FORENSICS. In 1stworld witness accounts have to be corroborated by evidences and forensics. Unlike in the Philippines, just because a media personality was critical of Palawanese governor that was already enough to file a murder case against him. AND NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FACTS ….

        Like what I told you, @Rene-Ipil dear Filipnos are doppeldanger, CULTURAL DUALITY. One for 1stworld Law learned in school and one cultural justice system BY PERCEPTION, ASSOCIATION AND WITNESS ACCOUNTS.

        Now you are learning from me !!!! I take you to school I am not even a bus driver. AND IT IS FREE. One comment from me a day makes you a smart boy.

        • 39.3.1.1
          Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          That is why I just cannot understand why Filipinos are so agog over Mikey’s hellicopter when all they have are witness accounts. Against Ate Glo all witness accounts. No evidence. Evidence came later.

          Why the PHilippine Media being used by the bureaucrats in demonizing SUSPECTS? JUST TO DEMONIZE and the Philippine Media are happy accessories.

          DONCHA LOVE PHILIPPINES ? No wonder Filipinos are voting with their passports.

      • 39.3.2
        pelang says:

        @saxnviolins: from an article at Philstar entitled “Due Diligence” , Jan. 8th’s issue written by Yoly Villanueva-Ong, she quoted or picked-up an original article (i believe from a blog) entitled “Enriles: Father and Son Act” written by Jet Damazo. My quetion is, if ever the Enriles charge them with libel under this cyber law (granting, the supreme court rules the approval against the petitioners), who may be included on these charges? Jet Damazo, Yoly Villanueva-Ong, who just quoted this article, and the ones who ticked “like” or “share” in their FB Accounts?

        • 39.3.2.1
          saxnviolins says:

          Sorry. Did not forget this question. Will reply later.

        • 39.3.2.2
          saxnviolins says:

          One who clicks the “like” button is not republishing. To republish requires making the info known to people other than those who read at that site. When I point to my copy of the Tribune, for example, and tell you that I like the article, that is not a republication.

          Share? Neither. Sharing is giving a copy. If I buy two copies of the Inquirer which has a libelous article and give one to you, am I republishing?

          So the rule for the physical world should apply as well, to the electronic world. Sharing is not a republication; neither is liking.

          Will answer the others later. Work is beckoning.

        • 39.3.2.3
          saxnviolins says:

          Whatever the result of the Supreme Court petition, it will not affect the case filed by Senator Enrile, because he filed a civil case. Civil libel is allowed, even in the US.

          But if I were representing Ms. Villanueva-Ong, or Jet Damazo, I would file a motion to dismiss. The basis would be the points made by Chief Justice Steele, in the final pages of his opinion for the court en banc.

          The link to that case is in my earlier post.

          I hope lawyers, both for the Supreme Court petition, and for other libel defendants will read the case. It can be mined both for substantive law, as well as for procedural (remedial) law. In fact, it can be used as a template for a motion to dismiss most, if not all libel petitions in the Philippines.

          Even if you are not a lawyer or a law student, I recommend that you read the opinion. It is written with superior logic, elegant English, and flavored with downright common sense.

          • 39.3.2.3.1
            Johnny Lin says:

            Congrats Sax for picking up a legal hero who is also a hero of corporates. I lived closer to you in his territory of Delaware, been following Steele since 2000 until his campaign for CJ due to common personal acquaintance.

            Steele expertise is corporate governance in Delaware, the hub of multinational US corporations because of the state’s lax corporate liabilities. Your creditcards corporations are most probably incorporated in Delaware.

            Superior logic and common sense is his trademark which you hit directly.
            Sounds familiar!

            Promise I wont comment on your post, never again, since we idolize the same legal luminary and good luck, God bless. I meant it

            He he he

          • 39.3.2.3.2
            pelang says:

            thanks saxnviolins. you explained it in simple way for us to understand.

          • 39.3.2.3.3
            jcc says:

            I have not come across a civil libel in the country, unlike the U.S. where there are States that have statutes on civil libel and also criminal libel. The other libel variant is “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” which is a common law concept.

            Libel in the country is always criminal and defined in Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code.

            I would move for the dismissal of the “civil libel” filed by Enrile against Damazo and Ong because its basis is Art. 33 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, (NCC) which requires that a criminal case has been filed against the accused on account of the “defamatory” article, which a separate civil case for damages could be instituted by the plaintiff. This civil case is actually a claim for damages for the defamatory/libelous article, but is never configured as a civil libel. Art. 33 itself does not speak of civil libel. It simply allows a person who had been libeled to file separate monetary civil judgment against the defendant, independent of the criminal libel.

            My theory/reading of Art. 33 (NCC) is that since Enrile did not file a criminal libel, the civil damages that come with the criminal libel does not come into existence even if it could be filed independently from the criminal libel. I would advance the theory that he criminal libel is the anchor for filing the civil damages.

            My approach is to attack Enrile’s complaint on the basis of statutes and not on the opinions of justices from foreign courts. Their opinions have weight but they will come only upon the termination of the proceedings when the parties have been required to file memoranda.

            • baycas says:

              A very happy new year ahead of us, @jcc.

              I am so glad to read again from sages of the not-so-distant past.

              While many transitioned to Facebook and Twitter, I still find blogs worthy of propagation…

  5. 38
    Rolly says:

    This RA10175 will always be open to abuse. Authorities will whimsically find or device ways to intimidate people.

    The news below is just one example:

    Slammed on Facebook, cop chief told to do job

    Posted by Jani Arnaiz, Chief Editor on November 18, 2012, 8:06 pm

    By Joey A. Gabieta Inquirer Visayas 18th November 2012
    http://www.maasinreporter.com/southernleyte.php

    TACLOBAN CITY—Do your work and don’t be sensitive.
    This was the advice of Chief Superintendent Elmer Soria, of the police regional office in Eastern Visayas (PRO-8), to Supt. Rico Tome, Maasin City police chief, who invited seven Maasinhons to appear at the city police station after posting harsh comments on a Facebook page, criticizing the police for failing to stop four robberies that occurred in a span of 24 hours.

    “He (Tome) should not be sensitive. Instead, he should work and confront the problem,” Soria told the Inquirer in a phone interview.

    Instead of inviting the residents to explain why they criticized the police on their Facebook page, Soria said Tome should address their concerns immediately.
    He added Tome could improve police visibility in the streets to deter the commission of crimes in Maasin.

    Soria said that based on the article that came out in the Inquirer, he didn’t find the comments of the netizens a personal attack on Tome since these were complaints against the perceived inaction of the police.

    Although he issued a slight admonition to Tome for what he had done, Soria said he would leave it to Senior Supt. Allan Cuevillas, police provincial director, to decide the action to take against Tome.

    “I have issued a directive addressed to the provincial director to take action,” Soria said.
    In an earlier interview, Tome said he didn’t mean to scare the seven Maasinhons when he asked them to appear at the city police station on Nov. 7 after posting harsh comments on Facebook.

    “We would just like to remind them that what they did was not right. We will just give them a warning,” he said.

    “It’s true that we have freedom of expression. Now that there’s Facebook, unlike before that it’s only radio and newspaper, they could just say defamatory remarks against us. You know the law could run after them,” he said.

    But not one of those invited showed up at the Maasin City police station on Nov. 7. The Maasin police didn’t issue a second invite.

    The invitation stemmed from the comments posted on the Facebook page called “You are from Southern Leyte if…” about the four break-ins on Nov. 2 and 3.

    • 38.1
      Rolly says:

      Most of the time invitation to a Police Station leads to a detention for some 6 hours without being charged of any infraction.

  6. 37
    Alan says:

    Sorry I haven’t been able to join the discussions, most of my concentration has gone to trying to meet a weekly column deadline, which I haven’t done for a while, but I should get the hang of it again soon. Here’s what I know about Phil libel (back when I was an editor in The Manila Chronicle somebody tried filing a case against me): truth is not a defense at all. It hinges on MALICE, which is a deliberate attempt to lower or demean the standing of a person or entity int he eyes of the community.
    In the UK, libel law is a bit different – the respondent is presumed guilty, and has the burden of proving her or his statements were non-libelous. Truth is a defense. The UK has become notorious as a center for libel tourism — rich people from around the world who file their cases in London.

    • 37.1
      jcc says:

      you better read the jurisprudence on the matter. times v. sullivan, and people vs. larry flynt are authorities to the effect that ‘iis reckless disregard for the truth’… not malice to despise the person, nor malice in law (mala en se); as distinguished from malum prohibitum.

      printing the truth is not reckless disregard for the truth because you were factually reporting the events as they happened….. your situation with the chronicle could have happened before the sulivan and flynt cases..

      philippine courts are awed by american jurisprudence because the latter is an epitome judiciousness, probity, and reason.

    • 37.2
      baycas says:

      Reputation over free speech.

      It is ironic that the defendant’s burden of proof in England was established to protect people’s honor, as it has now resulted in London’s public disgrace as the “libel capital of the western world.”77 Laws that were initially designed to defend the integrity of the Crown through the courts are now primarily employed to enable foreigners to misuse the English judiciary for their own ends—i.e., to silence the speech of their detractors.

      With serious efforts at libel reform on the horizon, England now has the opportunity to amend its laws and remove the archaic remains of an obsolete notion. The time has come to set things right and make the libel plaintiff prove his case.

      – Elizabeth Samson (The web link for this quote posted below will still be under moderation. Emphasis in the quote mine.)

      Free speech over reputation.

      • 37.2.1
      • 37.2.2
        Alan says:

        One of the most famous libel cases tried in London in recent times was that of Nazi lover David Irving against the scholar/historian Deborah Lipstadt. He accused her of defaming his reputation as a “historian” when she wrote in a book that he was a Holocaust denier. He forced Lipstadt, an American, to go to London and expected he would collect a huge amount in damages. Instead, Lipstadt’s publisher supported her and hired a distinguished panel of historians to give Iriving’s entire body of work the equivalent of a proctoscopy and dissection. They established that Irving indeed was a denier, Nazi lover, fabricator and should not be called a historian at all. Truth WAS a defense. Court ruled against Irving and awarded Lipstadt damages, essentially bankrupting Irving. The hilarious highlight of the case? Irving, who chose to be his own counsel, called the judge “Mein Fuehrer”

      • 37.2.3
        saxnviolins says:

        Your highlighted text is true only in England. In the US, there is precedent that declares

        “a constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages.”

        Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 479 US 1

        Our libel laws were actually copied from state libel laws, which find origin in English common law. The US Constitution, however, is above the common law. Having copied the US Constitution, our jurisprudence should have evolved like the US. But our jurists have stuck to the English common law presumption of malice, contrary to their ruling that New York Times and its progeny applies in the Philippines.

        Next post, I will quote my new idol. A Chief Justice of a State, deciding the case involving an anonymous comment in a political blog like this.

        • 37.2.3.1
          baycas says:

          The time has come to set things right and make the libel plaintiff prove his case

          Not only in England but also here in PH.

          • 37.2.3.1.1
            saxnviolins says:

            I was posting about the case cited above, but the comment got deleted.

            Will try next time.

            • baycas says:

              On anonymity, @JoeAm will likewise idolize CJ Steele.

              • Joe America says:

                Yes, he is a brilliant judge. Positively brilliant. I worship the ground brushed by his long and distinguished robes. (See saxnviolins excerpt, comment #39)

              • baycas says:

                Already read SnV’s post from Ellenville prior to #39.

                Thanks, SnV.

                Segué from politics…

                @JoeAm, I’m reading now “Corporate Criticism on the Internet: The Fine Line Between Anonymous Speech and Cybersmear”.

  7. 36

    Inductive viewpoint RE-POSTED

    Never mind what the trees look like, crimes are actually committed outside the rainforest of cyberspace:

    Cyberspace is not human space, could be extra-human, extra-terrestrial or extra-universal and might have its own laws and automatic punishments no legal human eagles can profess to know aside from the mythical karma. Cyberspace is not Earth where humans get born. dwell and die. It is stupid, gross human imbecility to make cyberspace laws punishing cybercrimes anticipated to happen in a vacuum, a space devoid of physical space. Unless money is coveted as a return for the concoction of cyber laws, IT IS ENOUGH that all laws of any or all country APPLY and may prescribe punishments FOR ANY or most of violations of lawful human behaviour in Earth. Committing libel or child molestation, or murder or corruption in cyber space? Only lawmaking criminals will use cyberspace to protect themselves from being identified, ridiculed and spat upon.

    • 36.1
      macspeed says:

      I was victimized of illigal recruitment via cyberspace, the recruiter were supposed to be in Ireland, i was contacted by an Oil and Gas company, gave me exam written and i did passed, then he required my certificates in Universities and employer, true indeed, their actions and i was really in their drama, it took a month before they asked me to pay for processing. My salary supposed to be were 10,000US$, free accomodation, free transport to/from oil rig, wow, i was really amazed. And i did send 5000saudi riyal for processing, they said they will contact me within a week….

      They were gone, i search the Ireland police near the place of office those scams. And the police said, “you are victim of cyber crime…”

      End of story,

      Cyber crime does exist, and people as stupid as me are a lot, budol budol in our language.

      You and i are in cyber space. I type this word “I like you” it travels from my keyboard to the CPU then to the hardwire telephone here in Saudi Arabia, then to the Fiber Optic then to Philippine telecom network then to your line and your Screen at the speed of light 300million meters per second, off course you will be able to read it only when you open up this space he he he…

      Salam sadik, whether we like it or not, cyberspace among our children and grand children will be more advance, the will be in great troubles without regulations…

  8. 35
    baycas says:

    Cartoonist Roni Santiago may have characterized well what the law means in his caricature here…

    http://www.filipinostarnews.net/featured-post/on-phl-cybercrime-law-and-free-speech.html

  9. 34
    Rene-Ipil says:

    Raissa, in her previous post, asked: ” Can we simply adopt the present law on libel that covers print and broadcasting to apply to the Internet as well?”

    I say yes except that the penalty should be reduced to only a fine. With fine as the penalty, the use of the Internet in committing libel should be treated merely as an aggravating circumstance – not an element of the crime – because of the ease by which online libel is committed and its widespread reach to readers. The imposition of a higher penalty on cyber libel violates the equal protection of law principle. A crime with the same elements should carry the same penalty. Moreover, the power given to the government to block the publication of the purported libelous item is arbitrary and could not pass constitutional standards on freedom of speech.

    • 34.1
      leona says:

      @Rene-Ipil…maybe good but the as some of the lawmakers planned, they prefer to make libel as only a civil obligation and not a criminal, no penalty! This is a better alternative.

      • 34.1.1
        Rene-Ipil says:

        Leona@34.1

        Agree. A case civil in nature maybe better. The downside is that “guilt” is proven by mere preponderance of evidence. Whereas in a penalty of fine, guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

  10. 33
    Parekoy says:

    Mukhang effective yung pag bigay ng TRO sa Cybercrime Law, yung mga tao malamig na sa issue na eto.

    Ang bottom line- pag ayaw ni PNoy na ang isang bill ay maging batas, hundi mangyayari yun, pero kung gusto nyang ituloy then nagsusugal sya dahil karamihan ng mga Netizens ay aalma at sya ang sunod na target sa mga puna at mapapatunayan ang mga lumabas a black propaganda na may agka Abnoy sya.

    Kung talagang seryoso si PNoy na linisin ang gobyerno, bakit nya bubusalan ang mga tumutulong sa kanya na mga kaaniwng tao na ang hangad lang ay mabawasan ang kurapsyon at katiwalan sa gobyerno?

    Etong sila Angara, Sotto at mga PU ay gusto kang nilang protektahan ang kanilang Tribu dahil hindi nila makontrol ang mga reaksyon ng mga Netizens na meron ng paraan kung papano bukuhin ang mga tiwali sa gobyerno.

    Assuming na matuloy ang Cybercrime Law, parang nakikita ko na na ang unang biktima ay itong blogsite na ito. Hindi dahil ang mga puna rito ay libelous kundi mga makatwiran at dahil may kredibilidad na parang boses ng karamihan ng mga Pilipino. Kumpara sa mga komentaryo sa baba ngmga columns ng mga columnists sa Inquirer, Star atiba pang mainstream na dyaryo, mild pa ang pitik dito sa CPM. Pero dahil may kredibilidad ang CPM, mas mabigat ang dating ng mga karamihan na ma opinyon dito.Siempre marami rin makulit na parang bata, pero minsan nakakahalata din dahil iba ang dating, yung parang langaw…

    Mas maigi sa gobyerno na ang kanilang mamamayan ay may venue na mailabas ang kanilang ma reklamo sa civilized na paraan. Pag binarahan at binusalan, ang iba ay nagigiing bayolente at hindi na dinadaan sa pagdebate kundi sa karahasan.

    Na kay PNoy ang bola, abangan kung sya ay may pusong Pinoy o may utak na Abnoy…

    • 33.1
      leona says:

      @Parekoy’s anticipatory statements, etc., just in the event that cybercrime law is sustained by the SC as to the Libel provisions, etc., , I proposed that any CPMer or CPMers, certified by Raissa, who are charged and prosecuted for violations under it, a free legal Defense Team be established for such purpose, with assistance from our other “technical experts” here in the field of computer/cyberspace, etc. I will extend my criminal legal practice experience of 40 years, and I, for one, with others among us, can handle the defense.

      If you reside in NYC, London, Paris, Hongkong, Singapore, atbpa, charged under Cybercrime law, wanting a defense team, just provide plane tickets,hotel accomm, restaurants, places of amusements, etc. and for our interviews with you for preparations, etc. If you reside in ‘Pinas, we’ll see how you can get away with the charge/prosecution, or bring you into those place. No kidding.

      Raissa can start the formation of the legal defense & technical panel on this matter from our CPM here. All for One ‘n One for All!

      What say you?

      • 33.1.1
        leona says:

        Shall we require at least 50% approval from all CPMers here or what? Where’s our HQ? Funny….iSS…up there? Where? We can plan it later of course. Plant the seed!

        • 33.1.1.1
          chit navarro says:

          Excellent idea….
          HQ – here at CPM; make it a cyber plaza office…

          • 33.1.1.1.1
            leona says:

            @chit…shall we now add video cams and headphones to our PCs so we SEE and HEAR each other ONLY DURING PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEWS for the purpose? With CPMer(s) defendants?

            How do we do it btw? Experts, do we hear see YOU? With or NO masks? Pangit ako! “what the f…k you’re so ugly!’ [Arnold Swarzenegger, Predator]

      • 33.1.2
        pelang says:

        Bless your heart, leona. I’m sure many will heed your call. As we say here at CPM, “walang iwanan.”

      • 33.1.3

        i agree and will help, pros and cons percentage is irrelevant.

        • 33.1.3.1
          leona says:

          @Aliz…help? eh…when one CPMer gets docked, the whole CPM is docked, we’re all defendants under Cybercrime law! hahaha…and you & us areall in the frontline of the skirmishes to our last and final pulses!

          • 33.1.3.1.1
            leona says:

            @Aliz…the strategy is: we make “CLICKS, SHARE, LIKE” and Comments by ALL CPMERs [ how many are we Raissa - 500 or 1000+] to “own” the libelous remark of one docked CPMer…the gov’t has to accused all I mean all of CPMers in court, like they call “class suit,” here it will be “CLASS ACCUSED!” including the satirist here! hahaha.

            • leona says:

              further…the investigation by the DOJ will fill up the whole DOJ building with us; for trial it will be inside a gymnasium to accommodate all of us! How it will go, your guess is as good God’s and mine!

      • 33.1.4
        pinay710 says:

        mam leona, i’m sure i will need that defense if i cannot control my fingers when i am sooooo mad or scared. these actions of our TRAPOS really makes my bp rise up.i just be very very cautious before hitting the “submit ” i will read it 5x. really scared. no more expressing one’s pagiisip freely.

      • 33.1.5
        Parekoy says:

        It is getting complicated, pero ang target ay hindi tayong mga commenters dito sa CPM, kundi itong buong blogsite. Therefore si Raissa ng uunahin dahil sya ang admin, and command responsibility ay sa kanya kahit na yung mga ” libelous” statements ay hindi galing sa kanya.

        Ang intention ay busalan, so pag yung mismo mayari ng blog ang target, di parang na strike!

        Magkakaron ng problema ang mga admin ng blogsites dahil sa kanila isho-shoulder ang responsibility ng filtering kung ang mga comments ay libelous in nature, so pahirap ito sa mga mayari ng blogsites dahil kailangan para nab rin silang pseudo newspaper na may editor at legal counsel kung ang lumalabas sa blogsite ay pwedeng libelous. So ma tetechnical ng gobyerno ang mga blogsites dahil alam nila na wala at kulang ito sa resources to hire a legal counsel, so yung freedom ng Netizens ay biglang mawawala dahil yung provuder ng popular na venue ang syang target. Yjng mga fb accounts ay balewala yan dahil yung number of followers ay konti, so di yan pakikialaman ng gobyerno o pulitiko. Ang effective although evil ay yng targetin ang mga mayari ng popular at influential blogsites kasi paang gagawin na similar ang kategirya sa nga mainstream newspaper. So pag ganito ang ginawa, kawawa talaga ang Netizens dahil pilay tayo.

        So Conflicted talaga ang PNoy administration kung ituloy nila na kasali yung libel provisions sa Cybercrime Law dahil pinapatay nya ang tunay demokrasya. Sana hwag sana nyang magpaka Abnoy, dapat sya ay magkapa Pinoy!

  11. 32
    leona says:

    From today Inquirer news…

    “Charges dismissed, P1,000 bail

    But even as Petrasanta and Valte spoke, Agus and his three friends were getting a reprieve from the Caloocan prosecutor’s office.

