On September and tyrants

ON DISTANT SHORE

By Val G. Abelgas 

It was September 40 years ago when President Marcos cracked down on one of the freest press in the world with the declaration of martial law through Proclamation 1081. For 14 years since, we journalists at that time had to live through censorship in the first few years when military censors actually watched over the newsroom, and self-censorship in later years as Malacanang and the military continued to threaten the media.

It was also September 40 years later when President Aquino cracked down on one of the freest internet in the world with a single stroke of the pen by signing Republic Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Now, not only journalists will have to go through virtual martial law and censorship again, but all Filipinos who use the internet.

Marcos made himself a dictator when he signed Proclamation 1081 on September 21, 1972 and now Aquino made himself an enemy of freedom with the signing of RA 10175 on September 12, 2012.

Was it coincidental that President Jose P. Laurel issued Proclamation No. 29 on September 21, 1944, placing the Philippines under martial law, effective September 22, 1944, or is September a good month for crushing a people’s freedom?

Does it matter now that the first crackdown on freedom was made by a Marcos, a name associated with dictatorship, and the second one by an Aquino, a name associated with freedom and democracy?

The Cybercrime Prevention Act started out in the House as a bill that sought to fight online pornography, hacking, identity theft and spamming. When it reached the Senate, a clause that includes a blanket provision that puts the country’s criminal libel law into force in cyberspace was inserted, by his own admission, by Sen. Tito Sotto, who just a few weeks earlier was having troubles with a blogger who accused him of plagiarism.

Sotto claimed that the libel clause was not intended to clamp down on free speech but only to protect ordinary people from being victimized by online attack and character assassination.

The libel clause is, in fact, tougher than the old libel law. Libel committed through the print or broadcast media is punishable by a maximum of four years and two months in prison and a fine of P6,000, while the Cybercrime Law punishes online libel by a 12-year imprisonment and a fine of P1 million.

The Cybercrime Law also allows authorities to collect data from personal user accounts on social media and listen in on voice/video applications, such as Skype, without a warrant. The government can also close down websites it deems to be involved in criminal activities without a warrant.

Under the new law, internet users unwarily re-tweeting or reposting libelous material on social media could such as Facebook and Twitter are also liable for libel.

The Washington DC-based advocacy group Freed House rated Filipino netizens the freest in Asia and sixth in the world when it comes to Internet freedom. Not anymore. With the Cybercrime Law placing a Sword of Damocles on every Filipino netizen’s head, I’m certain Freedom House would rate the Philippines side by side with China, the least free in the latest ratings.

I can’t find a good reason why the son of two distinguished icons of democracy – the late President Cory Aquino and the late Sen. Benigno S. Aquino – didn’t even pause a while and contemplate before signing a law that clamps down on the people’s most vital freedom – the freedom of speech or expression — and instead of bowing to the people’s outrage, even justifies it with the usual excuse of tyrants, that no freedom is absolute.

Neither can I find an explanation why Aquino is hesitant to push the long-delayed proposed Freedom of Information bill that would boost transparency in government, while not wasting time in signing a law that curbs one of the people’s most basic freedoms.

Outraged by this latest attack on press freedom, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines called for defiance of the new law.

“We call on all Filipino journalists and news organizations to stand up to this brazen attempt to wrest away our rights and liberties. We call on the Filipino people to stand up and defend our right to freedom of expression. Let us show this government that, whatever it may think, we ARE the boss,” the NUJP said.

The outrage is shared by thousands of netizens who attacked the law in various blogs and social media, and by at least two groups of so-called hactivists who hacked into several government websites in protest.

At least 11 petitions have been filed against the Cybercrime law before the Supreme Court, which started hearing arguments on Tuesday. I agree with Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago that the high court would declare the law, which officially took effect on October 3, as unconstitutional. A rebuff would be the second such reversal from the tribunal since Aquino’s controversial appointment of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

The senator cited four specific provisions of Republic Act 10175, which she said were either too broad or too vague.

These are Section 4, paragraph 4 which states that libel is a cybercrime if committed online; Section 5, which punishes any person who aids or abets the commission of any cybercrime, even if it is only through Facebook or Twitter; Section 6 which adopts the entire Penal Code for as long as the crime is committed through the use of information technology, but the penalty would be one degree higher; Section 7 which makes the same crime punishable both under the Penal Code and the Cybercrime Act; and Section 19 which authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to restrict access to computer data found to be in violation of the new law or the so-called take down clause.

Santiago, an acknowledged expert in constitutional law, cited a provision in the Constitution that guarantees absolute freedom of speech, specifically stating “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech.”

“Notice that the constitutional language is absolute. However, jurists have tried to balance the absolute language with vital social needs,” she said.

Aquino’s arrogance has again surfaced as he tried to justify his signing of the law. Bayan secretary-general Renato Reyes said the President “looks at public opinion with disdain and thinks he can get away with the violation of our constitutional rights. That kind of arrogance will be his own undoing.”

It was this kind of arrogance that alienated Arroyo from the people early in her term. Aquino, who was elected resoundingly by the people in 2010 in reverence to his mother’s passing, may not find the same support when he endorses his candidates in the May 13 mid-term elections.