Tag: martial law

Sue Me! (A Cybercrime Law Post)

web-header.png

 

Today, a TRO or temporary restraining order was issued against the enactment of the entire Cybercrime Law. Although it is only good for 120 days, it is better than nothing in this fight for online democracy.

Even though the country heavily needs a law that will preserve order in the online universe, a lot of criticisms were thrown against this highly controversial law. Not because the public is against such a law but because the very manner by which it was crafted failed to fully give justice to the intended beneficiaries.

 

The Need for A Cybercrime Law

So why do we need a Cybercrime Law?

Simply because the Internet has a become a world of its own where it is now possible for people to transact business, become educated, gain new friends, entertain others and be entertained, connect with social networks, find love and many other things that we usually do in a real non-virtual universe. As such, since the Internet now functions as an alternate universe for many, it has also become another avenue for crime such as cybersex, cyber bullying, identity theft, piracy, hacking and many others.

Although these crimes are done virtually and not directly against a person, their impact are still the same, if not all the more grave. A cyber bullied individual suffers greater damage than someone physically bullied since his bullying might transcend not just the physical confines of where he is currently located but the great expanse of the world-wide web. Take for example the case of Chris Lao, a relatively obscure individual who became famous overnight for a mishap he was involved with which others made fun of. It was an injustice to the guy for which he suffered grave emotional and reputation damages.

Again there are cases of maltreated women like those whose private sex tapes inadvertently make their way to the Internet for public consumption. Take for example the case of Katrina Halili and the many other women who were once lovers of Hayden Kho.

There are also those whose identities become compromised by unscrupulous individuals such as the cases of posers – people who steal someone else’s identity and behave in a totally compromising way online.

The list of internet crimes goes on and on. And admittedly, here in the country, there are almost zero law which governs online use. Of course there are laws which would punish the perpetrators described above but these laws pertain more to the real world and have very little understanding or scope on the virtual world.

 

The Philippine Cybercrime Law

So here comes the Cybercrime Law- a law attempting to give justice to the victims of online crimes. In itself, the law is good. The law seemed to cover all aspects. There was a provision for cyber bullies, cyber sex offenders, identity thieves, hackers and everyone else who might find a way to commit a crime online. The law was inclusive.

Yet there seems to be a problem.

Various online articles discussed how, to the trained eye, the law is poorly written. To us who were not educated to understand legal jargon, the law can be very persuasive. But leave it to the experts to dissect it further and expose the many loopholes in the law. If the loopholes exist, what guarantee then do we have that the law would stand trial and be able to prosecute those who are guilty?

 

The Public Reacts to the Law

When the law was passed, it met various protests. Many claimed it was a move to silence democracy in our country. Coincidentally, the law was passed at around the same time the entire nation was remembering the declaration of Martial Law. Many thus associated the act as a declaration of cyber martial law. The day the law was made to take effect, social media erupted in protest as thousands changed their profile pictures in various sites to a plain black photo while others shared photos condemning the said law.

A lot started to fear for their lives while others challenged the government to put them behind bars claiming that there are not enough prison cells in the country to house them. Although most made their threats in jest, there was an underlying seriousness in everyone’s tone.

To date, fifteen (15) petitions against the law were filed in the Supreme Court resulting to a TRO unanimously issued today.

Continue reading “Sue Me! (A Cybercrime Law Post)”

Cybercrime Law: The New Martial Law?

It has been 40 years since Martial Law was declared. That was 15 years before I was born. Lucky enough for me, by the time I was born, EDSA has happened and I was free to live a life without the fear inflicted by the iron clad rules of that time. My parents might have witnessed Martial Law but they were far removed from it being very young at the time it was declared. If they have stories to tell, it was mostly tame compared to the ones I read in memoirs of people who experienced the real gist of it.

For a time, when I hear the extreme discipline that was imposed to the country during that time, and when I compare it to the seemingly lack of discipline I witness among many fellowmen today, I am led to think that times might have been better had Marcos remained president and Martial Law carried on. But as I grew older and learned more about the events of those times, I am forced to admit that I have been gravely mistaken in wishing Martial Law was still the law of the land.