    Nida C. Gravino, senior assistant prosecutor, on Friday dismissed charges of illegal discharge of firearms and negligence against Agus and his drinking buddies, Arcadio Gulmatico, Eddie Magtubo and Feliciano Cercano.

    The four men were detained on Thursday and were subjected to inquest proceedings on Friday, where Gravino dismissed the charge of illegal discharge of firearms for lack of evidence, approving charges of alarm and scandal only.

    “There was no proof to the effect that when the gun was fired, it was aimed at a person. There was no witness who declared to the effect that these people fired the gun,” Gravino said in a telephone interview.

    She also dismissed the charge of negligence against Agus for letting his drinking buddies take turns in firing his .45-caliber gun.

    A P1,000 bail was recommended for the temporary liberty of the four suspects, who remained in the custody of Caloocan police as of press time on Friday. ”

    This is relevantly only about law enforcing and prosecuting that Cybercrime law may also face in the very near future. How can this dismissal of the proper charges be made against the suspects?

    This news refers to guns…Nicole girl killed in Caloocan City. Is there some utterly defective legal procedures or law procedures in our criminal justice system overall? The Invvestigating prosecutor should have filed all the police charges against the suspects!

    Law violators gets away scott free. How about the coming procedures to enforce the Cybercrime law? Will it be like this also? Or a cycle for errors and injustices?

  12. 31
    baycas says:

    Ma’am Raissa,

    It appears there are several comments downstairs (below Comment No. 1) that are in limbo, meaning no parent comment numbers.

    Does it mean there are comments still awaiting moderation or are dumped somewhere waiting to be retrieved?

    • 31.1
      baycas says:

      I am kind of waiting for the comment of the eminent lawyer saxnviolins to appear.

      Anyway, Ma’am Ellen (Tordesillas) already linked SnV’s blog post on the matter at hand.

      I fully subscribe to his legal opinion because what the Cyber Libel Law really means is to revisit the antiquated law on libel (the parent provision of law in the RPC) and perhaps strike it down as unconstitutional.

      As pointed out in abogadomodotcom and marichulambinodotcom, the general rule in libel is that presumption of malice exists where burden of proof of the contrary lies on the defendant. “Kabalintunaan siya.” The accuser must prove the guilt of the accused…not the accused to prove his innocence.

      Presumption of innocence must be preserved even in cases of libel…

      • 31.1.1
        leona says:

        @baycas, YOU’RE VERY RIGHTLY RIGHT ON THAT! It just entered my gray matter but saw your last sentence! That point is crucial and constitutionally superior, and is in the fundamental law at that, while the ‘presumption of malice’ is by statute or procedure, and is inferior. There we, saxnviolin is I.D. a lawyer, imminent pa! Any more? The experts on cyberspace/Internet? Pls see my No. 29.1 comment.

        • 31.1.1.1
          leona says:

          We’ll even form a ‘Cheering Squad’ in cyberspace for this important matter! ‘Til in space do we all meet!

  13. 30
    Tomas Gomez III says:

    Participation as a CPMer in Raissa’s blogsite is of multifarious nature. (BTW, lest we forget it, she owns the site.) In any case, the menu for participation consists of choices…..to share, to inform, to amuse and entertain, to irritate, to frustrate, to argue, to show off, to advertise oneself as an all-knowing opinionator, even to expose oneself as an erudite asshole, if not one who is mal or misinformed. Or, all of the above.
    But in fine, to be a CPMer is to confirm for all cyberspace that there is indeed joy in the freedom of expression. The usual maxim that “your freedom stops just before the tip of my nose” does not apply in cyberspace. If I called Senator or Cabinet Secretary ‘tal fulano’ a certified nincompoop, he is at complete liberty to call me the same, in the exercise of the inalienable right of the freedom of cyberspace response. There is really nothing to bellyache and whine about. Patas ang bakbakan!
    That is why the CyberCrime Law, if not amended, will be a fatal assault upon Freedom itself and the liberty to enjoy it.
    Pamahalaan, gising na!….the pansitan of public opinion is open for the people’s business. Hindi po ito dormitoryo!!! Gising na!
    With great vigor let us all rise to defend that freedom. Raissa, Alan, et al….your marching orders, please !

  14. 29
    Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    NEWS FLASH !!!

    8 people dead in shooting rampage in the township 10 miles north of Manila. All of them poor people.

    God so love the poor, especially Filipnios, that God made them live in agony and torment.

    I LOVE YOU GOD !!! KEEP IT UP SO YOU WILL LOOSE MEMBERSHIP.

    • 29.1
      Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      Goot photo ops for politicians for May Election !!!! Definitely the Philippine Media will cover this, of course.

    • 29.2
      Tomas Gomez III says:

      Hey, genius…..the last time I was back home, Kawit / Cavite was still SOUTH of Manila!

      • 29.2.1
        Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        Thank you, Sir !

        Too much Blood of Christ still in my system after New Year binge-drinking.

        So it is south not north ! Hic ! hic!

      • 29.2.2
        chit navarro says:

        :) :) :)

        Can’t help but post how happy you make my day!!!

      • 29.2.3
        Rene-Ipil says:

        Tomas Gomez III@24.2

        Please forgive TMKB/FBGY a.k.a. MRP because though both lived in Metro Manila till high school and beyond, Cavite was out of their loop. No nightlife in there.

        • 29.2.3.1
          Tomas Gomez III says:

          @Rene-Ipil….pls rescue me from blissful ignorance…I know MRP but who are TMKB/FBGY…..I was absent when da titser lectured on that subject.

          Anyway, while I am at it, let me share this …..here is a late breaking TV news….local San Antonio, TX ( known as Las Nuevas Filipinas, circa 1715-1750)….two police stories….involving two police officers. One male officer was apprehended by the Chief himself….nahuling nango-ngotong…….asking for 400 $ atik to erase apprehension of a party caught with marijuana…….and the other, a female detention officer of the Sheriff’s office….nag-lasing, nag-wala, nagpawardi-wardi sa kotse, naka-bunggo….kalaboso siya ngayon kasabay ng kaunting escandalo. Naku, kaunti nang nalilisan…ang puti pa naman!!!
          Mayrooon ba tayong ganito diyan? Dapat mangibabaw ang katarungan at ipahalimbawa ng mga bisig ng batas ang asal na puwedeng tularan ng mga kabataan. Or am I barking at the moon?

          Pahabol……ang sabaw ng sinigang….sala-ing mabuti para halos maging ‘clear broth’…initin at patakan ng isa o dalawang tulo ng olive oil. Kaunting pa-class!!! OK na OK.

          • 29.2.3.1.1
            Tomas Gomez III says:

            It is now 7:00 PM of Friday evening January 4…..you are 14 hours ahead until Daylight Saving Time…..I think it is first Sunday of March.

          • 29.2.3.1.2
            Joe America says:

            @Thomas Gomez III, the initials are, I think, pertinent to Mariano Renato Pacifico’s real-life existence. In the context of this discussion, it is the use of truth to damage the reputation of a commenter with whom RI has strong objections. The whole approach makes me uncomfortable, as I think everyone carries their own history, the good and the bad, and to use the bad as a vehicle for punishment without recognizing the whole of a person, in a forum like this, is ummmm . . . awkward at best.

            I write under a pseudonym for a reason, and maybe I have something to hide, like I’m Bernie Madoff’s brother or something. I’m not sure what that has to do with the arguments I put out here, which have one aim only, a healthy, modern, wealthy Philippines. Mariano’s is, I think, a clarion call for introspection by Filipinos. Done brutally.

            Well, all that is neither here nor there. I like RI and I like Mariano. Both are bright in their own vernacular and teach me a lot. And I like Vincent Van Gogh as an artist even though he was certifiably crazy. His art stands for itself.

            • Rene-Ipil says:

              Joe america@ 25.2

              I am informing the CPMers the truth about TMDG/FBGY a.k.a. MRP to guide them on dealing with them. That is why I am careful in placing the facts here. I wish that those interested to know more about TMDG/FRGY would do his own research so that I don’t have to reveal here all my materials about the couple.

              It appears to some of us that TMDG/FBGY’s motive is puportedly to help the poor Filipinos out of the rut. But far from it. The facts say that both are certified Filipino haters. I am re-posting below my comment to Letlet@84 on “Alan’s latest humor post …”

              “People like TMDG/FBRY a.k.a. MRP will never change. Both are certified Filipino haters and carry prominent names well known for amassing unexplained wealth in the Philippines. By the way, TMDG is presently in the USA and is under electronic detention like his mother, courtesy of the Filipino and US authorities. His partner FBGY lives with him. In 2006 FBGY, a phenomenal blogger wrote why, what and how he hated Filipinos so much. He said he lived in their modest house in Muntinlupa before by force instead of choice. Both are smart. But Johnny Lin, Victin Luz and the CPMers are smarter. ”

              BTW I also love Van Gogh as an artist even without an ear. But I don’t like people with criminal minds.

              In my previous post above I put TMKB. Sorry, it is TMDG.

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Erratum: to guide them on dealing with the duo.
                do their own research

              • Joe America says:

                Oh, by all means, carry on. I’m enjoying learning how Filipinos deal with conflict. I’ve argued in my blogs that it is a power-based country, and almost all interpersonal interactions are built on claiming power, or denigrating others to diminish their power. You have the power of inside information and are using that in a mysterious, intimidating way, heavy on the nasty aspersions (“criminal mind”, and you are casting Mariano as a “loser” in the intelligence department, versus Johnny and others who share your view. So that’s I suppose a + 2 for you. One for the information and clout you wield, and one for the intelligence put-down.

                And of course, you are the arbiter of intelligence, rather the court of opinion of one.

                I suspect Mariano has his own scorecard and may have a different tally. I don’t know.

                So maybe you are really just playing a game of solitaire.

                But carry on. It is even tangentially related to the topic, cybercrime, truth and malice.

                Thanks for the explanation.

    • 29.3
      Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      You might think this comment is out of line. No! It has bearing to cybercrime law.

      We have gun laws. One cabinetfull of gun law. Still Philippines is like cowboy country of America.

      If these geniuses cannot impose gun control laws who can on cybercrime law. Save your breath. Let cybercrime law pass. No one goes to prison for this law and many other laws.

      To this day, Philippine Media has not provided me names that got caught with anti-Wang-Wang. Because nobody in the enforcement industry want to do with the anti-wang-wang.

  15. 28
    letlet says:

    # 12 macspeed

    I agree with your suggestions, we definitely need a cybercrime law, but do away with irrelevant and complicated sections that are not most beneficial to the betterment of the people in terms of communication and technology, that would be used by unscrupolous politicians as loopholes for their own benefits ( suing people right and left for their allegations of graft and corruption and highly questionable principle and ) moral goings, and that would be used as a weapon by a certain group of people to implant fear into the totality of most concerned citizens if they expose political wrongdoings of these certain group.

    To the president of the Philippines, PNOY, please don’t let some people use you to advance their self vested interest at your expense, don’t let them pull you down from where you are now and give them opportunities to do so.

  16. 27
    Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    Why GDP/GNP increase is a farce:

    BECAUSE SEAFOOD CITY, PACIFIC ISLAND GROCERY PRODUCTS ARE MADE FROM THAILAND, VIETNAM AND SOUTH KOREA. 80% INCLUDING PALANGANA, KUTSARA, TINIDOR AND MOST OF ALL COCO-JUICE

    Why brilliance of Filipinos is a farce:

    FILIPINOS IN AMERICA WOULD RATHER HIRE WHITE AMERICAN LAWYERS than U.S.-Citizenship-card-carrying Fake-American Filipinos graduate from U.P. and UCLA and Harvard.

    Not until I see 80% of Filipino products inSeafood City and Pacific Isalnd and Filipnios consulting with Fake-American Filipino on their immigrant status THAT IS THE ONLY TIME BILIB-NA-BILIB AKO SA MGA PINOY.

    By the way, why are we people debating about cybercrime laws when we have plenty of laws that needing debating because they are not applied. THIS ONE IS GLARING:

    HUWAG UMIHI DITO – Ordinance 666
    BAWAL MAG TAPON NG BASURA – ORDINANCE 69

    If authoritieis cannot impose the two of the above including anti-WANG-WANG, forget about cybercrime law. LET IT BE PASSED. Nothing will happen anyways.

    Isn’t Philippines a fun place ? Or is it a FUNNY PLACE?

  17. 26
    Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    I want a law passed, too. A law that PROHIBITS ANY BROWN-SKIN-PUNK’D NOSE FILIPINO TO HIRE WHITE AMERICAN LAWYERS.

    Example:

    Nora Aunor
    Children of Gen Garcia
    Manny Pacquiao
    Mrs. Lapid
    And all TnTs in America

    WE MUST PROMOTE THE FILIPINO MINDS HERE AND ABROAD AND IN AMERICA TO TEST THE BEAUITFUL MINDS OF THE BRILLIANT FILIPINOS.

  18. 25
    Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    If Cybercrime law is passed. The Philiphinos will be in need of hip-and-cool cyber-snazzy geeky types of judges.

    Can the current judges know about cybercrime law? If they are not Facebook-smart, they are not worthy to judge me.

  19. 24
    springwoodman says:

    Re item 8 – Truth as a defence.

    I have never understood why truth is not a defence. How can the reputation of a person be harmed if what is imputed against him is true?

    And if what is imputed is true, how can there be malice? Given that the definition of malice is “careless disregard for the truth”.

    This does not make sense.

    To my mind, it’s not only the Cybercrime Law that needs amending but also the libel laws.

    • 24.1
      Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      TRUTH IS DEFINITELY NOT A DEFENSE.

      Another axiom of mine that is incontrovertible : TRUTH DO NOT SET YOU FREE BUT A GOOT LAWYER DOES

    • 24.2
      leona says:

      @springwoodman…those words are ‘fighting’ each other: ‘true’ vs ‘malice’. When one ‘disregard’ the truth ‘carelessly’ it only means a lie instead was made rather than the truth.

      Example of truth but with malice: A public official dead for 2 years had a mistress. Both mistress and legal wife are still alive. Wife write in FB accessing mistress’ box, accusing mistress of adultery with the dead husband. Mistress files suit for criminal and civil Libel. Wife defends it is the truth: pictures of dead husband with mistress going and exiting from a Motel; love letters exchanged between mistress and dead husband for 1year; a house bought by dead husband where mistress lives, and 1 child as offspring.

      Everybody ‘Friends” of mistress and wife reads the accusation on FB. Is there a crime of Libel committed? Is her defense of truth exculpatory? We gave examples before or earlier on this matter. Is wife ‘careless for the truth’ or ‘careful for the truth?” Assuming or granting, as it is normally, can the wife’s hatred and anger against the mistress with ‘malice?” Yes, but what the ‘truth’?

      As I said, the words are fighting each other. Is there a ‘sense’ or there is ‘nonsense’?

      There is nonsense. But R.A. No. 10175Cybercrime law has many more nonsense than this example! For one: it included all provisions of the Revised Penal Code,as Amended and special laws in this cybercrime law plus increasing the penalty 1 degree higher than what the Penal Code punishes when committed with computer. This is in violation of the Constitution as “cruel and inhuman punishment.” [Bill of Rights]

      Thus for the Libel in the above example, the wife maybe made to serve imprisonment presion corectonal maximum period to prison mayor minimum period or 4 years 2 months 1 day to 8 years instead of 6 months 1 day to 4 years 2 months.

      That is cruelty. Inhuman. Of course it is nonsense!

      • 24.2.1
        leona says:

        @springwoodman…to continue and finish this: Can the crime of Adultery be committed by the use of e-mails (computer) like in the above example if the husband is still alive having adulterous relations with his mistress, arranging via e-mails their 1 year sexual relationships in the house of the mistress and in motels? Under the cybercrime law, YES! So both culprits’ penalty is also increased 1 degree higher – or prison mayor minimum period to prison mayor medium period = 6 years 1 day to 10 years rather than 2 years, 4 months 1 day to 6 years. Why higher? Again because it is nonsense Adultery having been augmentedly committed by use of computer for 1 year! Cruel and inhuman.

        • 24.2.1.1
          isellnuts says:

          @leona

          Yes! the wife is guilty of libel both in the Revised Penal code Article 355 and Republic Act No. 10175 Cybercrime Law

          The fact that the wife used the social media facebook in accusing the mistress of adultery made her liable under Republic Act No. 10175 Cybercrime law Cahpter 2 Punishable acts, Section 4 Cybercrime offenses (4) Libel. — 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.

          Revised Penal Code Article 355
          Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code

          CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
          Chapter One
          LIBEL
          Section One. — Definitions, forms, and punishment of this crime.chanrobles virtual law library

          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. 354. Requirement for publicity. — 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, except in the following cases:
          1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
          2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

          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 fact that the crime committed falls under the new law of Cybercrime it is only academic that the penalty under this law must be followed.

          • 24.2.1.1.1
            leona says:

            Can anyone give a good reason why the cybercrime law went to “increase” the penalty of crimes 1 degree higher – from penal code & special laws imposable penalties, – via use of the computer/Internet? My point is – it’s cruel and inhuman! So, what’s the good reason for this higher penalties?

            By analogy or use of the reasoning of the US SupCt, juveniles convicted of crimes & sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of Parole was reversed after many years for many juveniles under that situation. Reason: Cruel and inhuman or unusual inflicted punishments.

            Unless, our courts in this matter do not abide with that reasoning, okay lang. But it relevantly applies! Why? We have almost a sotto-copy Bill of Right on this point: ART. III SEC. 19 (1) Phil Const. and Amendment VIII [1791] US Const. Both on ‘cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

            • baycas says:

              I don’t know if this is good but their reason is that cyberspace is broader than, let’s say, a publication with a hundred circulation.

              Just one click (or, press) to defame…but this time, with a global broadcast.

              • leona says:

                @baycas…just that? And the counte-part is add YEARS for that? That’s a low blow reasoning really for …mind us….SENATORS?!

                Why don’t they just re-impose the DEATH PENALTY for heinous crimes? What’s happening inside their minds? They HATE US bloggers?, users of Internet, atbpa? Sure, we HATE THEM TOO!

                Their acts are abuses of the powers of lawmaking or lawmakers! We never gave such to them! Is it appropriate, when people have the chance, to ABOLISH THE SENATE instead? Parang hydra!

      • 24.2.2
        leona says:

        I meant ‘the husband was still alive committing adultery’ with his mistress before he passed away. Sorry. Just to be clear about it.

      • 24.2.3
        isellnuts says:

        @leona
        Black’s Law Dictionary defines a Constitution as “The fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government, defines the scope of governmental sovereign powers, and guarantees individual civil rights and civil liberties.”

        When the congress enacted a law that specifically addresses the subject of the law the latter must be followed except or otherwise the supreme court declared such law as unconstitutional, only then the provision of our constitution still prevails.

        • 24.2.3.1
          leona says:

          @isellnuts…your above comment probably refers to what I did write here but could have been ‘unacceptable’ to Moderator…my fault as I tried to ‘sotto-copy’ it for false beliefs too! So, sorry na lang. But thanks anyway.

    • 24.3
      jcc says:

      renato, you have to draw a line between a public complainant and a private complainant. if your neighbor is a whore, you have no business publishing the truth about her disreputable profession. if the same neighbor is a public official, her being a whore has attained an entirely new dimension because if she can whore her body, she can whore her public function too.

    • 24.4
      isellnuts says:

      @springwoodman

      For real, truth can never set you free nor can be a good defense in court. Here’s why;

      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. 354. Requirement for publicity. — 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, except in the following cases:
      1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
      2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

    • 24.5
      springwoodman says:

      Thank all for your input. Is it possible you are caught in legalese?

      1. First of all, the original wronged party is the wife. The wrong-doer is the husband. The wife should charge him with concubinage. Afterwards, her options would be:

      1.1 Pardon the husband
      1.2 Legal separation
      1.3 Annulment
      1.4 If divorce were available, divorce him. (Note: We need divorce.)
      1.5 Castration or penile amputation or both

      2. The mistress should not be able to file libel in the first place if she is truly the mistress. Or the suit should be dismissed if it is proved she is the mistress. She is not being “charged falsely”.

      2.1 I do not see the “reputation” of the mistress being harmed. What exactly is her reputation? She may have many, like being a good cook or an excellent amanuensis but one of them is “being a mistress”. So to me there is no harm there, just accuracy.

      3. I gather the penalty for a concubine is destierro or banishment from residing within the radius of 25 kilometers. (I don’t know if automobiles were already available when the law was crafted! But, you know, that’s just 3 minutes away from a good pop.)

      4. Going back to the wife, her sins, if any, are the following – at least to me:

      4.1 Loss of pussy power
      4.2 Trespassing FB privacy

  20. 23
    saxnviolins says:

    It seems my main point disappeared. The one where I typed sanviolins, not sax…

    Anyway, here it is again.

    Malice is presumed in the Philippines.Marichu Lambino calls it malice in law, and the professor at abogadomodotcom gives a lengthy explanation that misses the point. It is that part – presumed malice that is unconstitutional.

    Let us get down to basics, as taught by Professor Espinosa, ages ago.

    The accused is presume innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He used to say, that corollary to this principle, is the burden laid by the Constitution on the prosecution to prove every element of the offense. Now malice is an element of the offense. But if the law shifts the burden from the prosecution (to prove malice) to the defense (to prove good faith), then that shift in burden runs afoul of the Constitutional requirement that the prosecution prove each element of the offense.

    The Supreme Court has flip flopped on this issue, on the one hand, holding that New York Times v. Sullivan applies in the Philippines, while on the other, maintaining the constitutionality of the presumption of malice.

    New York Times v Sullivan held that libel is constitutional if there is a showing of malice; that “showing” means that the plaintiff must present evidence of malice. Later, in Milkovich v. Lorain, the US Supreme Court held that “the plaintiff bears the burden of showing (presenting evidence) falsity as well as fault.”

