N.B. – A journalism student from the UP College of Mass Communication emailed some questions on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and libel. Allow me to share with you my short answers.
Do you think the libel clause in the Cybercrime Prevention Law (CPL) is necessary?
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 expands the coverage of libel to include the Internet. In the context of the ongoing campaign to decriminalize libel, its expansion is both unnecessary and unacceptable. History shows that libel has been used as an instrument of harassment and intimidation. The libel cases filed by former First Gentleman Mike Arroyo against selected journalists is a recent example.
What are the benefits of having the libel clause in the CPL, if there are any?
There is nothing beneficial about the libel clause and this explains why it is one of the contentious provisions of the CPL.
How will this provision affect the online media industry, if ever the CPL gets passed without revisions? (My clarification: This has been passed into law but it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court which issued a temporary restraining order. This means that the CPL is not yet implemented.)
There is a chilling effect on the practice of the online journalism profession. It becomes possible that the culture of self-censorship would become more pervasive especially in online news media organizations.
What are the downsides of having the libel clause?
That libel extends to the Internet is already unconscionable. That the penalty is extended makes matters worse.
What alternative would you propose in place of the libel provision of the CPL?
The alternative is very basic: Junk cybercrime law. No amount of amendments could remove the repressive character of the CPL. More than the libel provision, its basic definition of what constitutes “cybercrime” is already problematic. Practically any Internet activity could be penalized under the CPL. Junking the law therefore becomes the only option, in my professional opinion.
What is your stand on the decriminalization of libel in our country?
I am in favor of decriminalizing libel. If there is a way to abolish libel, I am also in favor of it.
What are the benefits of decriminalizing libel?
Libel would become only a civil case instead of a criminal one. If convicted of libel, a journalist not face imprisonment and would only be required to pay for damages.
What are the cons?
I don’t see any negative consequences of decriminalizing libel, at least from a journalist’s point of view. Not surprisingly, those who want to harass and intimidate journalists would not welcome the decriminalization of libel.
How will decriminalization of libel improve the journalism practice in our country?
The chilling effect of libel would be reduced but not totally eliminated. After all, it would still be possible to use libel to harass and intimidate journalists. The only consolation in this situation is that journalists would not end up in jail anymore.