Reading this article, I am led to think that I am indeed lucky not to have experienced what the previous generation had. I am lucky to have been born in a free land where freedom of expression is encouraged and critique is accepted without repercussions of imprisonment or torture. I am lucky that I can say what’s on my mind when I want it and that I can actually expect for change to happen just because I was brave enough to care.

Yet this freedom that has been granted to me is now being curtailed. Recently, the president signed the Cybercrime Law. Admittedly, I was not aware that there was such a law being passed through the legislation. Being concerned more with the RH Bill, the Freedom of Information Act and the Sin Tax Bill which are all receiving better press time even in their infancy stages, I was caught by surprise that the Cybercrime Law has been already signed.

Relatively, I am glad that such a law has been enacted. After all, with the rampant usage of Internet in our society and with the constant complaints of cyber crimes, it is about time that a law severely punishing the perpetrators of such crime be in effect in our society. But what I am worried about (and in fact afraid of) with this new law is the fact that it punishes what it calls online libel with 6-12 years in prison without parole! Talk about a pretty serious punishment for what I deem a pretty petty crime. In fact, the law punishes online libel more than printed libel which gets only ~4 years max in prison as punishment.

What’s scary is that online libel can be deemed to include everything and anything that is published online via tweets, posts, comments, blogs, etc. that is libelous (or that is offensive) to a particular person. So if I post in my Facebook status (not that I would do so) that I am annoyed with this person because this person is (insert any negative remark here) then that person can sue me for libel. In case I dared blog about my criticism for a certain public figure, that person can hunt me down and sue me for libel. In case I tweet something that is deemed offensive by a particular person, I can be sued for libel.

What’s even scarier than that is based on what I’ve observed here in our country, once suspected (or accused) of a crime, the authorities immediately grab you and place you in prison pending investigation of your crime. With the current pace of our judicial system, one can rot in prison for years before any decent hearing of his case is conducted in court. In essence, one can be imprisoned for merely saying a negative statement about a person online! Talk about freedom of expression!

Last night, I felt anxious when I re-posted this article about a certain senator and commented that certain senator issued another contradicting statement. My anxiety was further aggravated by the live tweets of Manuel L. Quezon III (@mlq3) about the actual events during that fateful day 40 years ago. Although I did not write the original content, I knew that nothing prevented the person in question from viewing it as libelous from my end and since he is powerful, he can order an arrest or an investigation on me.

For a second, I imagined walking down the streets with fear of being abducted suddenly, never to see my family again. For a second, I feared receiving letters ordering me to take down my blog, my tweets, or my posts. For a second, I imagined my voice being silenced; my freedom being taken away from me.

Twenty-six years ago we were liberated from Martial Law which signaled the triumph of freedom in our country and the rebirth of democracy and free speech. Now, forty years after Martial Law has been declared, another more sinister Law, though not necessarily employing military force threatens the very thing our parents fought for in EDSA – the freedom to speak what we want to say; the freedom to express our opinions no matter how contrary to popular belief; the freedom to criticize the people in power and remind them of who they truly serve – not themselves but the people who elected them to office.

Those freedom they fought for, the fear they’ve managed to eliminate, is now, in my opinion, coming back to haunt us in yet another form.

Are you afraid? I am.

 

Related Articles:

Loopholes in the Constitution

Martial Law has been declared. Erap has been allowed to run for re-election. And in both accounts there have been serious questions as to who interpreted the constitution correctly.

In response to the Maguindanao massacre and the government’s difficulty in arresting everyone charged, GMA declared martial law in Maguindanao with the reason citing rebellion as the reason justifying the act. According to the law, (Article 7, Section 18) only invasion and rebellion are grounds for declaring Martial Law. Government officials admitted there was no actual rebellion – only a threat of one which was preventing them from implementing justice in the land. This raised questions within lawmakers as to what rebellion actually covers in the constitution.