    Although the above are civil libel cases, the US Supreme Court held that New York Times v Sullivan applied in the criminal case of Garrison v. Louisiana. Louisiana has a criminal libel statute that employs the same phraseology as the Philippine libel law.

    In 2006, in the case of Ivey v Alabama (Sullivan sued New York Times in Alabama), the Supreme Court of Alabama finally struck down the criminal libel law of Alabama as being unconstitutional.

    The above points (including citations) are better explained in the link below.

    http://www.frauslatet.blogspot.com/

  21. 22
    Ancient Mariner says:

    In my humble opinion, should this law be enacted then the Philippines will become the laughing stock of the free world. The good currently being done by President Aquino will be largely undone because nobody will believe that things have changed much during his Presidency because the country can still enact and probably enforce idiotic laws.
    All outside entities who are looking to do business in the Philippines use the Internet to further their business interests. Why would they set up business in country where their every internet move will be monitored. Good bye security and privacy. Good bye trade secrets. Hello, the same old story of graft and corruption. Vis-a-vis, well, the fine should be P100,000 but if you kiss my butt or grease my palm anything can be undone.
    How can the enforcement group’s chief already be known when the law is still under discussion? Smells of old style politics. Are they so confident?

    • 22.1
      Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      LAUGHING STOCK ? LAUGH-IN ?

      Remember Filipinos is in top ten happiest people on earth.

      Philippines is a fun place to live run by anti-Justin Beiber non-reading non-comprehending congressmen making Disneyland only 2nd.

  22. 21
    Joe America says:

    If I am the test case, I shall submit all 600 of my blogs as evidence that I write with the best interest of the Philippines in mind, and the judicial panel will declare me innocent just to be able not to have to read any more of that esoteric, satirical, opinionated folderol.

    We need some good defense lines, like that “there is no such thing as a false opinion.” That’s great.

    I’m thinking perhaps, “satire is never malicious because it advances the mind reaching to comprehend.”

  23. 20
    van says:

    Is it a futile exercise for relevant advocacy groups to propose a thorough version which would be legally and morally acceptable, if there isn’t one already? Among dino-politicians, the easily scared public, and the tech savvy sector, these provisions are easy to dramatize in extreme situations to illustrate why the current version is a legal boon or bane. Plus, senators apparently do not examine these laws to the last comma and period before signing them, clueless and incompetent :T maybe experts can step in committee-style…

    We do need a Cybercrime Law, just not this kind and not this petty.

  24. 19
    leona says:

    I connect something to @fed _up No. 11, in this initial voice about Cybercrime law.

    My idea of 1 more day kaputs as Raissa gave us a reminder on this very important cybercrime issue due for a SC decision soon, very soon it’s either we lose writing here or continue to seek and fight only the TRUTH of what free speech and free press are about.

    On No.11 @fed_up, I like to connect initially re

    “xxx When the gate of the corral was flung open (1946 Independence), everybody went galloping here and there for celebration. What “rule” they have adopted was not “rule of law”; it was “anything goes.” It clearly is anything goes curtailing and abridging FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS under the Cybercrime law.

    Pres. Aquino needs or should have been reminded that the Freedom Constitution issued under Proclamation No. 3 was a restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire government system, eradication of graft and corruption, etc. etc. But as @fed_up says “Anything goes.” Is that so?

    So, we all go back to the era of Spaniard’s atmosphere during Dr. Rizal’s time in this country under the Noynoy Aquino Administration. With Cybercrime law we “anything goes” to lose the restoration of democracy! Anything goes to curtail and abridge protection of basic rights, the Bill of Rights under our 1987 Constitution: Free Speech & Free Press!

    Anything goes destroying our and the people’s confidence in the entire Aquino Administration, OUR government! Anything goes not to be able to speak and print in order to eradicate GRAFT AND CORRUPTION in our government, this Administration of Pres. Aquino!

    Anything goes! This R.A. Act No. 10175 Cybercrime law violates all the Constitutions the Filipinos had: 1899 Malolos Constitution, 1935, 1943, 1973. the Freedom Constitution and our 1987 Constitution! All these had provisions protecting FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS! But Anything goes?

    The Declaration of Policy of R.A. No. 10175, among others, states: to attain free, easy and intellligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, etc. But, anything goes, it gets back what was restored in our democracy: this law punishes any misuse, abuse, and illegal access by anything goes re conduct or conducts in the use and exercise of FREE SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS with the use of a computer in cyberspace.

    It is not even provided in that “policy” of the law to put or allow THE DEFENSE or exemption from punishment, that any conduct or conducts in cyberspace or cyberspacing for the TRUTH of the matter written, spoken or printed, shall not constitute a crime or violation of this law! This should be THIS GOES into the law!

    This law is in derogation of our Constitution, cuts, curtails and abridges our IMPLORING THE AID OF ALMIGHTY GOD, it chills the people for a JUST AND HUMAN SOCIETY, our IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS as restored in the Freedom Constitution is lost, anything goes, we cannot promote for the COMMON GOOD, we lose and do not have the BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY under a Rule of Law, a REGIME OF TRUTH, justice, freedom, LOVE, equality and PEACE. All these are in the PREAMBLE of the 1987 Constitution! Shall we allow anything goes?

    No! No! No! Let us pray and hope, and keeping hoping, Congress and the Executive will REPEAL this law before more harm comes upon us. Amending it is TOO LATE and the odds are more harms will be committed, or

    our SUPREME COURT, the last bulwark for our freedom under our Bill of Rights, declares en toto the whole law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The “Separability Clause” cannot survive as to allow some provisions to “live” and others “to die” will cause more CONFUSION for the people and our courts! En Toto the law must and should be pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the sooner the better.

    Let us not live anymore under the atmosphere of Spanish conquest nor like under Martial Law of Mr. Marcos. We have regained our rights. Let us preserve them as our DIRECT MANDATE as a people who MANIFESTED in our EXTRAORDINARY ACTIONS during the EDSA 1 Revolution of 1986! [ holistically expressed in Proclamation No. 3, Freedom Constitution during Pres. Cory C. Aquino Administration.]

    Lastly, repeal or destroy this Cybercrime law!

    [excuse this sottoing, thanks.]

  25. 18
    Joe America says:

    This libel stuff is fascinating. Jurisprudence in a land where court rulings are often made on favor rather than law is a scary place to be tried. It is also scary to be tried in a land where powerful people believe their individual rights are above those of the State, as we witness in this coup or that, or this governor or that stonewalling a suspension order. It is scary to be an “unpowerful” person in a land that thrives on the righteousness of power.

    As a blogger, I believe I have a right to define the terms I use in an article. It is the job of the reader to grasp what I am saying, or inquire as to what I really mean if there is any confusion. I will be amending my terms and conditions to make this clear. Also I will make clear that every word printed in my blog has one intent only: to make the Philippines a better place.

    I’d have a lawyer write it, but . . . nevermind . . .

  26. 17
    e.a. pascual says:

    indeed we can learn something everyday. the lesson for today seems to be the power of shunning, ignoring, resisting self-proclaimed irresistible creatures. congratulations to commenters who discern what is worthwhile to read and comment on. life is short,. no one out there can control what comes within our vision or hearing. but we can control what we pay attention to and respond to .

  27. 16
    Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    The Cybercrime Law AKA Justin Beiber law WILL PASS thru the non-reading, non-understanding rubberstamp 188 impeachment congressmen on top of that the 7 congressmen that introduced a bill in honor of Justin Beiber for denigrating the NEW HERO and GOD …. who else …. MANNY PACQUIAO !!!!

    So, people, do not waste your time and resources in this Justein Beiber law AKA Cybercrime Law. Laws in the Philippines are sporadically applied.

    Like Child Abuse Law, I really thought that this law never existed until Yoyoy Revillame carted his viewership to TV5, then, suddenly Child Abuse Law was resurrected. Poor Yoyoy Revillame became poster boy of Philippine Laws. When IN FACT PHILIPPINE government promotes child neglect. Lookit those children in Tondo and those sleeping in the sidewalk. Where is this so-called Philippine Government ?

  28. 15
    duquemarino says:

    @CPMers @raissa @Alan

    A bountiful and challenging 2013 to all of us!!!!!

    Section 29 of the Cyber Prevention Act states that “If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect.”

    I hope that those who will speak for during the oral argument on January 15 will be able to convince the honorable justices to declare invalid such provisions of the law which are deemed “obnoxious” otherwise I pray that the SC declare the law unconstitutional and the incoming congress enact a new version.

    As @Alan mentioned in his article “Most of the country’s politicians and leaders neither use nor understand the Internet” incumbent and aspiring aspiring political leaders should enhance their knowledge on internet.

    • 15.1
      Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      Why GDP/GNP increase is a farce:

      BECAUSE SEAFOOD CITY, PACIFIC ISLAND GROCERY PRODUCTS ARE MADE FROM THAILAND, VIETNAM AND SOUTH KOREA. 80% INCLUDING PALANGANA, KUTSARA, TINIDOR AND MOST OF ALL COCO-JUICE

      Why brilliance of Filipinos is a farce:

      FILIPINOS IN AMERICA WOULD RATHER HIRE WHITE AMERICAN LAWYERS than U.S.-Citizenship-card-carrying Fake-American Filipinos graduate from U.P. and UCLA and Harvard.

      Not until I see 80% of Filipino products inSeafood City and Pacific Isalnd and Filipnios consulting with Fake-American Filipino on their immigrant status THAT IS THE ONLY TIME BILIB-NA-BILIB AKO SA MGA PINOY.

      By the way, why are we people debating about cybercrime laws when we have plenty of laws that needing debating because they are not applied. THIS ONE IS GLARING:

      HUWAG UMIHI DITO – Ordinance 666
      BAWAL MAG TAPON NG BASURA – ORDINANCE 69

      If authoritieis cannot impose the two of the above including anti-WANG-WANG, forget about cybercrime law. LET IT BE PASSED. Nothing will happen anyways.

      Isn’t Philippines a fun place ? Or is it a FUNNY PLACE?

  29. 14
    letlet says:

    This cybercrime law is definitely unconstitutional (Bill of Rights – Article 111) especially the libel section, whereby it is curtailing our freedom of speech and expression. Our lawmakers are trying to superimpose this cybercrime law over our constitution which should not be the case. Why did Sotto insert this section to the bill, what was his motive, is it for his benefit or for the benefit of the madlang people, is the section “just”?

    Before signing the bill into law, are the signatories well versed to the implications and impact of the law per se to the societal’s intrinsic values, did they hold extensive/rigorous research, consultations and reviews about the libel section, with whom with what facts and datas.

    This law will definitely cause untold misery,fear, infightings, confusion and messy life. China style, here we come.

    • 14.1
      leona says:

      @letlet…the journalists in Guangdong province, China, are up in arms for the changing of the editorial in their Southern Weekly newspaper without their consent! In China, as we all know maybe, there is free speech and free press but don’t touch on political issues or the State’s issues, etc.

      And with our Cybercrime law if the SC holds it as constitutional, we are heading into that direction like in China!

      • 14.1.1
        Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        @Leona, the cybercrime law will be passed in PREPARATION FOR CHINA’S ANEXXATION OF THE PHILIPPINES !!!!!

        Gosh, truly, I am brilliant !!!! I am clairvoyant.

        Am I re-incarnation of the Mayans ?

        • 14.1.1.1
          Joe America says:

          Yes, you were one of those wild-eyed witchdoctors with tall black feathered hats and white paint over the eyes always stoked up on peyote and tossing virgins into the roaring volcanoes. It’s all rather like blogging after all.

  30. 13
    Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    It is the end of Philippine Internet as we know it. The Philippines showed be towed to Middle-East where it belongs. We should join Egypt’s Islamist and apply Sharia law .

    Goodbye Philippines. I am moving to Jolo Sulu.

  31. 12
    macspeed says:

    the cybercrime law shall be approved by the members of the congress and the senators, not only by Sen Angara,Sotto and Sy. Tanggalin ang mga items na nakakabuwisit tulad ng Libel na pihadong gagamitin lang ng mga may gusto nito. Ok lang my cybercrime law but please, yun lang mga batas na karapat dapat lang. Hindi dapat kasama sa batas na yan ang pag pigil sa gustong sabihin ng mga tao sa net kung may prueba naman tulad ng mga hyperlink he he he pagmeetingan nila ang nilalaman bago papirmahan kay Pres Noy…

  32. 11
    fed_up says:

    Not wanting this post to be buried in a preceding topic (Alan’s latest humor post: Tales of Doom), I’m making it here. I hope I’m not breaking any house rule.

    @leona. At 76.2, you said: “Maybe, just maybe, we got this out of being 300 years ‘slaves’ by the Spaniards here! Our forefathers and before them, handed this pHs down to generations that no matter what we learn in school, this keeps popping out in our traits as HABITS.”

    Thanks for taking time to comment on my post on PFHs: Pernicious Filipino Habits. To me, these are the real “culprits” that brought about the depravity of our nation.

    Your observation is an echo of what two distinguished authors have earlier said in describing the Filipino psyche.

    In the Introduction in her book “Filipino-Americans: Transformation and Identity”, Maria P. P. Root has stated: “Spanning five centuries, colonization ravaged the souls and psyche of the indigenous people of the archipelago dubbed Las Islas Filipinas by Spain in 1565. The traumas associated with colonization that lasted almost 400 years scarred us all, regardless of our nativity, language, class or gender. Trauma fragments and fractures the essence of our being and self-knowledge; it disconnects us from each other.

    For his part in his book “American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 – 1964” William Manchester described the Filipino race as a people who have spent “300 years in a convent and 50 years in Hollywood.”

    We all know how the Spaniards subjected the Filipinos to oppression and humiliation. To them, there were only two kinds of human being: the superior white (them) and the inferior Indios (us).

    I have my own version on how the Filipino psyche was unkindly treated by history. To me, they were more like horses having spent 300 years, not in a convent, but in a corral.

    When the gate of the corral was flung open (1946 Independence), everybody went galloping here and there for celebration. What “rule” they have adopted was not “rule of law”; it was “anything goes.”

    • 11.1

      Though already posted in the other thread, I am reposting it here as another take that points no accusing finger to anyone, just to a metaphorical thing. Here it is:

      If one knows, no one should be FED UP. The theory este
      METAPHOR goes like this. It is CONTAMINATION, then INFECTION
      and finally complete BREAKDOWN of the moral IMMUNE SYSTEM
      of the Elite and the masses. Inevitably as in a culture of impunity,
      It BECOMES GENETIC, it runs in the blood and became pathologic
      stem cells. This is the Darwinian origin of corruption that thrive best
      in a polluted culture. This theory este METAPHOR can be put
      Into a spin of many books, with children of political dynasties as Harvard
      successful business case studies. A Doctor in the Barrio like a Juan Flavier left
      medicine, went into lawmaking, got contaminated, then probably
      infected, got out on time, had been able to avoid complete breakdown of his
      immune system but the corruption vaccine organisms will always be with him.
      Corruption is like a chemotherapy drug, it kills the antibodies until
      the moral resistance is completely taken over by extravagance and luxury.

      • 11.1.1

        IF I may add:

        The contamination started in the 16th century when the kings of Spain started selling positions in the colonial government. It saw full flower several centuries later during martial law when mentors in business administration held the reins of the executive branch, when governance ceased to be for public service but for PROFIT. The “businessation” of public service had put a price for services already paid for by repressive taxation. Infection became widespread that even non-existent services or projects became sources of untold wealth and power. It could have reached full circle when the present administration took over and some noises and allegations were made that juicy positions were available for a price through the selection and screening committee. Which was really baloney and unnecessary for the mammoth campaign contributors. Power excised of money is benign public service while money as fuel to power is malignant public service.

    • 11.2
      leona says:

      My idea of 1 more day kaputs as Raissa gave us a reminder on this very important cybercrime issue due for a SC decision soon, very soon it’s either we lose writing here or continue to seek and fight only the TRUTH of what free speech and free press are about.

      On No.11 @fed_up, I like to connect initially re

      “xxx When the gate of the corral was flung open (1946 Independence), everybody went galloping here and there for celebration. What “rule” they have adopted was not “rule of law”; it was “anything goes.” It clearly is anything goes curtailing and abridging FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS under the Cybercrime law.

      Pres. Aquino needs or should have been reminded that the Freedom Constitution issued under Proclamation No. 3 was a restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire government system, eradication of graft and corruption, etc. etc. But as @fed_up says “Anything goes.” Is that so?

      So, we all go back to the era of Spaniard’s atmosphere during Dr. Rizal’s time in this country under the Noynoy Aquino Administration. With Cybercrime law we “anything goes” to lose the restoration of democracy! Anything goes to curtail and abridge protection of basic rights, the Bill of Rights under our 1987 Constitution: Free Speech & Free Press!

      Anything goes destroying our and the people’s confidence in the entire Aquino Administration, OUR government! Anything goes not to be able to speak and print in order to eradicate GRAFT AND CORRUPTION in our government, this Administration of Pres. Aquino!

      Anything goes! This R.A. Act No. 10175 Cybercrime law violates all the Constitutions the Filipinos had: 1899 Malolos Constitution, 1935, 1943, 1973. the Freedom Constitution and our 1987 Constitution! All these had provisions protecting FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS! But Anything goes?

      The Declaration of Policy of R.A. No. 10175, among others, states: to attain free, easy and intellligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, etc. But, anything goes, it gets back what was restored in our democracy: this law punishes any misuse, abuse, and illegal access by anything goes re conduct or conducts in the use and exercise of FREE SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS with the use of a computer in cyberspace.

      It is not even provided in that “policy” of the law to put or allow THE DEFENSE or exemption from punishment, that any conduct or conducts in cyberspace or cyberspacing for the TRUTH of the matter written, spoken or printed, shall not constitute a crime or violation of this law! This should be THIS GOES into the law!

      This law is in derogation of our Constitution, cuts, curtails and abridges our IMPLORING THE AID OF ALMIGHTY GOD, it chills the people for a JUST AND HUMAN SOCIETY, our IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS as restored in the Freedom Constitution is lost, anything goes, we cannot promote for the COMMON GOOD, we lose and do not have the BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY under a Rule of Law, a REGIME OF TRUTH, justice, freedom, LOVE, equality and PEACE. All these are in the PREAMBLE of the 1987 Constitution! Shall we allow anything goes?

      No! No! No! Let us pray and hope, and keeping hoping, Congress and the Executive will REPEAL this law before more harm comes upon us. Amending it is TOO LATE and the odds are more harms will be committed, or

      our SUPREME COURT, the last bulwark for our freedom under our Bill of Rights, declares en toto the whole law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The “Separability Clause” cannot survive as to allow some provisions to “live” and others “to die” will cause more CONFUSION for the people and our courts! En Toto the law must and should be pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the sooner the better.

      Let us not live anymore under the atmosphere of Spanish conquest nor like under Martial Law of Mr. Marcos. We have regained our rights. Let us preserve them as our DIRECT MANDATE as a people who MANIFESTED in our EXTRAORDINARY ACTIONS during the EDSA 1 Revolution of 1986! [ holistically expressed in Proclamation No. 3, Freedom Constitution during Pres. Cory C. Aquino Administration.]

      Lastly, repeal or destroy this Cybercrime law!

  33. 10
    Alex says:

    there are so many vague provisions in this law, like the alteration of computer data, you can be sued just by making memes or fanarts using online picutures that you dont own. .The provision on sending unsolicited commercial communication is also vague, they didn’t specify which media the law applies, unlike the US and other countries’ law regarding spam, they do noted that it only applies to email spam. sorry about my English.

  34. 9

    INFANTILISM is a stage and a state of human nature before maturation. I have seen it proliferate here, lately as written words. But it will pass as wasted time and space which does not stand still and then CPM will be back as is, but in the New Year, hopefully, BETTER.

  35. 8
    jcc says:

    The cybercrime law will be junked using the three part test on free speech, an American/International standard that limits govt. interference on free speech: vagueness, overbroad, and unfettered discretion on the part of a government official to determine what constittues cybercrimes. Philippine courts traditionally follow the American jurisprudence. But this is not to say that speech is absolute. It is limited by the issues of public safety, moral, public order, etc. You cannot incite disorder, advertise for the sale of cocaine, post nude pictures (specially of children), nor post articles to damage the reputation of individuals under the guise of free speech. On the latter, (damage to reputation), the standard on public officials subjected to hideous speech, courts have relaxed the standard by including ‘malice’ as additional element. The other elements are provided for in Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code:

    “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.”

    Excised of its verbiage the elements are: “malicious article; publication; identity of the person maligned,” (natural or juridical person) or a derogatory publication against the dead.

    Malice as defined by jurisprudence “is careless disregard for the truth.” So defendant can arguably raised the defense that the publication was made in good faith and that there are no easily verifiable info to consider what had been published as untrue and that it was made in the greater interest of public service.

    If someone called Senator Sotto an ‘obnoxious plagiarist’ it is probably derogatory, and could subject someone for libel, but defendant can raise the defense of lack of malice because the charge that he was a plagiarist, was true, and the adjective “obnoxious is merely the opinion of the defendant.

    If you call President Marcos a thief, you can be subjected to libel for blackening his memory, but defendant can raise the defense of “truth.”

    But the bottomline is that press freedom must have willing warriors to fight for its cause. The inconvenience of court process of harassment of politicians are too small a price to pay. Rizal and Primitivo Mijares gave their lives to bring the truth. But oh, well, Not everyone can don the armors of Rizal, Mijares, Priam, Hector and Achilles to fight a war that will be remembered for the ages to come.

    • 8.1
      raissa says:

      Well said, JCC.

    • 8.2
      Johnny Lin says:

      Jcc
      Happy New Year my friend,
      Nice to hear from you again

      Clarification is educational to us.

