Dear IBP Davao,
Hi good morning po Atty! Pwede po ba magtanong kapag po ba mag share post ka pwede ka po ba kasuhan kapag yong “shinared post” mo is ikakasira nun which is totoo naman po? Thank you.
– Anonymous
Dear Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
The Congress enacted Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This law defined and punished offenses, which may be grouped as follows: offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data systems; computer-related offenses, such as computer forgery, fraud and identity theft, and content-related offenses, such as cybersex, child pornography and, most significantly, cyber libel.
Cyber libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, and committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in relation to the Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code, clearly identifies the author and the editor as the persons clearly liable for the crime of cyber libel: “Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.
Normally, there is no cyber libel for merely liking, sharing, or retweeting posts on social media. To further explain, let us discuss a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Disini vs. Secretaryy of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014, where it was held that the Cyber Crime Law provisions penalizing the “aiding or abetting of Libel” as unconstitutional and overbreadth. In the said case, the court ruled that: “Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a person’s image with just one click of the mouse. Scurrilous statements can spread and travel fast across the globe like bad news. However, xxx, if such means are adopted, self-inhibition borne of fear of what sinister predicaments await internet users will suppress otherwise robust discussion of public issues. Democracy will be threatened and with it, all liberties. Penal laws should provide reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of facts to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The terms ‘aiding or abetting’ constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts, comments, and other messages. Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime law that punishes ‘aiding or abetting’ libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.” (Emphasis supplied)
However, it must always be remembered that if your agreement to the original post constitutes a comment that is in itself “defamatory in character”, then it might no longer be considered as a protected speech. Worse, it might bring a possible libel suit.
To summarize, merely agreeing or liking an alleged libelous post will not make you liable for cyberlibel, as the highest Court already declared the provisions of the Cybercrime Law on “aiding and abetting” as unconstitutional. But in the case of “commenting” to the alleged libelous post, you may be criminally liable if the comment is in itself libelous.
(IBP Davao Corner is a weekly column of Integrated Bar of the Philippines- Davao Chapter, giving legal advice as part of its legal aid program. The above legal opinion is based solely on the appreciation of the facts and problem given and stated above. The opinion may vary when other facts, circumstances, and situations are stated. You may send your comments and questions to ibpdavao@gmail.com.)