For the upcoming presidential elections, former President Joseph Estrada, who wasn’t able to finish his term, decided to run once more for office. He has now filed his candidacy for the May 2010 Presidential Elections although there have been several groups who contested this. Every petition filed against his candidacy claims that he is violating a section of the Constitution (Article 7, Section 4) that prohibited any president from seeking reelection. However, his camp argues that he wasn’t able to finish his term and thus he is exempted from the given rule. This fired up debates on what the constitution really meant in that provision.

What I see in all these is that there are loopholes emerging from the country’s constitution. Either that or people just can’t understand what the law says. These two items that are being heavily contested are heavily influenced by the aftermath of the Martial Law declared by Marcos. The provision about declaring Martial Law covers the fact that no president should be able to lawfully justify declaring Martial Law for the sake of military rule like the one done by Marcos. The other contested provision about Erap running for reelection prevented any president from serving more than his allotted term in office thus preventing another overextended rule like that of Marcos. Both provisions that are being debated upon right now are attempts to prevent another Marcos from rising in the country.

Then again, I believe that there are certain things that should be improved upon the 1987 Constitution. The Constitution is almost 23 years old (same age as me) and in those 23 years there have been a lot of changes in the country – changes that would need some flexibility in the laws. I know a lot are wary about ChaCha and many oppose it but I think they should stop and consider the benefits of the act. I am not promoting radical changes in the Constitution but I want to see some amendments that would reflect the changing times and the changing needs of the country.

I hope our lawmakers would seriously look into the issue of fixing up loopholes in the law that gives the country such confusion like with what is happening now. I hope that instead of passing up pitiful laws like the renaming of streets, etc. they would look at the more important ones. I certainly hope our lawmakers would be able to anticipate social issues that would need more stringent laws instead of waiting for some crime to happen before coming up with the idea that a law could have prevented that from happening. Take the case of the Hayden Kho sex scandals wherein they discovered there was no exact law where he could be implicated or the recent Maguindanao massacre wherein if there was a law banning private armies, then such monstrosity could have been avoided.

The elections are fast approaching and with it the chance to once again elect some of the country’s lawmakers. I hope, as citizens who care for the democracy our forefathers fought with their blood, we would do our chance in voting wisely for lawmakers who would do what they have been elected to do – constitute laws that would be of service to the country and not amass personal wealth that would be of service only to them and a few others.

pressurized

I can’t help but take pity at Noynoy Aquino. He has been thrown into the brightest spotlight in the land today – a spotlight of which I don’t think he is completely ready for. I can imagine the pressure he is in right now – an outspoken presidential candidate has given up his post for him and thousands of Filipino people are urging him to run for the highest position in the country.

If before he had some desire to be president, he must have been shocked that such a desire would  materialize so early  and catch him completely unprepared. No wonder he needed the weekend to think and pray it over. 

noynoy
Aquino

I personally don’t think he is fully capable of running the country. Yet he has all the elements, reminiscent of the past, going for him. We have been under a President whom everyone believes has overextended her term, much like Pres. Marcos did. We are under an administration that have seen more deaths – army attacks, extra-judicial killings – somewhat similar to the salvage days of the Martial Law era. We are under an administration that claims economic prosperity which no one can really feel – GDP and GNP increases but the price of basic commodities remains expensive and more Pinoys go hungry everyday.

And now we have been presented with a choice for honest governance. Yes, he seems to lack experience but didn’t Cory also lacked experience when she assumed the position? 

Yet times are also slightly different now than before. During the 1980’s there were just two options – Marcos or Aquino. Now we also have Villar, Lacson, Binay, Escudero, De Castro, Panlilio even Estrada plus who knows who else. Wouldn’t it be all simpler if we would be left with just two options – a pro-administration and one against the administration. As I can see it, most of the candidates basically fight for the same reforms and causes. I believe that based on the basic premises of their platforms, we can categorize them into just two categories which would make our decisions much easier. 

I hope Noynoy gets the Divine guidance he needs. May the Lord speak to him about what the country really needs and what he really ought to do. And may the Lord speak, not only to him, but to the other presidential hopefuls as well. And may they have the nerve enough to listen to Him.