      Aside from Primitivo, another could suit with the armor of Joan of Arc,
      RR, not that sexy warbler from the Carribean

      He he he

      • 8.2.1
        jcc says:

        hehehe, johnny lin, there are lots of warriors who don the armor of combat in the name of freedom of the press… patrick henry; voltaire; ermin garcia; gomburza; bishop romero; and some 20 or so members of the press in the maguindanao massacre….

      • 8.2.2
        jcc says:

        happy new year johnny.. :)

    • 8.3
      Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      In Islamist Egypt they have a law that incancerates those that denigrate their religion and the sitting powers. It is vested in Sharia.

      Could Sotto have had change of religion ?

      It appears Republic of the Philippines is an odd country out in Asia. Republic of the Philippines is acting and thinking like Middle-Eastern countries.

      What will happen to me? What will happen to Johnny Lin, Letlet, Praetorius and others? If these fan of Raissa cannot express their opinion, THEY WILL EXPRESS IT IN ANOTHER WAY. Aaaah, No! Not the violent way ! Filipnios are not revolutionary types. They just vote with their passport to Europe, Australia and America. There cannot be coup-de-t’at. Well, we will never know. Coup-de-t’at in the Philippines depends on the phase of the moon. And most coup-de-t’ats were failures. They just wanted publicity to run in the Senate or the country.

      It is scary. After February 6, Philippine technologian contracted by Benign0 Aquino’s government will start scouring denigrating opinion. Then the midnight knock on the door. They whisk you away and will never ever be heard of again.

      You people better say your prayers. I do not need to pray. One missing call to my Americ an government, they will come looking for me. They will send in their troops to pluck me out of this godforsaken place.

      HEre is my proposition. Why not OUTSOURCE THIS GOVERNMENT. Filipinos are not in the business of running a government. Go ask McKinley.

    • 8.4
      baycas says:

      In the RPC…some statements (but definitely incomplete)…

      – Libel, considered malicious unless proven otherwise by the accused.

      – Truth may not be a defense.

      DEFENSES:

      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, 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.

      – abogadomodotcom

      The web link is supplied below.

      • 8.4.1
      • 8.4.2
        baycas says:

        That is Malice-in-Law.

        To understand better, Malice-in-Law must be differentiated from Malice-in-Fact

        http://marichulambino.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/daily-tribune-ninez-cacho-olivares-rtc-libel-conviction/

      • 8.4.3
        jcc says:

        if complainant is a public official, truth is always a defense.

        • 8.4.3.1
          baycas says:

          As stated in the abogadomodotcom quote in No. 8.4 above.

          (Two web links given below the quote still awaiting moderation..)

      • 8.4.4
        baycas says:

        Points of clarifications worthy of note, I believe, because “indiscriminate firing” of comments should must never be allowed under the cloak of freedom of speech.

      • 8.4.5
        sanviolins says:

        The libel law presumes malice. Marichu Lambino calls it malice in law. The abodagmodotcom professor gives a lengthy explanation that misses the point. This is the part that is unconstitutional, and should have been questioned a long time ago – the part that presumes malice.

        Let us get down to basics, as taught by Professor Espinosa, ages ago.

        The accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He used to say that corollary to this presumption, is the burden laid by the Constitution on the prosecution to prove every element of the offense. Now malice is an element of the offense. But if the law presumes malice, the law is unconstitutionally shifting the burden – from the prosecution (to prove malice), to the defense (to prove good faith).

        The Supreme Court has flip flopped on this issue; on the one hand, saying that New York Times v Sullivan applies in the Philippines, but on the other, still maintaining the constitutionality of presumed malice.

        New York Times held that there must be a showing of actual malice. That “showing” is done by evidence being presented by the prosecution. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Later, in Milkovich v Lorain Journal, the US Supreme Court held that “the plaintiff bears the burden of showing falsity as well as fault”, before recovering damages.

        Although the above are civil libel cases, the US Supreme Court applied New York Times doctrine in the criminal case of Garrison v. Louisiana, which has a criminal libel statute that employs identical phraseology as the Philippine libel law.

        In 2006, in the case of Ivey v. Alabama (Sullivan sued New York Times in Alabama), the Supreme Court of Alabama finally struck down the criminal libel statute for being unconstitutional, applying New York Times v. Sullivan.

        The above points (with citations) are better explained in the link below.

        http://www.frauslatet.blogspot.com/

    • 8.5
      Joe America says:

      One person’s malice is another’s good intent. If I ridicule Sotto in a cartoon, I am clearly out to do some kind of damage to him, but in the best interest of the Philippines. In my opinion. The court cases will be interesting to follow, and when the first blogger is hauled before the courts on a trivial political charge, I trust the people will also rise up in that blogger’s defense.

      • 8.5.1
        jcc says:

        justice baycas has provided some definition of “malice”. but malice in Times v. Sullivan is the one that is being followed now… Malicious publication will be malicious only if there “was willful disregard for the truth” made by the defendant. If you called someone a deadbeat because you were angry against his person and called him such to despise him, such is not the malice required by law. he probably could be acquitted of the charge of libel for want of malice and the ‘derogatory’ remark could considered merely an opinion and therefore a protected speech.

        justice baycas should go international because our free speech is identical with the first amendment in the U.S.

        Larry Flynt was sued by Minister Falwell for printing “derogatory” article in Hustler Magazine parodizing the minister as having “sex” with his mother. He was acquitted. Malice as an element of libel was placed in central focus. It is reckless disregard for the truth.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

      • 8.5.2
        Rolly says:

        I believe CPMers will also rise to the occasion.

  36. 7
    baycas says:

    Check out the new FaceLook…

    Starting February 2013, more and more users will start seeing prompts on their home pages inviting them to switch over to the new FaceLook. The switch will be a MUST for account holders.

    Please study well the new design below.

    Mack Nuremberg

    —–

    The Buttons, Philippine edition
    (complete with annotations)

    Like

    at your own risk.

    Comment

    under pain of imprisonment.

    Share

    if you dare.

    • 7.1
      raissa says:

      You pulling our leg?

    • 7.2
      macspeed says:

      he he he he bilis mo mag isip he he he he

    • 7.3
      leona says:

      The specific provisions on Libel in the Revised Penal Code (1932 time) is a carry-Over of Spanish conquests, the Philippine Legislature never bothered to look into for updating acc to time and mandate of the Filipino people. Now, it going to be worst as made worst by the Senators who approved it without the Lower House bothering again to look into what the Upper House did to the original version of the law.

      Even at Facebook, as @baycas gives it: Like = at your own risk; Comment = under pain of punishment; and Share = if you dare.

      There was even that plan [ shelved] prior to Martial Law years by Congress to study revising all the provisions of our penal code as other countries have advanced in their criminal justice system while we deliberately abandoned to carry out that plan.

      So, with Cybercrime law, we continue and worst, inserted ALL THE PROVISIONS on crimes under that Code! Crazy!

      • 7.3.1
        baycas says:

        Now, it going to be worst as made worst by the Senators who approved it without the Lower House bothering again to look into what the Upper House did to the original version of the law.

        – leona

        when you want a speedy*, don’t let the lower hand know what the upper hand is doing.

        —–
        *A bill surreptitiously made into law

        • 7.3.1.1
          leona says:

          Anything goes! @fed_up comments. Na sobra han yata si PNoy ng confidence. Remember, Malacanang Legal Staff did not bother to check the bill…errr the law before it went to Congress. Now, Sol Gen will have hot irons defending it at the SC!

          • 7.3.1.1.1
            Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

            benign0-the-Turd’s confidence is coming from his Political Capital that ejected my friend, Renato Corona with the help of Mr. Anonymous and Little Lady in Red Riding Hood and typists of Affidavits of guilts. NO FORENSICS.

  37. 6
    Johnny Lin says:

    If I could have the ear of one SC justice what short compelling message shall I whisper that will convince him to junk Cybercrime law?

    Imagine if there are 15 CPMers whispering to 15 justices.

    Are we allowed to attend the oral arguments?
    I wish to be present.

    • 6.1
      raissa says:

      You can. But you will be told to check in your cellphone at the door. No cameras or cellphones allowed inside. And come early. First come, first served.

      • 6.1.1
        Johnny Lin says:

        Yes I will attend if I know where to go, haven’t been to Padre Faura in decades
        Are you going?

        • 6.1.1.1
          Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          Johnny Lin, they have moving camera and spy camera and videos. It is obvious that benign0 Aquino’s Supreme Court will make the TRO lapse. The Supreme Court do not want what happened to Corona. So, whatever benign0 Aquino wants benign0 gets, else, IMPITS !!!! Always remember there will always be 188 non-reading, non-understanding Rubberstamp Congressmen that reports to benign0.

          In this world of benign0, a whisper will do you in, Johnny. No more Affidavits and Witness Accounts. This time they will have EVIDENCES. They’ll subpoena Google and Yahoo! and Yehhey ! and you are totally doooomed !!!!!!!!

          The impitsment of Corona was the watershed. Supreme Court is now afraid to cross benign0.

          So, Johnny, please stay home. Do not do anything foolish. A whisper to justices and your presence itself is dangerous to your health and wealth.

    • 6.2
      leona says:

      whisper to that SC justice….SA KANGKUNGAN YUN CYBERCRIME LAW! ahmm, I’m @johnny lin.

  38. 5

    Cyberspace is not human space, could be extra-human, extra-terrestrial or extra-universal and might have its own laws and automatic punishments no legal human eagles can profess to know aside from the mythical karma. Cyberspace is not Earth where humans get born. dwell and die. It is stupid, gross human imbecility to make cyberspace laws punishing cybercrimes anticipated to happen in a vacuum, a space devoid of physical space. Unless money is coveted as a return for the concoction of cyber laws, IT IS ENOUGH that all laws of any or all country APPLY and may prescribe punishments FOR ANY or most of violations of lawful human behaviour in Earth. Committing libel or child molestation, or murder or corruption in cyber space? Some research in Pharma invents the drugs before it discover the diseases.

    • 5.1

      Dont’ deconstruct me please as long as blood is red and nature is green. When cyberspace is intangible while Cyber Plaza Miranda (CPM) is tangible space, has its own history, real and have seen blood and saliva of citizens spilled for a cause. No cyber law shall ENCROACH on it when there are more than enough existing Philippine Laws to punish purveyors of lies and transgressors of written truths even in the asphalts of Quiapo’s Plaza Miranda.

      • 5.1.1
        macspeed says:

        The net is a real world, information is faster than any newspaper around the world. We need a cyber law to regulate the users. Bad users shall be complained to the site provider or administrator, if not corrected then to the cyber police then to the court.

        Napakaraming bastos sa ibang site, may nagmumura, may nagbabanta at kung anu ano pa, pag nabasa mo nga, mag la log-ut ka agad sa nerbiyos he he he

        cybercrime is required for real criminals but not us, you know what i mean…if i send emails to my wife that is private, if we make sex in skype, that is private. Anything private should not be poke at, if anyone who steal it and posted on social networks, they should be liable, pwede ireklamo sa cyberpolice or cyber-judge he he he darating din yan

        if i post here and say i dont like gloria arroyo because she is corrupt, i should not be charge because it is freedom for me to say.

        but if i post here a hyperlink to site offering bad services such as sex net, on line casino and other bad things such as child pornography, then that is a crime.

        If somebody is stoking my daughters life via email, that is a crime and should be charge.

        cybercrime law should only be approved after deleting the bad laws such as libel and anything that will stop freedom of the press, pag meron nyan tutol ako jan, hayup sila pag di nila inalis yan.

        • 5.1.1.1
          Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PORNOGRAPHY OF THE GENERIC KIND YES! YES! YES!

          BONDAGE IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PORN SCANDAL IS A NO! NO! NO!

          LEAKED PRIVATE VIDEOS AND PHOTOS OF COUPLES HAVING SEX IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PRIESTS HAVING SEX . YES! YES! YES!

    • 5.2
      Joe America says:

      @ Alizarin Viridia . . . Wierd that you would ask this. Are you Mayan by any chance? Check out my blog for today to understand why I asked the question.

  39. 4
    jorge bernas says:

    Lets just be vigilant & do what is good for the MADLANG PEOPLE….

  40. 3
    myrna says:

    oh no! that’s scary! i might never use the internet again if this oppresive law remains!

    • 3.1
      pinay710 says:

      @myrna! dont be scared. dont be afraid. just dont press “LIKE” that contains names.or if you comment someone use acronym. dont use names ( just mam raissa told me) why should i stop using the internet? i am paying my provider, i bought my laptop for my satisfaction. no one can stop me from surfing the internet. NOBODY! if you are wrong you are wrong if you are right i’ll praise you for that, just be alert everytime you use the internet.

      • 3.1.1
        Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        I will “LIKE” benign0’s facebook for extra measure of safety.

        My Facebook page has “LIKE” “UNLIKE” and “DISLIKE” ? Well, if you hit “LIKE” you are doomed to perdition.

    • 3.2
      leona says:

      @myrna…sure YOU CAN STILL use the Internet but DON’T USE OR TOUCH THE KEYBOARD AT ALL! Throw it away!

  41. 2
    Praetorius says:

    Never let your guard down. Be vigilant.

    P.s.

    And i’m sure mariano will come out with something funny to say again :-)

    • 2.1
      pelang says:

      ignore him. if no one replies or mention about his comments, he’ll eventually stop.

      • 2.1.1
        Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        I am irresistible. You cannot resist me. You will forever be following my comments. Because from my infantile childish comments are nuggets of truth that you can share to your friends as yours. MINE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. IT IS JUST PATENTED.

        What is the diff between copyright and patented ?

      • 2.1.2
        Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        You cannot resist me Pelang. You will forever be following me. I am addictive.

      • 2.1.3
        leona says:

        We’re waiting for him to have some lucid moments and we’ll comment but so far none yet….how long? don’t know…

        • 2.1.3.1
          Rene-Ipil says:

          Leona@2.1

          Let’s have a countdown. I see that the last posting of MRP was timed at 3:06 a.m. today. It is now 8:48 p.m. 17 hours 42 minutes passed and not a whimper from him. I am also waiting.

          • 2.1.3.1.1
            Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

            @Leona dear, take child neglect and child abuse for example. I never thoughted that PHilippines has laws to protect children until Yoyoy Revillame carted viewership from ABS-CBN to TV5 he was charged of Child abuse when along EDSA there are plenty of homeless children living off JOLLIBEE’s dumpster. Wasn’t it Jolllibee that pulled their advertisement from Yoyoy Revillame because of child abuse and they cannot even see children dumpster driving for morsels of Chickenjoy ? THAT IS THE LAW FOR YOU LEONA !!!!! I do not waste my time on PHilippine law because it is more neglected than enforced.

            @Leona dear, I know you are not well read, I tell you about drug entrapment of de Lorean owner of de Lorean exotic sports car company. deLorean definitely by evidence purchased drugs from FBI. deLorean went scottfree because it was entrapment. And @Leona dear, that terrorist in the east coast where FBI placed a GPS on his car without a warrant. Again, the terrorist went home free. He also sued the American government and he winned !!!!! THAT IS HOW PREDICTABLE THE AMERICAN LAWS ARE.

            Can you predict the enforcement of cybercrime Law ? I DO NOT THINK SO !!!!

            It really depends when it depends. DUH !!!!!!

        • 2.1.3.2
          Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          @Leona dear, I do not delve into PHILIPPINE LAWS and PHILIPPINE POLITICS.

          PHILIPPINE LAWS is weder-weder. Take for example Corona. Please do not get the impression I AM Pro-CORONA DEFINITELY I AM NOT. I am pro-HUSTISYA MATUWID. Mr. Anonymous and Little Lady in Red Riding Hood’s illegally acquired photocopied Corona’s private dollar account. If it were in America, where so-called brilliant Filipinos wanted to study law, these anonymous duo would have been incancerated because of violation of privacy laws. But since this is the Philippines and Impeachmnent is a political process anything goes. But when Bill Clinton was impeached, regardless of its political nature, the Senate followed the law as if it were not a political process so AS NOT TO SET A PRECEDENCE. Not only Bill Clinton but also past impeachment of past presidents and Blagojevich.

          So why bother go to America to study law when America’s laws are culturally different from the Philippines?

          I have helped many legal immigrants file petition papers for their children filling up forms just by reading the back pages of the form itself WHEN I AM NOT A LAWYER AND NOT WHITE. Well, I am just tisoy. Pogi. And goot in englsichtzes.

          I also have advised green card holders that they can come back to America on their 363rd absence abroad as long as they have not gone over 365th days. IT IS WRITTEN IN THE, again, BACKPAGES OF NEWSPAPERS. Just buy reading their newspapers I can know the law. But in the Philippines nothing like that.

        • 2.1.3.3
          Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          What about Blagojevich ? No ! dear @Leona !!! Blago is not a Bosnian or Herzegovinian. HE is an American in Illinois solding Obama’s state senate seat. Blago was in impeachment trial for solding a senate seat. Despite its political nature, he is impeached not thru political process but thru judicial process SO AS NOT TO SET A PRECEDENCE and not ABUSE ITS POLITICAL PROCESS.

          Just in case you are Wikieng Blago, Blago was also accused by a WITNESS ACCOUNT with AFFIDAVITS OF GUILT back in the early 2000 something about Health insurance. Of course dear @Leona and @Rene-Ipil, they did not prosecute based on AFFIDAVITS and WITNESS ACCOUNTS not until they have EVIDENCES. Now, they acquired evidences thru bugs and paper trails. THAT IS HOW PREDICTABLE AMERICAN LAWS ARE AND IT IS TOTALLY ABSOLUTE THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE. DUAH !!!!!! you two, @Leona and @Rene-Ipil are just plain clueless. Yeah, you may appear intelligent debating finer points of cybercrime law and defining and redefining each word there is in it BUT WHAT IS THE USE? When laws in the philipines is wishy-washy ?

          YOU MUST BE WONDERING WHY Americans stand in line should-der-to-shoulder on America’s freeway when ever there are road-rage car-to-car shooting. BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO LOCATE THAT BULLET SLUGS AND BULLET SHELL CASINGS. They spend so much time to gather evidences than gather witnesss accounts. IN YOUR SIDE OF PHILIPPINES run by UNDESIRABLE FILIPINOS WITNESS ACCCCCCOUUUUUNTS !!!! HA! HA! HA!

          Marami pa kayong bigas kaka-inin !!!! LOOKIT I AM NOT A LAWYER. I JUST READ THIS THRU THEIR PAPERS AND NEWS WEBSITE. Reading American newspapers informs me. BUT READING PHILIPPINE NEWSPAPERS AND BLOGSITES FROM UNDESEIRABLE FILIPINOS MISINFORM ME !!!!!

        • 2.1.3.4
          Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          …. but @Leona and @Rene-Ipil. Keep up the cybercrime debate. IT IS A GOOT EXERCISE FOR BORED IGNORANT MINDS …..

          I always believe in Desiderata ….. “listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.”

          Do not get exhausted with my long winding tra-la-las …… IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH YOUR FUTURE BLOGS AND COMMENTS.

  42. 1
    X says:

    Are we going to get sideswiped again?

  43. baycas says:

    @saxnviolins and @JoeAm,

    Even The Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.

    • saxnviolins says:

      Agreed. And Ben Franklin used to publish pamphlets anonymously, in his youth. Chief Justice Steele was quoting the following lines from Justice John Paul Stevens of the US Supreme Court:

      Justice Black reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names.

      On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.

      McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995).

      • raissa says:

        That’s one use of anonymity.

        Another is to ensure that canards can be thrown at will without attribution and retribution.

        • Joe America says:

          “canard” In cooking, a duck intended for food.
          “canard” In aeronautics, an airplane that has its horizontal stabilizer and elevators located forward of the wing.
          “canard” In blogging, a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.

          A canard aimed at a congressman is a libel unless you write under a pseudonym, then it is just edgy writing.

        • saxnviolins says:

          You fight a lie with the truth, not jail time. As quoted from CJ Steele below, one can just as easily post the truth or clarifications on the same blog. It is so untrusting of people’s intelligence, to think that they will fall for the canard over the truth, that one has to stifle the truth, or force an anonymous writer to reveal his/her identity.

          True, there is the danger of misuse of speech and anonymity. But

          “[t]he right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”

          Chief Justice Myron Steele, quoting Justice John Paul Stevens.

          Free speech is like a vaccine. You may get nauseated, but its therapeutic value is greater than the nausea.

          I cannot say the same for guns.

          • saxnviolins says:

            Perfect example. The Abnoy issue, versus the Villaroyo issue.

            Which is the canard, and which, the truth?

            Which of them was bought by the market?

          • saxnviolins says:

            Forgot to highlight.

            our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”

            That is true of the US society. Is it true of ours as well?

            Do we trust our people to have discernment? Or are they all witless nobs? That is why need to shield them from lies and canards. And that is why we need to shepherd the ignoramuses – we from the good schools, we, the college graduates, we the intellectuals (fill in the blanks ad nauseum).

  44. saxnviolins says:

    Re 37.

    As promised, baycas2, here is the case: the type Raissa may face, if the cyber libel law is not voided.

    A City Councilman (Cahill) in Delaware sues an anonymous commenter on a political blog for defamation. The judge is requested to force Comcast (internet provider) to reveal the identity of John Doe. Two comments of John Doe are as follows:

    Cahill is a prime example of failed leadership.

    Gahill [sic] is as paranoid as everyone in the town thinks he is. The mayor needs support from his citizens and protections from unfounded attacks…

    The case goes up to the Delaware Supreme Court. My new idol, Chief Justice Steele, writing for the court en banc, had the following choice statements, which beautifully sums up all the issues relative to the petitions before our Supreme Court. There is the issue of democratization of public debate brought about by the internet, the empowerment of commenters with no money to access traditional media, and the reason for respecting anonymity over the internet.

