Introduction
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of the Philippines (RA 10175) is a highly controversial law that has a significant number of counterarguments. It was signed by the president in 2012 to guarantee a reliable legal environment for foreign businessmen and the protection of their data against being sold or stolen (Disini, 2012). The Act defines certain cybercrimes, increases penalties for committed and attempted cybercrimes, implicates punishment for all criminal participants and expands the Philippines’ jurisdiction (Disini, 2012).
However, the Act receives substantial negative feedback from civil society; community leaders, journalists, and bloggers oppose the Act as it violates the norms of democracy (“We stand against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”, 2012). One of the most essential arguments against the RA 10175 is the statement that the Act introduces a severe punishment for libel.
Claim’s Evidence
Public protests against the Cybercrime Prevention Act are based on the statutory provision concerning the penalties for libel. According to this enactment, libel committed online is punishable by imprisonment for a term of twelve years (Guingona III, 2012). Despite the fact that this evidence is valid and secured by the law, the claim against this provision has several substantial logical reasons. First of all, the law does not give a distinct definition of libel crime and a person who may be accused (Guingona III, 2012). Theoretically, any person who post critical opinion against politicians, singers, actors, and other people, comment on the criticism, share it, or have a site and open it for other people to express their opinions is liable.
Another logical argument of the claim against the Act is its unfairness and oppressiveness. This law deemphasizes technologies and underlines the importance of cyber libel as the punishment for libel in traditional media is less severe in comparison with the defamation on the Internet (Guingona III, 2012). The libel through print media leads to only a four-year imprisonment period (Guingona III, 2012).
Moreover, people who want to exercise “their constitutional freedom of speech and expression” maybe unjustifiably charged with libel under both the Cybercrime Prevention Act and the Revised Penal Code (Guingona III, 2012, para. 13). These provisions of the Act that does not have any limitations against liability lead to the violation of the fundamental principles of democratic government (“Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,” 2012). People are afraid to express their ideas and opinions online when they know they may be accused of libel.
Claim’s Counterarguments
The president of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III, defends the Cybercrime Prevention Act, in general, and its controversial provision concerning online libel, in particular. According to him, every person should be responsible for his or her opinion if it is libelous, and victims of libel should be protected (“Aquino defends cybercrime law,” 2012). He denies the statement that the Act leads to the violation of civil rights, and persuades that the freedom of speech is not limited. His counterargument is reasonable in the case when a person lies intentionally, and this libel may negatively influence another person’s reputation. However, people should not be accused of expressing of their opinion, even if it is critical.
Conclusion
The statutory provision of the Philippines Cybercrime Prevention Act concerning the penalties for libel potentially limits the freedom of speech, that is why the claim against this law is reasonable. Cyber malefactions and deliberate online libel should be reduced and punished, though it is highly essential to differentiate between intentional deception and a critical opinion that is based not on authoritative information but its author’s perception.
References
Aquino defends cybercrime law. (2013). Rappler. Web.
Disini, J. J. (2012). Cybercrime Act: Features and issues. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Web.
Guingona III, T. (2012). Cybercrime law: Demonizing technology. Rappler. Web.
Petition for certiorari and prohibition on republic act 10175 Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Filed by Atty JJ Disini & citizens. (2012). Scribd. Web.
We stand against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. (2012). Rappler. Web.