THE Cebu City Press Council (CCPC) discussed Republic Act (RA) 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, and libel during its quarterly meeting yesterday.
It invited two speakers—retired Regional Trial Court judge Meinrado Paredes and Atty. Ethelbert Ouano, a consultant of the Cebu Bloggers Society—to shed light on both matters.
The CCPC also passed a resolution reaffirming its earlier stand to reduce the penalty
for libel to a mere fine and not imprisonment.
It also urged legislators to limit the venue of libel court hearings to the place where it is committed and to clarify ambiguities in the law in relation to the Supreme Court (SC) decision regarding online libel.
Who is liable?
According to the SC decision, one is not liable for merely reposting, republishing, “liking,” “sharing,” or commenting on a libelous statement posted in a social network like Facebook or Twitter.
“If something libelous is published and you republish it, you are not liable of libel,” Paredes said.
He said the elements of libel as provided in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines and RA 10175 are the same but the penalty in RA 10175 is harsher.
These elements are imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another;
publication of the imputation, identity of person defamed; and existence of malice.
“I favor fine over imprisonment as penalty of libel, as there is no serious physical injuries involved like in homicide and murder,” Paredes said.
Libel in the revised penal code is punishable by prision correccional, while libel in RA 10175 is punishable by prision mayor, or a fine of not less than P200,000.
“Incarceration is unnecessary on the right that we are trying to protect,” Ouano said, citing the United Nation Commission on Human Rights’ stand on imprisonment.
Incompatibility
Ouano went on to discuss the incompatibility of the provisions of RA 10175, such as the corresponding penalties for local and foreign cyberplayers.
“We are exposing 30 million Filipinos (who have access to the Internet) to harsher libel risks,” he said, adding that there is a need to repeal RA 10175 and amend the old libel law.
The Cebu Media Legal Aid, CCPC’s legal advisor, saw no need to revise its stand in view of the SC ruling, except to deplore an inconsistency on the rule on repeated libel as it applies.
The CCPC also said radio, print, television and other “new” media are not totally free as unbridled freedom that impinges on the rights of others and the stability of the community and nation might destroy what the press seeks to protect.
It said freedom with responsibility is not inconsistent with the advocacy for media free from harassment and oppression under the guise of regulation.