    Hats off Your Honor:

    The advent of the internet dramatically changed the nature of public discourse by allowing more and diverse people to engage in public debate. Unlike thirty years ago, when “many citizens [were] barred from meaningful participation in public discourse by financial or status inequalities and a relatively small number of powerful speakers [could] dominate the marketplace of ideas” the internet now allows anyone with a phone line to “become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” Through the internet, speakers can bypass mainstream media to speak directly to “an audience larger and more diverse than any the Framers could have imagined.” Moreover, speakers on internet chat rooms and blogs can speak directly to other people with similar interests. A person in Alaska can have a conversation with a person in Japan about beekeeping in Bangladesh, just as easily as several Smyrna residents can have a conversation about Smyrna politics.

    Internet speech is often anonymous. “Many participants in cyberspace discussions employ pseudonymous identities, and, even when a speaker chooses to reveal her real name, she may still be anonymous for all practical purposes.” For better or worse, then, “the audience must evaluate [a] speaker’s ideas based on her words alone.” “This unique feature of [the internet] promises to make public debate in cyberspace less hierarchical and discriminatory” than in the real world because it disguises status indicators such as race, class, and age.

    It is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. This protection extends to anonymous internet speech. Anonymous internet speech in blogs or chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering. As the United States Supreme Court recently noted, “anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.

    Note the highlighted phrase. The internet forces the reader to evaluate only your words (or ideas). It does not come with the baggage (positive) of fame, or (negative) obscurity (some walang tinapos, but with good ideas, who will be relegated to the sidelines by the posturing elite.)

    Read the full text here:

    courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=67130

    • raissa says:

      Thanls.

      This is quite useful.

    • baycas says:

      Thanks.

      • Rolly says:

        This Delaware Supreme Court decision is a must read for the Malacañang Palace officials.

        • baycas says:

          @Rolly,

          I am very hopeful that the petitioners are preparing well for the oral arguments.

          If they need to amend their petitions, may they do them ASAP!

      • saxnviolins says:

        In a comment below, it is stated that there is no such thing as a false opinion. That is a key concept here, because Chief Justice Steele distinguishes asserted fact from expressed opinion.

        In deciding whether or not a statement is defamatory we determine, “first, whether alleged defamatory statements are expressions of fact or protected expressions of opinion;

        Earlier, he said:

        a reasonable person reading a newspaper in print or online, for example, can assume that the statements are factually based and researched. This is not the case when the statements are made on blogs or in chat rooms. “When one views…allegedly defamatory statements in context – both the immediate context and the broader social context – it becomes apparent that many of the allegedly defamatory statements cannot be interpreted as stating actual facts, but instead are either ‘subjective speculation’ or ‘merely rhetorical hyperbole.’”

        So there is a difference between stating that “a woman has slept with many men”, as against stating “She comes across as rather slutty.”

        Similarly, stating that “Politician xyz exacts commissions from government projects” is different from “I think politician xyz is corrupt.”

        The first is an assertion of a fact, and the second is an unreliable opinion. Opinions, as ruled by CJ Steele are not defamatory by definition of law.

        • baycas says:

          yep, “there is no such thing as a false opinion”.

          the “marketplace” has full “of ideas”…lots of them…

      • saxnviolins says:

        As always, there is the axiom that one fights speech with speech, not jail time. Chief Justice Steele puts it as follows:

        Besides the legal remedies available to a plaintiff wronged by internet
        defamation, the potential plaintiff has available a very powerful form of extra-judicial relief. The internet provides a means of communication where a person wronged by statements of an anonymous poster can respond instantly, can respond to the allegedly defamatory statements on the same site or blog, and thus, can, almost contemporaneously, respond to the same audience that initially read the allegedly defamatory statements. The plaintiff can thereby easily correct any misstatements or falsehoods, respond to character attacks, and generally set the record straight. This unique feature of internet communications allows a potential plaintiff ready access to mitigate the harm, if any, he has suffered to his reputation as a result of an anonymous defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements made on an internet blog or in a chat room.

        This is also the consummate rebuttal to the right of reply advocates. Why mandate it, when you can just reply? If the aggrieved politician has the meatier morsel of truth, then surely the marketplace will buy his assertion over the alleged falsities of the blogger or commenter.

        • baycas says:

          the comments section is as vital as the blog post.

          the reaction, the reply, the message…they are just a click or a tap of the “submit” button in order to convey what needs to be brought up for discussion…

    • Rene-Ipil says:

      Saxnviolins@39

      Facts vs. opinion. A very enlightening piece for all including lawyers. Facts are meant to build or destroy. Facts fortify one’s knowledge. Opinion embellishes such knowledge. But facts can also demolish a person. And opinion can likewise resurrect him. Facts can put one in jail while opinion can destine one to oblivion like Tiglao, Doronilla and Olivarez. Following closely are Magno, Pedrosa, Maceda and similarly minded journalists.

      • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        Oh, yes, @Rene-Ipil dear, FACTS ARE INCONTROVERTIBLE. In 1stworld country WITNESS ACCOUNTS TAKES A BACK SEAT over FORENSICS. In 1stworld witness accounts have to be corroborated by evidences and forensics. Unlike in the Philippines, just because a media personality was critical of Palawanese governor that was already enough to file a murder case against him. AND NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FACTS ….

        Like what I told you, @Rene-Ipil dear Filipnos are doppeldanger, CULTURAL DUALITY. One for 1stworld Law learned in school and one cultural justice system BY PERCEPTION, ASSOCIATION AND WITNESS ACCOUNTS.

        Now you are learning from me !!!! I take you to school I am not even a bus driver. AND IT IS FREE. One comment from me a day makes you a smart boy.

        • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          That is why I just cannot understand why Filipinos are so agog over Mikey’s hellicopter when all they have are witness accounts. Against Ate Glo all witness accounts. No evidence. Evidence came later.

          Why the PHilippine Media being used by the bureaucrats in demonizing SUSPECTS? JUST TO DEMONIZE and the Philippine Media are happy accessories.

          DONCHA LOVE PHILIPPINES ? No wonder Filipinos are voting with their passports.

      • pelang says:

        @saxnviolins: from an article at Philstar entitled “Due Diligence” , Jan. 8th’s issue written by Yoly Villanueva-Ong, she quoted or picked-up an original article (i believe from a blog) entitled “Enriles: Father and Son Act” written by Jet Damazo. My quetion is, if ever the Enriles charge them with libel under this cyber law (granting, the supreme court rules the approval against the petitioners), who may be included on these charges? Jet Damazo, Yoly Villanueva-Ong, who just quoted this article, and the ones who ticked “like” or “share” in their FB Accounts?

        • saxnviolins says:

          Sorry. Did not forget this question. Will reply later.

        • saxnviolins says:

          One who clicks the “like” button is not republishing. To republish requires making the info known to people other than those who read at that site. When I point to my copy of the Tribune, for example, and tell you that I like the article, that is not a republication.

          Share? Neither. Sharing is giving a copy. If I buy two copies of the Inquirer which has a libelous article and give one to you, am I republishing?

          So the rule for the physical world should apply as well, to the electronic world. Sharing is not a republication; neither is liking.

          Will answer the others later. Work is beckoning.

        • saxnviolins says:

          Whatever the result of the Supreme Court petition, it will not affect the case filed by Senator Enrile, because he filed a civil case. Civil libel is allowed, even in the US.

          But if I were representing Ms. Villanueva-Ong, or Jet Damazo, I would file a motion to dismiss. The basis would be the points made by Chief Justice Steele, in the final pages of his opinion for the court en banc.

          The link to that case is in my earlier post.

          I hope lawyers, both for the Supreme Court petition, and for other libel defendants will read the case. It can be mined both for substantive law, as well as for procedural (remedial) law. In fact, it can be used as a template for a motion to dismiss most, if not all libel petitions in the Philippines.

          Even if you are not a lawyer or a law student, I recommend that you read the opinion. It is written with superior logic, elegant English, and flavored with downright common sense.

          • Johnny Lin says:

            Congrats Sax for picking up a legal hero who is also a hero of corporates. I lived closer to you in his territory of Delaware, been following Steele since 2000 until his campaign for CJ due to common personal acquaintance.

            Steele expertise is corporate governance in Delaware, the hub of multinational US corporations because of the state’s lax corporate liabilities. Your creditcards corporations are most probably incorporated in Delaware.

            Superior logic and common sense is his trademark which you hit directly.
            Sounds familiar!

            Promise I wont comment on your post, never again, since we idolize the same legal luminary and good luck, God bless. I meant it

            He he he

          • pelang says:

            thanks saxnviolins. you explained it in simple way for us to understand.

          • jcc says:

            I have not come across a civil libel in the country, unlike the U.S. where there are States that have statutes on civil libel and also criminal libel. The other libel variant is “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” which is a common law concept.

            Libel in the country is always criminal and defined in Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code.

            I would move for the dismissal of the “civil libel” filed by Enrile against Damazo and Ong because its basis is Art. 33 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, (NCC) which requires that a criminal case has been filed against the accused on account of the “defamatory” article, which a separate civil case for damages could be instituted by the plaintiff. This civil case is actually a claim for damages for the defamatory/libelous article, but is never configured as a civil libel. Art. 33 itself does not speak of civil libel. It simply allows a person who had been libeled to file separate monetary civil judgment against the defendant, independent of the criminal libel.

            My theory/reading of Art. 33 (NCC) is that since Enrile did not file a criminal libel, the civil damages that come with the criminal libel does not come into existence even if it could be filed independently from the criminal libel. I would advance the theory that he criminal libel is the anchor for filing the civil damages.

            My approach is to attack Enrile’s complaint on the basis of statutes and not on the opinions of justices from foreign courts. Their opinions have weight but they will come only upon the termination of the proceedings when the parties have been required to file memoranda.

            • baycas says:

              A very happy new year ahead of us, @jcc.

              I am so glad to read again from sages of the not-so-distant past.

              While many transitioned to Facebook and Twitter, I still find blogs worthy of propagation…

  45. Rolly says:

    This RA10175 will always be open to abuse. Authorities will whimsically find or device ways to intimidate people.

    The news below is just one example:

    Slammed on Facebook, cop chief told to do job

    Posted by Jani Arnaiz, Chief Editor on November 18, 2012, 8:06 pm

    By Joey A. Gabieta Inquirer Visayas 18th November 2012
    http://www.maasinreporter.com/southernleyte.php

    TACLOBAN CITY—Do your work and don’t be sensitive.
    This was the advice of Chief Superintendent Elmer Soria, of the police regional office in Eastern Visayas (PRO-8), to Supt. Rico Tome, Maasin City police chief, who invited seven Maasinhons to appear at the city police station after posting harsh comments on a Facebook page, criticizing the police for failing to stop four robberies that occurred in a span of 24 hours.

    “He (Tome) should not be sensitive. Instead, he should work and confront the problem,” Soria told the Inquirer in a phone interview.

    Instead of inviting the residents to explain why they criticized the police on their Facebook page, Soria said Tome should address their concerns immediately.
    He added Tome could improve police visibility in the streets to deter the commission of crimes in Maasin.

    Soria said that based on the article that came out in the Inquirer, he didn’t find the comments of the netizens a personal attack on Tome since these were complaints against the perceived inaction of the police.

    Although he issued a slight admonition to Tome for what he had done, Soria said he would leave it to Senior Supt. Allan Cuevillas, police provincial director, to decide the action to take against Tome.

    “I have issued a directive addressed to the provincial director to take action,” Soria said.
    In an earlier interview, Tome said he didn’t mean to scare the seven Maasinhons when he asked them to appear at the city police station on Nov. 7 after posting harsh comments on Facebook.

    “We would just like to remind them that what they did was not right. We will just give them a warning,” he said.

    “It’s true that we have freedom of expression. Now that there’s Facebook, unlike before that it’s only radio and newspaper, they could just say defamatory remarks against us. You know the law could run after them,” he said.

    But not one of those invited showed up at the Maasin City police station on Nov. 7. The Maasin police didn’t issue a second invite.

    The invitation stemmed from the comments posted on the Facebook page called “You are from Southern Leyte if…” about the four break-ins on Nov. 2 and 3.

    • Rolly says:

      Most of the time invitation to a Police Station leads to a detention for some 6 hours without being charged of any infraction.

  46. Alan says:

    Sorry I haven’t been able to join the discussions, most of my concentration has gone to trying to meet a weekly column deadline, which I haven’t done for a while, but I should get the hang of it again soon. Here’s what I know about Phil libel (back when I was an editor in The Manila Chronicle somebody tried filing a case against me): truth is not a defense at all. It hinges on MALICE, which is a deliberate attempt to lower or demean the standing of a person or entity int he eyes of the community.
    In the UK, libel law is a bit different – the respondent is presumed guilty, and has the burden of proving her or his statements were non-libelous. Truth is a defense. The UK has become notorious as a center for libel tourism — rich people from around the world who file their cases in London.

    • jcc says:

      you better read the jurisprudence on the matter. times v. sullivan, and people vs. larry flynt are authorities to the effect that ‘iis reckless disregard for the truth’… not malice to despise the person, nor malice in law (mala en se); as distinguished from malum prohibitum.

      printing the truth is not reckless disregard for the truth because you were factually reporting the events as they happened….. your situation with the chronicle could have happened before the sulivan and flynt cases..

      philippine courts are awed by american jurisprudence because the latter is an epitome judiciousness, probity, and reason.

    • baycas says:

      Reputation over free speech.

      It is ironic that the defendant’s burden of proof in England was established to protect people’s honor, as it has now resulted in London’s public disgrace as the “libel capital of the western world.”77 Laws that were initially designed to defend the integrity of the Crown through the courts are now primarily employed to enable foreigners to misuse the English judiciary for their own ends—i.e., to silence the speech of their detractors.

      With serious efforts at libel reform on the horizon, England now has the opportunity to amend its laws and remove the archaic remains of an obsolete notion. The time has come to set things right and make the libel plaintiff prove his case.

      – Elizabeth Samson (The web link for this quote posted below will still be under moderation. Emphasis in the quote mine.)

      Free speech over reputation.

      • Alan says:

        One of the most famous libel cases tried in London in recent times was that of Nazi lover David Irving against the scholar/historian Deborah Lipstadt. He accused her of defaming his reputation as a “historian” when she wrote in a book that he was a Holocaust denier. He forced Lipstadt, an American, to go to London and expected he would collect a huge amount in damages. Instead, Lipstadt’s publisher supported her and hired a distinguished panel of historians to give Iriving’s entire body of work the equivalent of a proctoscopy and dissection. They established that Irving indeed was a denier, Nazi lover, fabricator and should not be called a historian at all. Truth WAS a defense. Court ruled against Irving and awarded Lipstadt damages, essentially bankrupting Irving. The hilarious highlight of the case? Irving, who chose to be his own counsel, called the judge “Mein Fuehrer”

      • saxnviolins says:

        Your highlighted text is true only in England. In the US, there is precedent that declares

        “a constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages.”

        Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 479 US 1

        Our libel laws were actually copied from state libel laws, which find origin in English common law. The US Constitution, however, is above the common law. Having copied the US Constitution, our jurisprudence should have evolved like the US. But our jurists have stuck to the English common law presumption of malice, contrary to their ruling that New York Times and its progeny applies in the Philippines.

        Next post, I will quote my new idol. A Chief Justice of a State, deciding the case involving an anonymous comment in a political blog like this.

        • baycas says:

          The time has come to set things right and make the libel plaintiff prove his case

          Not only in England but also here in PH.

          • saxnviolins says:

            I was posting about the case cited above, but the comment got deleted.

            Will try next time.

            • baycas says:

              On anonymity, @JoeAm will likewise idolize CJ Steele.

              • Joe America says:

                Yes, he is a brilliant judge. Positively brilliant. I worship the ground brushed by his long and distinguished robes. (See saxnviolins excerpt, comment #39)

              • baycas says:

                Already read SnV’s post from Ellenville prior to #39.

                Thanks, SnV.

                Segué from politics…

                @JoeAm, I’m reading now “Corporate Criticism on the Internet: The Fine Line Between Anonymous Speech and Cybersmear”.

  47. Inductive viewpoint RE-POSTED

    Never mind what the trees look like, crimes are actually committed outside the rainforest of cyberspace:

    Cyberspace is not human space, could be extra-human, extra-terrestrial or extra-universal and might have its own laws and automatic punishments no legal human eagles can profess to know aside from the mythical karma. Cyberspace is not Earth where humans get born. dwell and die. It is stupid, gross human imbecility to make cyberspace laws punishing cybercrimes anticipated to happen in a vacuum, a space devoid of physical space. Unless money is coveted as a return for the concoction of cyber laws, IT IS ENOUGH that all laws of any or all country APPLY and may prescribe punishments FOR ANY or most of violations of lawful human behaviour in Earth. Committing libel or child molestation, or murder or corruption in cyber space? Only lawmaking criminals will use cyberspace to protect themselves from being identified, ridiculed and spat upon.

    • macspeed says:

      I was victimized of illigal recruitment via cyberspace, the recruiter were supposed to be in Ireland, i was contacted by an Oil and Gas company, gave me exam written and i did passed, then he required my certificates in Universities and employer, true indeed, their actions and i was really in their drama, it took a month before they asked me to pay for processing. My salary supposed to be were 10,000US$, free accomodation, free transport to/from oil rig, wow, i was really amazed. And i did send 5000saudi riyal for processing, they said they will contact me within a week….

      They were gone, i search the Ireland police near the place of office those scams. And the police said, “you are victim of cyber crime…”

      End of story,

      Cyber crime does exist, and people as stupid as me are a lot, budol budol in our language.

      You and i are in cyber space. I type this word “I like you” it travels from my keyboard to the CPU then to the hardwire telephone here in Saudi Arabia, then to the Fiber Optic then to Philippine telecom network then to your line and your Screen at the speed of light 300million meters per second, off course you will be able to read it only when you open up this space he he he…

      Salam sadik, whether we like it or not, cyberspace among our children and grand children will be more advance, the will be in great troubles without regulations…

  48. baycas says:

    Cartoonist Roni Santiago may have characterized well what the law means in his caricature here…

    http://www.filipinostarnews.net/featured-post/on-phl-cybercrime-law-and-free-speech.html

  49. Rene-Ipil says:

    Raissa, in her previous post, asked: ” Can we simply adopt the present law on libel that covers print and broadcasting to apply to the Internet as well?”

    I say yes except that the penalty should be reduced to only a fine. With fine as the penalty, the use of the Internet in committing libel should be treated merely as an aggravating circumstance – not an element of the crime – because of the ease by which online libel is committed and its widespread reach to readers. The imposition of a higher penalty on cyber libel violates the equal protection of law principle. A crime with the same elements should carry the same penalty. Moreover, the power given to the government to block the publication of the purported libelous item is arbitrary and could not pass constitutional standards on freedom of speech.

    • leona says:

      @Rene-Ipil…maybe good but the as some of the lawmakers planned, they prefer to make libel as only a civil obligation and not a criminal, no penalty! This is a better alternative.

      • Rene-Ipil says:

        Leona@34.1

        Agree. A case civil in nature maybe better. The downside is that “guilt” is proven by mere preponderance of evidence. Whereas in a penalty of fine, guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

  50. Parekoy says:

    Mukhang effective yung pag bigay ng TRO sa Cybercrime Law, yung mga tao malamig na sa issue na eto.

    Ang bottom line- pag ayaw ni PNoy na ang isang bill ay maging batas, hundi mangyayari yun, pero kung gusto nyang ituloy then nagsusugal sya dahil karamihan ng mga Netizens ay aalma at sya ang sunod na target sa mga puna at mapapatunayan ang mga lumabas a black propaganda na may agka Abnoy sya.

    Kung talagang seryoso si PNoy na linisin ang gobyerno, bakit nya bubusalan ang mga tumutulong sa kanya na mga kaaniwng tao na ang hangad lang ay mabawasan ang kurapsyon at katiwalan sa gobyerno?

    Etong sila Angara, Sotto at mga PU ay gusto kang nilang protektahan ang kanilang Tribu dahil hindi nila makontrol ang mga reaksyon ng mga Netizens na meron ng paraan kung papano bukuhin ang mga tiwali sa gobyerno.

    Assuming na matuloy ang Cybercrime Law, parang nakikita ko na na ang unang biktima ay itong blogsite na ito. Hindi dahil ang mga puna rito ay libelous kundi mga makatwiran at dahil may kredibilidad na parang boses ng karamihan ng mga Pilipino. Kumpara sa mga komentaryo sa baba ngmga columns ng mga columnists sa Inquirer, Star atiba pang mainstream na dyaryo, mild pa ang pitik dito sa CPM. Pero dahil may kredibilidad ang CPM, mas mabigat ang dating ng mga karamihan na ma opinyon dito.Siempre marami rin makulit na parang bata, pero minsan nakakahalata din dahil iba ang dating, yung parang langaw…

    Mas maigi sa gobyerno na ang kanilang mamamayan ay may venue na mailabas ang kanilang ma reklamo sa civilized na paraan. Pag binarahan at binusalan, ang iba ay nagigiing bayolente at hindi na dinadaan sa pagdebate kundi sa karahasan.

    Na kay PNoy ang bola, abangan kung sya ay may pusong Pinoy o may utak na Abnoy…

    • leona says:

      @Parekoy’s anticipatory statements, etc., just in the event that cybercrime law is sustained by the SC as to the Libel provisions, etc., , I proposed that any CPMer or CPMers, certified by Raissa, who are charged and prosecuted for violations under it, a free legal Defense Team be established for such purpose, with assistance from our other “technical experts” here in the field of computer/cyberspace, etc. I will extend my criminal legal practice experience of 40 years, and I, for one, with others among us, can handle the defense.

      If you reside in NYC, London, Paris, Hongkong, Singapore, atbpa, charged under Cybercrime law, wanting a defense team, just provide plane tickets,hotel accomm, restaurants, places of amusements, etc. and for our interviews with you for preparations, etc. If you reside in ‘Pinas, we’ll see how you can get away with the charge/prosecution, or bring you into those place. No kidding.

      Raissa can start the formation of the legal defense & technical panel on this matter from our CPM here. All for One ‘n One for All!

      What say you?

      • leona says:

        Shall we require at least 50% approval from all CPMers here or what? Where’s our HQ? Funny….iSS…up there? Where? We can plan it later of course. Plant the seed!

        • chit navarro says:

          Excellent idea….
          HQ – here at CPM; make it a cyber plaza office…

          • leona says:

            @chit…shall we now add video cams and headphones to our PCs so we SEE and HEAR each other ONLY DURING PROFESSIONAL INTERVIEWS for the purpose? With CPMer(s) defendants?

            How do we do it btw? Experts, do we hear see YOU? With or NO masks? Pangit ako! “what the f…k you’re so ugly!’ [Arnold Swarzenegger, Predator]

      • pelang says:

        Bless your heart, leona. I’m sure many will heed your call. As we say here at CPM, “walang iwanan.”

      • i agree and will help, pros and cons percentage is irrelevant.

        • leona says:

          @Aliz…help? eh…when one CPMer gets docked, the whole CPM is docked, we’re all defendants under Cybercrime law! hahaha…and you & us areall in the frontline of the skirmishes to our last and final pulses!

          • leona says:

            @Aliz…the strategy is: we make “CLICKS, SHARE, LIKE” and Comments by ALL CPMERs [ how many are we Raissa - 500 or 1000+] to “own” the libelous remark of one docked CPMer…the gov’t has to accused all I mean all of CPMers in court, like they call “class suit,” here it will be “CLASS ACCUSED!” including the satirist here! hahaha.

            • leona says:

              further…the investigation by the DOJ will fill up the whole DOJ building with us; for trial it will be inside a gymnasium to accommodate all of us! How it will go, your guess is as good God’s and mine!

      • pinay710 says:

        mam leona, i’m sure i will need that defense if i cannot control my fingers when i am sooooo mad or scared. these actions of our TRAPOS really makes my bp rise up.i just be very very cautious before hitting the “submit ” i will read it 5x. really scared. no more expressing one’s pagiisip freely.

      • Parekoy says:

        It is getting complicated, pero ang target ay hindi tayong mga commenters dito sa CPM, kundi itong buong blogsite. Therefore si Raissa ng uunahin dahil sya ang admin, and command responsibility ay sa kanya kahit na yung mga ” libelous” statements ay hindi galing sa kanya.

        Ang intention ay busalan, so pag yung mismo mayari ng blog ang target, di parang na strike!

        Magkakaron ng problema ang mga admin ng blogsites dahil sa kanila isho-shoulder ang responsibility ng filtering kung ang mga comments ay libelous in nature, so pahirap ito sa mga mayari ng blogsites dahil kailangan para nab rin silang pseudo newspaper na may editor at legal counsel kung ang lumalabas sa blogsite ay pwedeng libelous. So ma tetechnical ng gobyerno ang mga blogsites dahil alam nila na wala at kulang ito sa resources to hire a legal counsel, so yung freedom ng Netizens ay biglang mawawala dahil yung provuder ng popular na venue ang syang target. Yjng mga fb accounts ay balewala yan dahil yung number of followers ay konti, so di yan pakikialaman ng gobyerno o pulitiko. Ang effective although evil ay yng targetin ang mga mayari ng popular at influential blogsites kasi paang gagawin na similar ang kategirya sa nga mainstream newspaper. So pag ganito ang ginawa, kawawa talaga ang Netizens dahil pilay tayo.

        So Conflicted talaga ang PNoy administration kung ituloy nila na kasali yung libel provisions sa Cybercrime Law dahil pinapatay nya ang tunay demokrasya. Sana hwag sana nyang magpaka Abnoy, dapat sya ay magkapa Pinoy!

  51. leona says:

    From today Inquirer news…

    “Charges dismissed, P1,000 bail

    But even as Petrasanta and Valte spoke, Agus and his three friends were getting a reprieve from the Caloocan prosecutor’s office.

    Nida C. Gravino, senior assistant prosecutor, on Friday dismissed charges of illegal discharge of firearms and negligence against Agus and his drinking buddies, Arcadio Gulmatico, Eddie Magtubo and Feliciano Cercano.

    The four men were detained on Thursday and were subjected to inquest proceedings on Friday, where Gravino dismissed the charge of illegal discharge of firearms for lack of evidence, approving charges of alarm and scandal only.

    “There was no proof to the effect that when the gun was fired, it was aimed at a person. There was no witness who declared to the effect that these people fired the gun,” Gravino said in a telephone interview.

    She also dismissed the charge of negligence against Agus for letting his drinking buddies take turns in firing his .45-caliber gun.

    A P1,000 bail was recommended for the temporary liberty of the four suspects, who remained in the custody of Caloocan police as of press time on Friday. ”

    This is relevantly only about law enforcing and prosecuting that Cybercrime law may also face in the very near future. How can this dismissal of the proper charges be made against the suspects?

    This news refers to guns…Nicole girl killed in Caloocan City. Is there some utterly defective legal procedures or law procedures in our criminal justice system overall? The Invvestigating prosecutor should have filed all the police charges against the suspects!

    Law violators gets away scott free. How about the coming procedures to enforce the Cybercrime law? Will it be like this also? Or a cycle for errors and injustices?

  52. baycas says:

    Ma’am Raissa,

    It appears there are several comments downstairs (below Comment No. 1) that are in limbo, meaning no parent comment numbers.

    Does it mean there are comments still awaiting moderation or are dumped somewhere waiting to be retrieved?

    • baycas says:

      I am kind of waiting for the comment of the eminent lawyer saxnviolins to appear.

      Anyway, Ma’am Ellen (Tordesillas) already linked SnV’s blog post on the matter at hand.

      I fully subscribe to his legal opinion because what the Cyber Libel Law really means is to revisit the antiquated law on libel (the parent provision of law in the RPC) and perhaps strike it down as unconstitutional.

      As pointed out in abogadomodotcom and marichulambinodotcom, the general rule in libel is that presumption of malice exists where burden of proof of the contrary lies on the defendant. “Kabalintunaan siya.” The accuser must prove the guilt of the accused…not the accused to prove his innocence.

      Presumption of innocence must be preserved even in cases of libel…

      • leona says:

        @baycas, YOU’RE VERY RIGHTLY RIGHT ON THAT! It just entered my gray matter but saw your last sentence! That point is crucial and constitutionally superior, and is in the fundamental law at that, while the ‘presumption of malice’ is by statute or procedure, and is inferior. There we, saxnviolin is I.D. a lawyer, imminent pa! Any more? The experts on cyberspace/Internet? Pls see my No. 29.1 comment.

        • leona says:

          We’ll even form a ‘Cheering Squad’ in cyberspace for this important matter! ‘Til in space do we all meet!

  53. Tomas Gomez III says:

    Participation as a CPMer in Raissa’s blogsite is of multifarious nature. (BTW, lest we forget it, she owns the site.) In any case, the menu for participation consists of choices…..to share, to inform, to amuse and entertain, to irritate, to frustrate, to argue, to show off, to advertise oneself as an all-knowing opinionator, even to expose oneself as an erudite asshole, if not one who is mal or misinformed. Or, all of the above.
    But in fine, to be a CPMer is to confirm for all cyberspace that there is indeed joy in the freedom of expression. The usual maxim that “your freedom stops just before the tip of my nose” does not apply in cyberspace. If I called Senator or Cabinet Secretary ‘tal fulano’ a certified nincompoop, he is at complete liberty to call me the same, in the exercise of the inalienable right of the freedom of cyberspace response. There is really nothing to bellyache and whine about. Patas ang bakbakan!
    That is why the CyberCrime Law, if not amended, will be a fatal assault upon Freedom itself and the liberty to enjoy it.
    Pamahalaan, gising na!….the pansitan of public opinion is open for the people’s business. Hindi po ito dormitoryo!!! Gising na!
    With great vigor let us all rise to defend that freedom. Raissa, Alan, et al….your marching orders, please !

  54. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    NEWS FLASH !!!

    8 people dead in shooting rampage in the township 10 miles north of Manila. All of them poor people.

    God so love the poor, especially Filipnios, that God made them live in agony and torment.

    I LOVE YOU GOD !!! KEEP IT UP SO YOU WILL LOOSE MEMBERSHIP.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      Goot photo ops for politicians for May Election !!!! Definitely the Philippine Media will cover this, of course.

    • Tomas Gomez III says:

      Hey, genius…..the last time I was back home, Kawit / Cavite was still SOUTH of Manila!

      • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        Thank you, Sir !

        Too much Blood of Christ still in my system after New Year binge-drinking.

        So it is south not north ! Hic ! hic!

      • chit navarro says:

        :) :) :)

        Can’t help but post how happy you make my day!!!

      • Rene-Ipil says:

        Tomas Gomez III@24.2

        Please forgive TMKB/FBGY a.k.a. MRP because though both lived in Metro Manila till high school and beyond, Cavite was out of their loop. No nightlife in there.

        • Tomas Gomez III says:

          @Rene-Ipil….pls rescue me from blissful ignorance…I know MRP but who are TMKB/FBGY…..I was absent when da titser lectured on that subject.

          Anyway, while I am at it, let me share this …..here is a late breaking TV news….local San Antonio, TX ( known as Las Nuevas Filipinas, circa 1715-1750)….two police stories….involving two police officers. One male officer was apprehended by the Chief himself….nahuling nango-ngotong…….asking for 400 $ atik to erase apprehension of a party caught with marijuana…….and the other, a female detention officer of the Sheriff’s office….nag-lasing, nag-wala, nagpawardi-wardi sa kotse, naka-bunggo….kalaboso siya ngayon kasabay ng kaunting escandalo. Naku, kaunti nang nalilisan…ang puti pa naman!!!
          Mayrooon ba tayong ganito diyan? Dapat mangibabaw ang katarungan at ipahalimbawa ng mga bisig ng batas ang asal na puwedeng tularan ng mga kabataan. Or am I barking at the moon?

          Pahabol……ang sabaw ng sinigang….sala-ing mabuti para halos maging ‘clear broth’…initin at patakan ng isa o dalawang tulo ng olive oil. Kaunting pa-class!!! OK na OK.

          • Tomas Gomez III says:

            It is now 7:00 PM of Friday evening January 4…..you are 14 hours ahead until Daylight Saving Time…..I think it is first Sunday of March.

          • Joe America says:

            @Thomas Gomez III, the initials are, I think, pertinent to Mariano Renato Pacifico’s real-life existence. In the context of this discussion, it is the use of truth to damage the reputation of a commenter with whom RI has strong objections. The whole approach makes me uncomfortable, as I think everyone carries their own history, the good and the bad, and to use the bad as a vehicle for punishment without recognizing the whole of a person, in a forum like this, is ummmm . . . awkward at best.

            I write under a pseudonym for a reason, and maybe I have something to hide, like I’m Bernie Madoff’s brother or something. I’m not sure what that has to do with the arguments I put out here, which have one aim only, a healthy, modern, wealthy Philippines. Mariano’s is, I think, a clarion call for introspection by Filipinos. Done brutally.

            Well, all that is neither here nor there. I like RI and I like Mariano. Both are bright in their own vernacular and teach me a lot. And I like Vincent Van Gogh as an artist even though he was certifiably crazy. His art stands for itself.

            • Rene-Ipil says:

              Joe america@ 25.2

              I am informing the CPMers the truth about TMDG/FBGY a.k.a. MRP to guide them on dealing with them. That is why I am careful in placing the facts here. I wish that those interested to know more about TMDG/FRGY would do his own research so that I don’t have to reveal here all my materials about the couple.

              It appears to some of us that TMDG/FBGY’s motive is puportedly to help the poor Filipinos out of the rut. But far from it. The facts say that both are certified Filipino haters. I am re-posting below my comment to Letlet@84 on “Alan’s latest humor post …”

              “People like TMDG/FBRY a.k.a. MRP will never change. Both are certified Filipino haters and carry prominent names well known for amassing unexplained wealth in the Philippines. By the way, TMDG is presently in the USA and is under electronic detention like his mother, courtesy of the Filipino and US authorities. His partner FBGY lives with him. In 2006 FBGY, a phenomenal blogger wrote why, what and how he hated Filipinos so much. He said he lived in their modest house in Muntinlupa before by force instead of choice. Both are smart. But Johnny Lin, Victin Luz and the CPMers are smarter. ”

              BTW I also love Van Gogh as an artist even without an ear. But I don’t like people with criminal minds.

              In my previous post above I put TMKB. Sorry, it is TMDG.

              • Rene-Ipil says:

                Erratum: to guide them on dealing with the duo.
                do their own research

              • Joe America says:

                Oh, by all means, carry on. I’m enjoying learning how Filipinos deal with conflict. I’ve argued in my blogs that it is a power-based country, and almost all interpersonal interactions are built on claiming power, or denigrating others to diminish their power. You have the power of inside information and are using that in a mysterious, intimidating way, heavy on the nasty aspersions (“criminal mind”, and you are casting Mariano as a “loser” in the intelligence department, versus Johnny and others who share your view. So that’s I suppose a + 2 for you. One for the information and clout you wield, and one for the intelligence put-down.

                And of course, you are the arbiter of intelligence, rather the court of opinion of one.

                I suspect Mariano has his own scorecard and may have a different tally. I don’t know.

                So maybe you are really just playing a game of solitaire.

                But carry on. It is even tangentially related to the topic, cybercrime, truth and malice.

                Thanks for the explanation.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      You might think this comment is out of line. No! It has bearing to cybercrime law.

      We have gun laws. One cabinetfull of gun law. Still Philippines is like cowboy country of America.

      If these geniuses cannot impose gun control laws who can on cybercrime law. Save your breath. Let cybercrime law pass. No one goes to prison for this law and many other laws.

      To this day, Philippine Media has not provided me names that got caught with anti-Wang-Wang. Because nobody in the enforcement industry want to do with the anti-wang-wang.

  55. letlet says:

    # 12 macspeed

    I agree with your suggestions, we definitely need a cybercrime law, but do away with irrelevant and complicated sections that are not most beneficial to the betterment of the people in terms of communication and technology, that would be used by unscrupolous politicians as loopholes for their own benefits ( suing people right and left for their allegations of graft and corruption and highly questionable principle and ) moral goings, and that would be used as a weapon by a certain group of people to implant fear into the totality of most concerned citizens if they expose political wrongdoings of these certain group.

    To the president of the Philippines, PNOY, please don’t let some people use you to advance their self vested interest at your expense, don’t let them pull you down from where you are now and give them opportunities to do so.

  56. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    Why GDP/GNP increase is a farce:

    BECAUSE SEAFOOD CITY, PACIFIC ISLAND GROCERY PRODUCTS ARE MADE FROM THAILAND, VIETNAM AND SOUTH KOREA. 80% INCLUDING PALANGANA, KUTSARA, TINIDOR AND MOST OF ALL COCO-JUICE

    Why brilliance of Filipinos is a farce:

    FILIPINOS IN AMERICA WOULD RATHER HIRE WHITE AMERICAN LAWYERS than U.S.-Citizenship-card-carrying Fake-American Filipinos graduate from U.P. and UCLA and Harvard.

    Not until I see 80% of Filipino products inSeafood City and Pacific Isalnd and Filipnios consulting with Fake-American Filipino on their immigrant status THAT IS THE ONLY TIME BILIB-NA-BILIB AKO SA MGA PINOY.

    By the way, why are we people debating about cybercrime laws when we have plenty of laws that needing debating because they are not applied. THIS ONE IS GLARING:

    HUWAG UMIHI DITO – Ordinance 666
    BAWAL MAG TAPON NG BASURA – ORDINANCE 69

    If authoritieis cannot impose the two of the above including anti-WANG-WANG, forget about cybercrime law. LET IT BE PASSED. Nothing will happen anyways.

    Isn’t Philippines a fun place ? Or is it a FUNNY PLACE?

  57. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    I want a law passed, too. A law that PROHIBITS ANY BROWN-SKIN-PUNK’D NOSE FILIPINO TO HIRE WHITE AMERICAN LAWYERS.

    Example:

    Nora Aunor
    Children of Gen Garcia
    Manny Pacquiao
    Mrs. Lapid
    And all TnTs in America

    WE MUST PROMOTE THE FILIPINO MINDS HERE AND ABROAD AND IN AMERICA TO TEST THE BEAUITFUL MINDS OF THE BRILLIANT FILIPINOS.

  58. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    If Cybercrime law is passed. The Philiphinos will be in need of hip-and-cool cyber-snazzy geeky types of judges.

    Can the current judges know about cybercrime law? If they are not Facebook-smart, they are not worthy to judge me.

  59. springwoodman says:

    Re item 8 – Truth as a defence.

    I have never understood why truth is not a defence. How can the reputation of a person be harmed if what is imputed against him is true?

    And if what is imputed is true, how can there be malice? Given that the definition of malice is “careless disregard for the truth”.

    This does not make sense.

    To my mind, it’s not only the Cybercrime Law that needs amending but also the libel laws.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      TRUTH IS DEFINITELY NOT A DEFENSE.

      Another axiom of mine that is incontrovertible : TRUTH DO NOT SET YOU FREE BUT A GOOT LAWYER DOES

    • leona says:

      @springwoodman…those words are ‘fighting’ each other: ‘true’ vs ‘malice’. When one ‘disregard’ the truth ‘carelessly’ it only means a lie instead was made rather than the truth.

      Example of truth but with malice: A public official dead for 2 years had a mistress. Both mistress and legal wife are still alive. Wife write in FB accessing mistress’ box, accusing mistress of adultery with the dead husband. Mistress files suit for criminal and civil Libel. Wife defends it is the truth: pictures of dead husband with mistress going and exiting from a Motel; love letters exchanged between mistress and dead husband for 1year; a house bought by dead husband where mistress lives, and 1 child as offspring.

      Everybody ‘Friends” of mistress and wife reads the accusation on FB. Is there a crime of Libel committed? Is her defense of truth exculpatory? We gave examples before or earlier on this matter. Is wife ‘careless for the truth’ or ‘careful for the truth?” Assuming or granting, as it is normally, can the wife’s hatred and anger against the mistress with ‘malice?” Yes, but what the ‘truth’?

      As I said, the words are fighting each other. Is there a ‘sense’ or there is ‘nonsense’?

      There is nonsense. But R.A. No. 10175Cybercrime law has many more nonsense than this example! For one: it included all provisions of the Revised Penal Code,as Amended and special laws in this cybercrime law plus increasing the penalty 1 degree higher than what the Penal Code punishes when committed with computer. This is in violation of the Constitution as “cruel and inhuman punishment.” [Bill of Rights]

      Thus for the Libel in the above example, the wife maybe made to serve imprisonment presion corectonal maximum period to prison mayor minimum period or 4 years 2 months 1 day to 8 years instead of 6 months 1 day to 4 years 2 months.

      That is cruelty. Inhuman. Of course it is nonsense!

      • leona says:

        @springwoodman…to continue and finish this: Can the crime of Adultery be committed by the use of e-mails (computer) like in the above example if the husband is still alive having adulterous relations with his mistress, arranging via e-mails their 1 year sexual relationships in the house of the mistress and in motels? Under the cybercrime law, YES! So both culprits’ penalty is also increased 1 degree higher – or prison mayor minimum period to prison mayor medium period = 6 years 1 day to 10 years rather than 2 years, 4 months 1 day to 6 years. Why higher? Again because it is nonsense Adultery having been augmentedly committed by use of computer for 1 year! Cruel and inhuman.

        • isellnuts says:

          @leona

          Yes! the wife is guilty of libel both in the Revised Penal code Article 355 and Republic Act No. 10175 Cybercrime Law

          The fact that the wife used the social media facebook in accusing the mistress of adultery made her liable under Republic Act No. 10175 Cybercrime law Cahpter 2 Punishable acts, Section 4 Cybercrime offenses (4) Libel. — 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.

          Revised Penal Code Article 355
          Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code

          CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
          Chapter One
          LIBEL
          Section One. — Definitions, forms, and punishment of this crime.chanrobles virtual law library

          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. 354. Requirement for publicity. — 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, except in the following cases:
          1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
          2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

          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 fact that the crime committed falls under the new law of Cybercrime it is only academic that the penalty under this law must be followed.

          • leona says:

            Can anyone give a good reason why the cybercrime law went to “increase” the penalty of crimes 1 degree higher – from penal code & special laws imposable penalties, – via use of the computer/Internet? My point is – it’s cruel and inhuman! So, what’s the good reason for this higher penalties?

            By analogy or use of the reasoning of the US SupCt, juveniles convicted of crimes & sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of Parole was reversed after many years for many juveniles under that situation. Reason: Cruel and inhuman or unusual inflicted punishments.

            Unless, our courts in this matter do not abide with that reasoning, okay lang. But it relevantly applies! Why? We have almost a sotto-copy Bill of Right on this point: ART. III SEC. 19 (1) Phil Const. and Amendment VIII [1791] US Const. Both on ‘cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

            • baycas says:

              I don’t know if this is good but their reason is that cyberspace is broader than, let’s say, a publication with a hundred circulation.

              Just one click (or, press) to defame…but this time, with a global broadcast.

              • leona says:

                @baycas…just that? And the counte-part is add YEARS for that? That’s a low blow reasoning really for …mind us….SENATORS?!

                Why don’t they just re-impose the DEATH PENALTY for heinous crimes? What’s happening inside their minds? They HATE US bloggers?, users of Internet, atbpa? Sure, we HATE THEM TOO!

                Their acts are abuses of the powers of lawmaking or lawmakers! We never gave such to them! Is it appropriate, when people have the chance, to ABOLISH THE SENATE instead? Parang hydra!

      • leona says:

        I meant ‘the husband was still alive committing adultery’ with his mistress before he passed away. Sorry. Just to be clear about it.

      • isellnuts says:

        @leona
        Black’s Law Dictionary defines a Constitution as “The fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government, defines the scope of governmental sovereign powers, and guarantees individual civil rights and civil liberties.”

        When the congress enacted a law that specifically addresses the subject of the law the latter must be followed except or otherwise the supreme court declared such law as unconstitutional, only then the provision of our constitution still prevails.

        • leona says:

          @isellnuts…your above comment probably refers to what I did write here but could have been ‘unacceptable’ to Moderator…my fault as I tried to ‘sotto-copy’ it for false beliefs too! So, sorry na lang. But thanks anyway.

    • jcc says:

      renato, you have to draw a line between a public complainant and a private complainant. if your neighbor is a whore, you have no business publishing the truth about her disreputable profession. if the same neighbor is a public official, her being a whore has attained an entirely new dimension because if she can whore her body, she can whore her public function too.

    • isellnuts says:

      @springwoodman

      For real, truth can never set you free nor can be a good defense in court. Here’s why;

      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. 354. Requirement for publicity. — 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, except in the following cases:
      1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
      2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

    • springwoodman says:

      Thank all for your input. Is it possible you are caught in legalese?

      1. First of all, the original wronged party is the wife. The wrong-doer is the husband. The wife should charge him with concubinage. Afterwards, her options would be:

      1.1 Pardon the husband
      1.2 Legal separation
      1.3 Annulment
      1.4 If divorce were available, divorce him. (Note: We need divorce.)
      1.5 Castration or penile amputation or both

      2. The mistress should not be able to file libel in the first place if she is truly the mistress. Or the suit should be dismissed if it is proved she is the mistress. She is not being “charged falsely”.

      2.1 I do not see the “reputation” of the mistress being harmed. What exactly is her reputation? She may have many, like being a good cook or an excellent amanuensis but one of them is “being a mistress”. So to me there is no harm there, just accuracy.

      3. I gather the penalty for a concubine is destierro or banishment from residing within the radius of 25 kilometers. (I don’t know if automobiles were already available when the law was crafted! But, you know, that’s just 3 minutes away from a good pop.)

      4. Going back to the wife, her sins, if any, are the following – at least to me:

      4.1 Loss of pussy power
      4.2 Trespassing FB privacy

  60. saxnviolins says:

    It seems my main point disappeared. The one where I typed sanviolins, not sax…

    Anyway, here it is again.

    Malice is presumed in the Philippines.Marichu Lambino calls it malice in law, and the professor at abogadomodotcom gives a lengthy explanation that misses the point. It is that part – presumed malice that is unconstitutional.

    Let us get down to basics, as taught by Professor Espinosa, ages ago.

    The accused is presume innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He used to say, that corollary to this principle, is the burden laid by the Constitution on the prosecution to prove every element of the offense. Now malice is an element of the offense. But if the law shifts the burden from the prosecution (to prove malice) to the defense (to prove good faith), then that shift in burden runs afoul of the Constitutional requirement that the prosecution prove each element of the offense.

    The Supreme Court has flip flopped on this issue, on the one hand, holding that New York Times v. Sullivan applies in the Philippines, while on the other, maintaining the constitutionality of the presumption of malice.

    New York Times v Sullivan held that libel is constitutional if there is a showing of malice; that “showing” means that the plaintiff must present evidence of malice. Later, in Milkovich v. Lorain, the US Supreme Court held that “the plaintiff bears the burden of showing (presenting evidence) falsity as well as fault.”

    Although the above are civil libel cases, the US Supreme Court held that New York Times v Sullivan applied in the criminal case of Garrison v. Louisiana. Louisiana has a criminal libel statute that employs the same phraseology as the Philippine libel law.

    In 2006, in the case of Ivey v Alabama (Sullivan sued New York Times in Alabama), the Supreme Court of Alabama finally struck down the criminal libel law of Alabama as being unconstitutional.

    The above points (including citations) are better explained in the link below.

    http://www.frauslatet.blogspot.com/

  61. Ancient Mariner says:

    In my humble opinion, should this law be enacted then the Philippines will become the laughing stock of the free world. The good currently being done by President Aquino will be largely undone because nobody will believe that things have changed much during his Presidency because the country can still enact and probably enforce idiotic laws.
    All outside entities who are looking to do business in the Philippines use the Internet to further their business interests. Why would they set up business in country where their every internet move will be monitored. Good bye security and privacy. Good bye trade secrets. Hello, the same old story of graft and corruption. Vis-a-vis, well, the fine should be P100,000 but if you kiss my butt or grease my palm anything can be undone.
    How can the enforcement group’s chief already be known when the law is still under discussion? Smells of old style politics. Are they so confident?

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      LAUGHING STOCK ? LAUGH-IN ?

      Remember Filipinos is in top ten happiest people on earth.

      Philippines is a fun place to live run by anti-Justin Beiber non-reading non-comprehending congressmen making Disneyland only 2nd.

  62. Joe America says:

    If I am the test case, I shall submit all 600 of my blogs as evidence that I write with the best interest of the Philippines in mind, and the judicial panel will declare me innocent just to be able not to have to read any more of that esoteric, satirical, opinionated folderol.

    We need some good defense lines, like that “there is no such thing as a false opinion.” That’s great.

    I’m thinking perhaps, “satire is never malicious because it advances the mind reaching to comprehend.”

  63. van says:

    Is it a futile exercise for relevant advocacy groups to propose a thorough version which would be legally and morally acceptable, if there isn’t one already? Among dino-politicians, the easily scared public, and the tech savvy sector, these provisions are easy to dramatize in extreme situations to illustrate why the current version is a legal boon or bane. Plus, senators apparently do not examine these laws to the last comma and period before signing them, clueless and incompetent :T maybe experts can step in committee-style…

    We do need a Cybercrime Law, just not this kind and not this petty.

  64. leona says:

    I connect something to @fed _up No. 11, in this initial voice about Cybercrime law.

    My idea of 1 more day kaputs as Raissa gave us a reminder on this very important cybercrime issue due for a SC decision soon, very soon it’s either we lose writing here or continue to seek and fight only the TRUTH of what free speech and free press are about.

    On No.11 @fed_up, I like to connect initially re

    “xxx When the gate of the corral was flung open (1946 Independence), everybody went galloping here and there for celebration. What “rule” they have adopted was not “rule of law”; it was “anything goes.” It clearly is anything goes curtailing and abridging FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS under the Cybercrime law.

    Pres. Aquino needs or should have been reminded that the Freedom Constitution issued under Proclamation No. 3 was a restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire government system, eradication of graft and corruption, etc. etc. But as @fed_up says “Anything goes.” Is that so?

    So, we all go back to the era of Spaniard’s atmosphere during Dr. Rizal’s time in this country under the Noynoy Aquino Administration. With Cybercrime law we “anything goes” to lose the restoration of democracy! Anything goes to curtail and abridge protection of basic rights, the Bill of Rights under our 1987 Constitution: Free Speech & Free Press!

    Anything goes destroying our and the people’s confidence in the entire Aquino Administration, OUR government! Anything goes not to be able to speak and print in order to eradicate GRAFT AND CORRUPTION in our government, this Administration of Pres. Aquino!

    Anything goes! This R.A. Act No. 10175 Cybercrime law violates all the Constitutions the Filipinos had: 1899 Malolos Constitution, 1935, 1943, 1973. the Freedom Constitution and our 1987 Constitution! All these had provisions protecting FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS! But Anything goes?

    The Declaration of Policy of R.A. No. 10175, among others, states: to attain free, easy and intellligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, etc. But, anything goes, it gets back what was restored in our democracy: this law punishes any misuse, abuse, and illegal access by anything goes re conduct or conducts in the use and exercise of FREE SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS with the use of a computer in cyberspace.

    It is not even provided in that “policy” of the law to put or allow THE DEFENSE or exemption from punishment, that any conduct or conducts in cyberspace or cyberspacing for the TRUTH of the matter written, spoken or printed, shall not constitute a crime or violation of this law! This should be THIS GOES into the law!

    This law is in derogation of our Constitution, cuts, curtails and abridges our IMPLORING THE AID OF ALMIGHTY GOD, it chills the people for a JUST AND HUMAN SOCIETY, our IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS as restored in the Freedom Constitution is lost, anything goes, we cannot promote for the COMMON GOOD, we lose and do not have the BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY under a Rule of Law, a REGIME OF TRUTH, justice, freedom, LOVE, equality and PEACE. All these are in the PREAMBLE of the 1987 Constitution! Shall we allow anything goes?

    No! No! No! Let us pray and hope, and keeping hoping, Congress and the Executive will REPEAL this law before more harm comes upon us. Amending it is TOO LATE and the odds are more harms will be committed, or

    our SUPREME COURT, the last bulwark for our freedom under our Bill of Rights, declares en toto the whole law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The “Separability Clause” cannot survive as to allow some provisions to “live” and others “to die” will cause more CONFUSION for the people and our courts! En Toto the law must and should be pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the sooner the better.

    Let us not live anymore under the atmosphere of Spanish conquest nor like under Martial Law of Mr. Marcos. We have regained our rights. Let us preserve them as our DIRECT MANDATE as a people who MANIFESTED in our EXTRAORDINARY ACTIONS during the EDSA 1 Revolution of 1986! [ holistically expressed in Proclamation No. 3, Freedom Constitution during Pres. Cory C. Aquino Administration.]

    Lastly, repeal or destroy this Cybercrime law!

    [excuse this sottoing, thanks.]

  65. Joe America says:

    This libel stuff is fascinating. Jurisprudence in a land where court rulings are often made on favor rather than law is a scary place to be tried. It is also scary to be tried in a land where powerful people believe their individual rights are above those of the State, as we witness in this coup or that, or this governor or that stonewalling a suspension order. It is scary to be an “unpowerful” person in a land that thrives on the righteousness of power.

    As a blogger, I believe I have a right to define the terms I use in an article. It is the job of the reader to grasp what I am saying, or inquire as to what I really mean if there is any confusion. I will be amending my terms and conditions to make this clear. Also I will make clear that every word printed in my blog has one intent only: to make the Philippines a better place.

    I’d have a lawyer write it, but . . . nevermind . . .

  66. e.a. pascual says:

    indeed we can learn something everyday. the lesson for today seems to be the power of shunning, ignoring, resisting self-proclaimed irresistible creatures. congratulations to commenters who discern what is worthwhile to read and comment on. life is short,. no one out there can control what comes within our vision or hearing. but we can control what we pay attention to and respond to .

  67. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    The Cybercrime Law AKA Justin Beiber law WILL PASS thru the non-reading, non-understanding rubberstamp 188 impeachment congressmen on top of that the 7 congressmen that introduced a bill in honor of Justin Beiber for denigrating the NEW HERO and GOD …. who else …. MANNY PACQUIAO !!!!

    So, people, do not waste your time and resources in this Justein Beiber law AKA Cybercrime Law. Laws in the Philippines are sporadically applied.

    Like Child Abuse Law, I really thought that this law never existed until Yoyoy Revillame carted his viewership to TV5, then, suddenly Child Abuse Law was resurrected. Poor Yoyoy Revillame became poster boy of Philippine Laws. When IN FACT PHILIPPINE government promotes child neglect. Lookit those children in Tondo and those sleeping in the sidewalk. Where is this so-called Philippine Government ?

  68. duquemarino says:

    @CPMers @raissa @Alan

    A bountiful and challenging 2013 to all of us!!!!!

    Section 29 of the Cyber Prevention Act states that “If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect.”

    I hope that those who will speak for during the oral argument on January 15 will be able to convince the honorable justices to declare invalid such provisions of the law which are deemed “obnoxious” otherwise I pray that the SC declare the law unconstitutional and the incoming congress enact a new version.

    As @Alan mentioned in his article “Most of the country’s politicians and leaders neither use nor understand the Internet” incumbent and aspiring aspiring political leaders should enhance their knowledge on internet.

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      Why GDP/GNP increase is a farce:

      BECAUSE SEAFOOD CITY, PACIFIC ISLAND GROCERY PRODUCTS ARE MADE FROM THAILAND, VIETNAM AND SOUTH KOREA. 80% INCLUDING PALANGANA, KUTSARA, TINIDOR AND MOST OF ALL COCO-JUICE

      Why brilliance of Filipinos is a farce:

      FILIPINOS IN AMERICA WOULD RATHER HIRE WHITE AMERICAN LAWYERS than U.S.-Citizenship-card-carrying Fake-American Filipinos graduate from U.P. and UCLA and Harvard.

      Not until I see 80% of Filipino products inSeafood City and Pacific Isalnd and Filipnios consulting with Fake-American Filipino on their immigrant status THAT IS THE ONLY TIME BILIB-NA-BILIB AKO SA MGA PINOY.

      By the way, why are we people debating about cybercrime laws when we have plenty of laws that needing debating because they are not applied. THIS ONE IS GLARING:

      HUWAG UMIHI DITO – Ordinance 666
      BAWAL MAG TAPON NG BASURA – ORDINANCE 69

      If authoritieis cannot impose the two of the above including anti-WANG-WANG, forget about cybercrime law. LET IT BE PASSED. Nothing will happen anyways.

      Isn’t Philippines a fun place ? Or is it a FUNNY PLACE?

  69. letlet says:

    This cybercrime law is definitely unconstitutional (Bill of Rights – Article 111) especially the libel section, whereby it is curtailing our freedom of speech and expression. Our lawmakers are trying to superimpose this cybercrime law over our constitution which should not be the case. Why did Sotto insert this section to the bill, what was his motive, is it for his benefit or for the benefit of the madlang people, is the section “just”?

    Before signing the bill into law, are the signatories well versed to the implications and impact of the law per se to the societal’s intrinsic values, did they hold extensive/rigorous research, consultations and reviews about the libel section, with whom with what facts and datas.

    This law will definitely cause untold misery,fear, infightings, confusion and messy life. China style, here we come.

    • leona says:

      @letlet…the journalists in Guangdong province, China, are up in arms for the changing of the editorial in their Southern Weekly newspaper without their consent! In China, as we all know maybe, there is free speech and free press but don’t touch on political issues or the State’s issues, etc.

      And with our Cybercrime law if the SC holds it as constitutional, we are heading into that direction like in China!

      • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        @Leona, the cybercrime law will be passed in PREPARATION FOR CHINA’S ANEXXATION OF THE PHILIPPINES !!!!!

        Gosh, truly, I am brilliant !!!! I am clairvoyant.

        Am I re-incarnation of the Mayans ?

        • Joe America says:

          Yes, you were one of those wild-eyed witchdoctors with tall black feathered hats and white paint over the eyes always stoked up on peyote and tossing virgins into the roaring volcanoes. It’s all rather like blogging after all.

  70. Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

    It is the end of Philippine Internet as we know it. The Philippines showed be towed to Middle-East where it belongs. We should join Egypt’s Islamist and apply Sharia law .

    Goodbye Philippines. I am moving to Jolo Sulu.

  71. macspeed says:

    the cybercrime law shall be approved by the members of the congress and the senators, not only by Sen Angara,Sotto and Sy. Tanggalin ang mga items na nakakabuwisit tulad ng Libel na pihadong gagamitin lang ng mga may gusto nito. Ok lang my cybercrime law but please, yun lang mga batas na karapat dapat lang. Hindi dapat kasama sa batas na yan ang pag pigil sa gustong sabihin ng mga tao sa net kung may prueba naman tulad ng mga hyperlink he he he pagmeetingan nila ang nilalaman bago papirmahan kay Pres Noy…

  72. fed_up says:

    Not wanting this post to be buried in a preceding topic (Alan’s latest humor post: Tales of Doom), I’m making it here. I hope I’m not breaking any house rule.

    @leona. At 76.2, you said: “Maybe, just maybe, we got this out of being 300 years ‘slaves’ by the Spaniards here! Our forefathers and before them, handed this pHs down to generations that no matter what we learn in school, this keeps popping out in our traits as HABITS.”

    Thanks for taking time to comment on my post on PFHs: Pernicious Filipino Habits. To me, these are the real “culprits” that brought about the depravity of our nation.

    Your observation is an echo of what two distinguished authors have earlier said in describing the Filipino psyche.

    In the Introduction in her book “Filipino-Americans: Transformation and Identity”, Maria P. P. Root has stated: “Spanning five centuries, colonization ravaged the souls and psyche of the indigenous people of the archipelago dubbed Las Islas Filipinas by Spain in 1565. The traumas associated with colonization that lasted almost 400 years scarred us all, regardless of our nativity, language, class or gender. Trauma fragments and fractures the essence of our being and self-knowledge; it disconnects us from each other.

    For his part in his book “American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 – 1964” William Manchester described the Filipino race as a people who have spent “300 years in a convent and 50 years in Hollywood.”

    We all know how the Spaniards subjected the Filipinos to oppression and humiliation. To them, there were only two kinds of human being: the superior white (them) and the inferior Indios (us).

    I have my own version on how the Filipino psyche was unkindly treated by history. To me, they were more like horses having spent 300 years, not in a convent, but in a corral.

    When the gate of the corral was flung open (1946 Independence), everybody went galloping here and there for celebration. What “rule” they have adopted was not “rule of law”; it was “anything goes.”

    • Though already posted in the other thread, I am reposting it here as another take that points no accusing finger to anyone, just to a metaphorical thing. Here it is:

      If one knows, no one should be FED UP. The theory este
      METAPHOR goes like this. It is CONTAMINATION, then INFECTION
      and finally complete BREAKDOWN of the moral IMMUNE SYSTEM
      of the Elite and the masses. Inevitably as in a culture of impunity,
      It BECOMES GENETIC, it runs in the blood and became pathologic
      stem cells. This is the Darwinian origin of corruption that thrive best
      in a polluted culture. This theory este METAPHOR can be put
      Into a spin of many books, with children of political dynasties as Harvard
      successful business case studies. A Doctor in the Barrio like a Juan Flavier left
      medicine, went into lawmaking, got contaminated, then probably
      infected, got out on time, had been able to avoid complete breakdown of his
      immune system but the corruption vaccine organisms will always be with him.
      Corruption is like a chemotherapy drug, it kills the antibodies until
      the moral resistance is completely taken over by extravagance and luxury.

      • IF I may add:

        The contamination started in the 16th century when the kings of Spain started selling positions in the colonial government. It saw full flower several centuries later during martial law when mentors in business administration held the reins of the executive branch, when governance ceased to be for public service but for PROFIT. The “businessation” of public service had put a price for services already paid for by repressive taxation. Infection became widespread that even non-existent services or projects became sources of untold wealth and power. It could have reached full circle when the present administration took over and some noises and allegations were made that juicy positions were available for a price through the selection and screening committee. Which was really baloney and unnecessary for the mammoth campaign contributors. Power excised of money is benign public service while money as fuel to power is malignant public service.

    • leona says:

      My idea of 1 more day kaputs as Raissa gave us a reminder on this very important cybercrime issue due for a SC decision soon, very soon it’s either we lose writing here or continue to seek and fight only the TRUTH of what free speech and free press are about.

      On No.11 @fed_up, I like to connect initially re

      “xxx When the gate of the corral was flung open (1946 Independence), everybody went galloping here and there for celebration. What “rule” they have adopted was not “rule of law”; it was “anything goes.” It clearly is anything goes curtailing and abridging FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS under the Cybercrime law.

      Pres. Aquino needs or should have been reminded that the Freedom Constitution issued under Proclamation No. 3 was a restoration of democracy, protection of basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire government system, eradication of graft and corruption, etc. etc. But as @fed_up says “Anything goes.” Is that so?

      So, we all go back to the era of Spaniard’s atmosphere during Dr. Rizal’s time in this country under the Noynoy Aquino Administration. With Cybercrime law we “anything goes” to lose the restoration of democracy! Anything goes to curtail and abridge protection of basic rights, the Bill of Rights under our 1987 Constitution: Free Speech & Free Press!

      Anything goes destroying our and the people’s confidence in the entire Aquino Administration, OUR government! Anything goes not to be able to speak and print in order to eradicate GRAFT AND CORRUPTION in our government, this Administration of Pres. Aquino!

      Anything goes! This R.A. Act No. 10175 Cybercrime law violates all the Constitutions the Filipinos had: 1899 Malolos Constitution, 1935, 1943, 1973. the Freedom Constitution and our 1987 Constitution! All these had provisions protecting FREE SPEECH and FREE PRESS! But Anything goes?

      The Declaration of Policy of R.A. No. 10175, among others, states: to attain free, easy and intellligible access to exchange and/or delivery of information; the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, etc. But, anything goes, it gets back what was restored in our democracy: this law punishes any misuse, abuse, and illegal access by anything goes re conduct or conducts in the use and exercise of FREE SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS with the use of a computer in cyberspace.

      It is not even provided in that “policy” of the law to put or allow THE DEFENSE or exemption from punishment, that any conduct or conducts in cyberspace or cyberspacing for the TRUTH of the matter written, spoken or printed, shall not constitute a crime or violation of this law! This should be THIS GOES into the law!

      This law is in derogation of our Constitution, cuts, curtails and abridges our IMPLORING THE AID OF ALMIGHTY GOD, it chills the people for a JUST AND HUMAN SOCIETY, our IDEALS AND ASPIRATIONS as restored in the Freedom Constitution is lost, anything goes, we cannot promote for the COMMON GOOD, we lose and do not have the BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY under a Rule of Law, a REGIME OF TRUTH, justice, freedom, LOVE, equality and PEACE. All these are in the PREAMBLE of the 1987 Constitution! Shall we allow anything goes?

      No! No! No! Let us pray and hope, and keeping hoping, Congress and the Executive will REPEAL this law before more harm comes upon us. Amending it is TOO LATE and the odds are more harms will be committed, or

      our SUPREME COURT, the last bulwark for our freedom under our Bill of Rights, declares en toto the whole law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The “Separability Clause” cannot survive as to allow some provisions to “live” and others “to die” will cause more CONFUSION for the people and our courts! En Toto the law must and should be pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the sooner the better.

      Let us not live anymore under the atmosphere of Spanish conquest nor like under Martial Law of Mr. Marcos. We have regained our rights. Let us preserve them as our DIRECT MANDATE as a people who MANIFESTED in our EXTRAORDINARY ACTIONS during the EDSA 1 Revolution of 1986! [ holistically expressed in Proclamation No. 3, Freedom Constitution during Pres. Cory C. Aquino Administration.]

      Lastly, repeal or destroy this Cybercrime law!

  73. Alex says:

    there are so many vague provisions in this law, like the alteration of computer data, you can be sued just by making memes or fanarts using online picutures that you dont own. .The provision on sending unsolicited commercial communication is also vague, they didn’t specify which media the law applies, unlike the US and other countries’ law regarding spam, they do noted that it only applies to email spam. sorry about my English.

  74. INFANTILISM is a stage and a state of human nature before maturation. I have seen it proliferate here, lately as written words. But it will pass as wasted time and space which does not stand still and then CPM will be back as is, but in the New Year, hopefully, BETTER.

  75. jcc says:

    The cybercrime law will be junked using the three part test on free speech, an American/International standard that limits govt. interference on free speech: vagueness, overbroad, and unfettered discretion on the part of a government official to determine what constittues cybercrimes. Philippine courts traditionally follow the American jurisprudence. But this is not to say that speech is absolute. It is limited by the issues of public safety, moral, public order, etc. You cannot incite disorder, advertise for the sale of cocaine, post nude pictures (specially of children), nor post articles to damage the reputation of individuals under the guise of free speech. On the latter, (damage to reputation), the standard on public officials subjected to hideous speech, courts have relaxed the standard by including ‘malice’ as additional element. The other elements are provided for in Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code:

    “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.”

    Excised of its verbiage the elements are: “malicious article; publication; identity of the person maligned,” (natural or juridical person) or a derogatory publication against the dead.

    Malice as defined by jurisprudence “is careless disregard for the truth.” So defendant can arguably raised the defense that the publication was made in good faith and that there are no easily verifiable info to consider what had been published as untrue and that it was made in the greater interest of public service.

    If someone called Senator Sotto an ‘obnoxious plagiarist’ it is probably derogatory, and could subject someone for libel, but defendant can raise the defense of lack of malice because the charge that he was a plagiarist, was true, and the adjective “obnoxious is merely the opinion of the defendant.

    If you call President Marcos a thief, you can be subjected to libel for blackening his memory, but defendant can raise the defense of “truth.”

    But the bottomline is that press freedom must have willing warriors to fight for its cause. The inconvenience of court process of harassment of politicians are too small a price to pay. Rizal and Primitivo Mijares gave their lives to bring the truth. But oh, well, Not everyone can don the armors of Rizal, Mijares, Priam, Hector and Achilles to fight a war that will be remembered for the ages to come.

    • raissa says:

      Well said, JCC.

    • Johnny Lin says:

      Jcc
      Happy New Year my friend,
      Nice to hear from you again

      Clarification is educational to us.

      Aside from Primitivo, another could suit with the armor of Joan of Arc,
      RR, not that sexy warbler from the Carribean

      He he he

      • jcc says:

        hehehe, johnny lin, there are lots of warriors who don the armor of combat in the name of freedom of the press… patrick henry; voltaire; ermin garcia; gomburza; bishop romero; and some 20 or so members of the press in the maguindanao massacre….

      • jcc says:

        happy new year johnny.. :)

    • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

      In Islamist Egypt they have a law that incancerates those that denigrate their religion and the sitting powers. It is vested in Sharia.

      Could Sotto have had change of religion ?

      It appears Republic of the Philippines is an odd country out in Asia. Republic of the Philippines is acting and thinking like Middle-Eastern countries.

      What will happen to me? What will happen to Johnny Lin, Letlet, Praetorius and others? If these fan of Raissa cannot express their opinion, THEY WILL EXPRESS IT IN ANOTHER WAY. Aaaah, No! Not the violent way ! Filipnios are not revolutionary types. They just vote with their passport to Europe, Australia and America. There cannot be coup-de-t’at. Well, we will never know. Coup-de-t’at in the Philippines depends on the phase of the moon. And most coup-de-t’ats were failures. They just wanted publicity to run in the Senate or the country.

      It is scary. After February 6, Philippine technologian contracted by Benign0 Aquino’s government will start scouring denigrating opinion. Then the midnight knock on the door. They whisk you away and will never ever be heard of again.

      You people better say your prayers. I do not need to pray. One missing call to my Americ an government, they will come looking for me. They will send in their troops to pluck me out of this godforsaken place.

      HEre is my proposition. Why not OUTSOURCE THIS GOVERNMENT. Filipinos are not in the business of running a government. Go ask McKinley.

    • baycas says:

      In the RPC…some statements (but definitely incomplete)…

      – Libel, considered malicious unless proven otherwise by the accused.

      – Truth may not be a defense.

      DEFENSES:

      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, 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.

      – abogadomodotcom

      The web link is supplied below.

      • baycas says:

        That is Malice-in-Law.

        To understand better, Malice-in-Law must be differentiated from Malice-in-Fact

        http://marichulambino.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/daily-tribune-ninez-cacho-olivares-rtc-libel-conviction/

      • jcc says:

        if complainant is a public official, truth is always a defense.

        • baycas says:

          As stated in the abogadomodotcom quote in No. 8.4 above.

          (Two web links given below the quote still awaiting moderation..)

      • baycas says:

        Points of clarifications worthy of note, I believe, because “indiscriminate firing” of comments should must never be allowed under the cloak of freedom of speech.

      • sanviolins says:

        The libel law presumes malice. Marichu Lambino calls it malice in law. The abodagmodotcom professor gives a lengthy explanation that misses the point. This is the part that is unconstitutional, and should have been questioned a long time ago – the part that presumes malice.

        Let us get down to basics, as taught by Professor Espinosa, ages ago.

        The accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He used to say that corollary to this presumption, is the burden laid by the Constitution on the prosecution to prove every element of the offense. Now malice is an element of the offense. But if the law presumes malice, the law is unconstitutionally shifting the burden – from the prosecution (to prove malice), to the defense (to prove good faith).

        The Supreme Court has flip flopped on this issue; on the one hand, saying that New York Times v Sullivan applies in the Philippines, but on the other, still maintaining the constitutionality of presumed malice.

        New York Times held that there must be a showing of actual malice. That “showing” is done by evidence being presented by the prosecution. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Later, in Milkovich v Lorain Journal, the US Supreme Court held that “the plaintiff bears the burden of showing falsity as well as fault”, before recovering damages.

        Although the above are civil libel cases, the US Supreme Court applied New York Times doctrine in the criminal case of Garrison v. Louisiana, which has a criminal libel statute that employs identical phraseology as the Philippine libel law.

        In 2006, in the case of Ivey v. Alabama (Sullivan sued New York Times in Alabama), the Supreme Court of Alabama finally struck down the criminal libel statute for being unconstitutional, applying New York Times v. Sullivan.

        The above points (with citations) are better explained in the link below.

        http://www.frauslatet.blogspot.com/

    • Joe America says:

      One person’s malice is another’s good intent. If I ridicule Sotto in a cartoon, I am clearly out to do some kind of damage to him, but in the best interest of the Philippines. In my opinion. The court cases will be interesting to follow, and when the first blogger is hauled before the courts on a trivial political charge, I trust the people will also rise up in that blogger’s defense.

      • jcc says:

        justice baycas has provided some definition of “malice”. but malice in Times v. Sullivan is the one that is being followed now… Malicious publication will be malicious only if there “was willful disregard for the truth” made by the defendant. If you called someone a deadbeat because you were angry against his person and called him such to despise him, such is not the malice required by law. he probably could be acquitted of the charge of libel for want of malice and the ‘derogatory’ remark could considered merely an opinion and therefore a protected speech.

        justice baycas should go international because our free speech is identical with the first amendment in the U.S.

        Larry Flynt was sued by Minister Falwell for printing “derogatory” article in Hustler Magazine parodizing the minister as having “sex” with his mother. He was acquitted. Malice as an element of libel was placed in central focus. It is reckless disregard for the truth.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

      • Rolly says:

        I believe CPMers will also rise to the occasion.

  76. baycas says:

    Check out the new FaceLook…

    Starting February 2013, more and more users will start seeing prompts on their home pages inviting them to switch over to the new FaceLook. The switch will be a MUST for account holders.

    Please study well the new design below.

    Mack Nuremberg

    —–

    The Buttons, Philippine edition
    (complete with annotations)

    Like

    at your own risk.

    Comment

    under pain of imprisonment.

    Share

    if you dare.

    • raissa says:

      You pulling our leg?

    • macspeed says:

      he he he he bilis mo mag isip he he he he

    • leona says:

      The specific provisions on Libel in the Revised Penal Code (1932 time) is a carry-Over of Spanish conquests, the Philippine Legislature never bothered to look into for updating acc to time and mandate of the Filipino people. Now, it going to be worst as made worst by the Senators who approved it without the Lower House bothering again to look into what the Upper House did to the original version of the law.

      Even at Facebook, as @baycas gives it: Like = at your own risk; Comment = under pain of punishment; and Share = if you dare.

      There was even that plan [ shelved] prior to Martial Law years by Congress to study revising all the provisions of our penal code as other countries have advanced in their criminal justice system while we deliberately abandoned to carry out that plan.

      So, with Cybercrime law, we continue and worst, inserted ALL THE PROVISIONS on crimes under that Code! Crazy!

      • baycas says:

        Now, it going to be worst as made worst by the Senators who approved it without the Lower House bothering again to look into what the Upper House did to the original version of the law.

        – leona

        when you want a speedy*, don’t let the lower hand know what the upper hand is doing.

        —–
        *A bill surreptitiously made into law

        • leona says:

          Anything goes! @fed_up comments. Na sobra han yata si PNoy ng confidence. Remember, Malacanang Legal Staff did not bother to check the bill…errr the law before it went to Congress. Now, Sol Gen will have hot irons defending it at the SC!

          • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

            benign0-the-Turd’s confidence is coming from his Political Capital that ejected my friend, Renato Corona with the help of Mr. Anonymous and Little Lady in Red Riding Hood and typists of Affidavits of guilts. NO FORENSICS.

  77. Johnny Lin says:

    If I could have the ear of one SC justice what short compelling message shall I whisper that will convince him to junk Cybercrime law?

    Imagine if there are 15 CPMers whispering to 15 justices.

    Are we allowed to attend the oral arguments?
    I wish to be present.

    • raissa says:

      You can. But you will be told to check in your cellphone at the door. No cameras or cellphones allowed inside. And come early. First come, first served.

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Yes I will attend if I know where to go, haven’t been to Padre Faura in decades
        Are you going?

        • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          Johnny Lin, they have moving camera and spy camera and videos. It is obvious that benign0 Aquino’s Supreme Court will make the TRO lapse. The Supreme Court do not want what happened to Corona. So, whatever benign0 Aquino wants benign0 gets, else, IMPITS !!!! Always remember there will always be 188 non-reading, non-understanding Rubberstamp Congressmen that reports to benign0.

          In this world of benign0, a whisper will do you in, Johnny. No more Affidavits and Witness Accounts. This time they will have EVIDENCES. They’ll subpoena Google and Yahoo! and Yehhey ! and you are totally doooomed !!!!!!!!

          The impitsment of Corona was the watershed. Supreme Court is now afraid to cross benign0.

          So, Johnny, please stay home. Do not do anything foolish. A whisper to justices and your presence itself is dangerous to your health and wealth.

    • leona says:

      whisper to that SC justice….SA KANGKUNGAN YUN CYBERCRIME LAW! ahmm, I’m @johnny lin.

  78. Cyberspace is not human space, could be extra-human, extra-terrestrial or extra-universal and might have its own laws and automatic punishments no legal human eagles can profess to know aside from the mythical karma. Cyberspace is not Earth where humans get born. dwell and die. It is stupid, gross human imbecility to make cyberspace laws punishing cybercrimes anticipated to happen in a vacuum, a space devoid of physical space. Unless money is coveted as a return for the concoction of cyber laws, IT IS ENOUGH that all laws of any or all country APPLY and may prescribe punishments FOR ANY or most of violations of lawful human behaviour in Earth. Committing libel or child molestation, or murder or corruption in cyber space? Some research in Pharma invents the drugs before it discover the diseases.

    • Dont’ deconstruct me please as long as blood is red and nature is green. When cyberspace is intangible while Cyber Plaza Miranda (CPM) is tangible space, has its own history, real and have seen blood and saliva of citizens spilled for a cause. No cyber law shall ENCROACH on it when there are more than enough existing Philippine Laws to punish purveyors of lies and transgressors of written truths even in the asphalts of Quiapo’s Plaza Miranda.

      • macspeed says:

        The net is a real world, information is faster than any newspaper around the world. We need a cyber law to regulate the users. Bad users shall be complained to the site provider or administrator, if not corrected then to the cyber police then to the court.

        Napakaraming bastos sa ibang site, may nagmumura, may nagbabanta at kung anu ano pa, pag nabasa mo nga, mag la log-ut ka agad sa nerbiyos he he he

        cybercrime is required for real criminals but not us, you know what i mean…if i send emails to my wife that is private, if we make sex in skype, that is private. Anything private should not be poke at, if anyone who steal it and posted on social networks, they should be liable, pwede ireklamo sa cyberpolice or cyber-judge he he he darating din yan

        if i post here and say i dont like gloria arroyo because she is corrupt, i should not be charge because it is freedom for me to say.

        but if i post here a hyperlink to site offering bad services such as sex net, on line casino and other bad things such as child pornography, then that is a crime.

        If somebody is stoking my daughters life via email, that is a crime and should be charge.

        cybercrime law should only be approved after deleting the bad laws such as libel and anything that will stop freedom of the press, pag meron nyan tutol ako jan, hayup sila pag di nila inalis yan.

        • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PORNOGRAPHY OF THE GENERIC KIND YES! YES! YES!

          BONDAGE IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PORN SCANDAL IS A NO! NO! NO!

          LEAKED PRIVATE VIDEOS AND PHOTOS OF COUPLES HAVING SEX IS A NO! NO! NO!

          PRIESTS HAVING SEX . YES! YES! YES!

    • Joe America says:

      @ Alizarin Viridia . . . Wierd that you would ask this. Are you Mayan by any chance? Check out my blog for today to understand why I asked the question.

  79. jorge bernas says:

    Lets just be vigilant & do what is good for the MADLANG PEOPLE….

  80. myrna says:

    oh no! that’s scary! i might never use the internet again if this oppresive law remains!

    • pinay710 says:

      @myrna! dont be scared. dont be afraid. just dont press “LIKE” that contains names.or if you comment someone use acronym. dont use names ( just mam raissa told me) why should i stop using the internet? i am paying my provider, i bought my laptop for my satisfaction. no one can stop me from surfing the internet. NOBODY! if you are wrong you are wrong if you are right i’ll praise you for that, just be alert everytime you use the internet.

      • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        I will “LIKE” benign0’s facebook for extra measure of safety.

        My Facebook page has “LIKE” “UNLIKE” and “DISLIKE” ? Well, if you hit “LIKE” you are doomed to perdition.

    • leona says:

      @myrna…sure YOU CAN STILL use the Internet but DON’T USE OR TOUCH THE KEYBOARD AT ALL! Throw it away!

  81. Praetorius says:

    Never let your guard down. Be vigilant.

    P.s.

    And i’m sure mariano will come out with something funny to say again :-)

    • pelang says:

      ignore him. if no one replies or mention about his comments, he’ll eventually stop.

      • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        I am irresistible. You cannot resist me. You will forever be following my comments. Because from my infantile childish comments are nuggets of truth that you can share to your friends as yours. MINE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. IT IS JUST PATENTED.

        What is the diff between copyright and patented ?

      • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

        You cannot resist me Pelang. You will forever be following me. I am addictive.

      • leona says:

        We’re waiting for him to have some lucid moments and we’ll comment but so far none yet….how long? don’t know…

        • Rene-Ipil says:

          Leona@2.1

          Let’s have a countdown. I see that the last posting of MRP was timed at 3:06 a.m. today. It is now 8:48 p.m. 17 hours 42 minutes passed and not a whimper from him. I am also waiting.

          • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

            @Leona dear, take child neglect and child abuse for example. I never thoughted that PHilippines has laws to protect children until Yoyoy Revillame carted viewership from ABS-CBN to TV5 he was charged of Child abuse when along EDSA there are plenty of homeless children living off JOLLIBEE’s dumpster. Wasn’t it Jolllibee that pulled their advertisement from Yoyoy Revillame because of child abuse and they cannot even see children dumpster driving for morsels of Chickenjoy ? THAT IS THE LAW FOR YOU LEONA !!!!! I do not waste my time on PHilippine law because it is more neglected than enforced.

            @Leona dear, I know you are not well read, I tell you about drug entrapment of de Lorean owner of de Lorean exotic sports car company. deLorean definitely by evidence purchased drugs from FBI. deLorean went scottfree because it was entrapment. And @Leona dear, that terrorist in the east coast where FBI placed a GPS on his car without a warrant. Again, the terrorist went home free. He also sued the American government and he winned !!!!! THAT IS HOW PREDICTABLE THE AMERICAN LAWS ARE.

            Can you predict the enforcement of cybercrime Law ? I DO NOT THINK SO !!!!

            It really depends when it depends. DUH !!!!!!

        • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          @Leona dear, I do not delve into PHILIPPINE LAWS and PHILIPPINE POLITICS.

          PHILIPPINE LAWS is weder-weder. Take for example Corona. Please do not get the impression I AM Pro-CORONA DEFINITELY I AM NOT. I am pro-HUSTISYA MATUWID. Mr. Anonymous and Little Lady in Red Riding Hood’s illegally acquired photocopied Corona’s private dollar account. If it were in America, where so-called brilliant Filipinos wanted to study law, these anonymous duo would have been incancerated because of violation of privacy laws. But since this is the Philippines and Impeachmnent is a political process anything goes. But when Bill Clinton was impeached, regardless of its political nature, the Senate followed the law as if it were not a political process so AS NOT TO SET A PRECEDENCE. Not only Bill Clinton but also past impeachment of past presidents and Blagojevich.

          So why bother go to America to study law when America’s laws are culturally different from the Philippines?

          I have helped many legal immigrants file petition papers for their children filling up forms just by reading the back pages of the form itself WHEN I AM NOT A LAWYER AND NOT WHITE. Well, I am just tisoy. Pogi. And goot in englsichtzes.

          I also have advised green card holders that they can come back to America on their 363rd absence abroad as long as they have not gone over 365th days. IT IS WRITTEN IN THE, again, BACKPAGES OF NEWSPAPERS. Just buy reading their newspapers I can know the law. But in the Philippines nothing like that.

        • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          What about Blagojevich ? No ! dear @Leona !!! Blago is not a Bosnian or Herzegovinian. HE is an American in Illinois solding Obama’s state senate seat. Blago was in impeachment trial for solding a senate seat. Despite its political nature, he is impeached not thru political process but thru judicial process SO AS NOT TO SET A PRECEDENCE and not ABUSE ITS POLITICAL PROCESS.

          Just in case you are Wikieng Blago, Blago was also accused by a WITNESS ACCOUNT with AFFIDAVITS OF GUILT back in the early 2000 something about Health insurance. Of course dear @Leona and @Rene-Ipil, they did not prosecute based on AFFIDAVITS and WITNESS ACCOUNTS not until they have EVIDENCES. Now, they acquired evidences thru bugs and paper trails. THAT IS HOW PREDICTABLE AMERICAN LAWS ARE AND IT IS TOTALLY ABSOLUTE THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE. DUAH !!!!!! you two, @Leona and @Rene-Ipil are just plain clueless. Yeah, you may appear intelligent debating finer points of cybercrime law and defining and redefining each word there is in it BUT WHAT IS THE USE? When laws in the philipines is wishy-washy ?

          YOU MUST BE WONDERING WHY Americans stand in line should-der-to-shoulder on America’s freeway when ever there are road-rage car-to-car shooting. BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO LOCATE THAT BULLET SLUGS AND BULLET SHELL CASINGS. They spend so much time to gather evidences than gather witnesss accounts. IN YOUR SIDE OF PHILIPPINES run by UNDESIRABLE FILIPINOS WITNESS ACCCCCCOUUUUUNTS !!!! HA! HA! HA!

          Marami pa kayong bigas kaka-inin !!!! LOOKIT I AM NOT A LAWYER. I JUST READ THIS THRU THEIR PAPERS AND NEWS WEBSITE. Reading American newspapers informs me. BUT READING PHILIPPINE NEWSPAPERS AND BLOGSITES FROM UNDESEIRABLE FILIPINOS MISINFORM ME !!!!!

        • Mariano Renato Pacifico says:

          …. but @Leona and @Rene-Ipil. Keep up the cybercrime debate. IT IS A GOOT EXERCISE FOR BORED IGNORANT MINDS …..

          I always believe in Desiderata ….. “listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.”

          Do not get exhausted with my long winding tra-la-las …… IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH YOUR FUTURE BLOGS AND COMMENTS.

  82. X says:

    Are we going to get sideswiped again?

  83. -->

Do share your thoughts:

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>