Hazel Marie A.

Perez 2015-00796
ENG 10 Prof. Sarah Lumba-Tajonera

Libel: Bringing Netizens Back to their Senses

I am sure every one of us has already come across an online post that offended,
annoyed, or even threatened us. Stories about people posting unbelievably tasteless, offensive,
stupid, racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise inappropriate things on social media continue to
spread like wild fire. It boggles the mind that people will actually document and broadcast their
terrible ideas or harmful opinions online especially given the documented and broadcast
history of people getting fired from their jobs, attacked by other netizens, and arrested over
similar behavior. And yet, they still do. It seems that people of today have become more and
more uneducated and irresponsible in using their social media accounts. We have come to a
point that a lot of us have already turned ourselves into careless and sometimes even immoral
users of social media. It is time for us to be brought back to our senses through a disciplinary
government acting on a more serious and apt law concerning these issues.

With the continuous rise of technology nowadays, people now enjoy another medium to
express themselves the social networking sites. Social media is certainly a great thing for
people and society in general. It made our lives easier. It helped us to build new relationships,
communicate with each other, express our thoughts and feelings, and obtain relevant
information. But, social media along with its positive characteristics can also be an effective
breeding ground for potentially defamatory statements. Through social media, people from all
walks of life were given the opportunity to voice out their opinions, making speech on the
Internet unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit,
offensive, and vulgar or in one word indecent. Many people have learned (to their dismay)

that the internet allows people to speak their mind almost too easily. The internet is chock-full of
interesting web sites where someone could intentionally or accidentally leave a potentially
defamatory comment or post. (Berg, n.d., para. 3). Because social media services like Twitter
and Facebook allow you to instantly publish a statement that can reach thousands of people, it
has been easier for someone to sue you for any defamatory statements you post online.

Defamatory posts are false and unprivileged statements of fact that is harmful to
someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice,
(Online Defamation Law, n.d., para. 2). There are two main types of defamation: libel, or
written defamation, and slander, or verbal defamation. When a potentially defamatory statement
is made online or through social media -- such as via Facebook, Twitter, or blogs-- it is
considered libel because it involves the written or "posted" word.

Take the case of blogger Michael Sy Lim, better known as the individual behind the
popular Fashion Pulis blog. The said blogger now faces complaints filed by celebrity stylist, Liz
Uy. These complaints include six counts of online libel and one count of grave slander. The six
counts of libel are referring to three of Lim's blog posts and three tweets on Lim's account. On
October 29, 2015, a Fashion Pulis post captioned "Stylist Makes Maine Mendoza Wear
Recycled Gown on Historical TV Event" shows a picture of actress Kim Chiu and one of Maine
Mendoza wearing the same Francis Libiran gown at different events. Another Fashion
Pulis post also dated October 29 reads, "Insta Scoop: Liz Uy Makes Maine Mendoza Wear
Same Jacket She Wore Weeks Ago in Preview Photo Shoot." The other complaints, including
Lims tweets just stemmed from these two issues about Uy allegedly letting Mendoza wear
hand-me down clothes. Libiran defends Uy saying that Chiu only modelled the gown at the
"Francis Libiran Metrowear Icon" fashion show in 2013, but it "has not been worn at any other
event by any other celebrity."

As for the identical jacket issue, Mendoza's photo shoot

for Preview was styled by the magazine's creative director Vince Uy. Stylebible.ph added that
because of Preview's policy on the confidentiality of cover shoots, "Liz could not have known
that Maine had worn the same piece in one of the six layouts she had for the shoot."

Uy added that Lim should have checked his facts first before posting such things about
her. She knows that blogging is just Lims job but he should also be responsible because just
like what Atty. Kapunan said, " as soon as you put something on a webpage or on Twitter or
Instagram, you lose control, and therefore you are responsible for all of those who read you and
who tweet you, and who repeat the malicious statements you make."
On November 9, 2015, Lim issued a statement regarding the complaints on his blog and
on his Twitter account. He questioned Uys decision to file a case against him asking if its really
a crime to point out valid observations which many people other than him also noticed. He also
said that he will fight this case with courage because he has no malicious intent and that this
case is clearly a suppression of his freedom of the press and expression.
But according to Atty. Lorna Kapunan, Uys legal counsel, Lim's posts and tweets
damaged Uy's reputation as a stylist. "Precisely the gist of the complaint for libel is damage to
one's reputation. This has nothing to do with freedom of expression. But your freedom of
expression, whether in hard copy or in cyberspace, ends where you start hurting other people's
reputations," Kapunan said in a report from Rappler.
Fashion Pulis defended himself by saying that he was just practicing his right to
freedom of expression. But what does freedom of expression really mean? What are its powers
and limitations? Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in the international human rights
law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR

states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone
shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in
print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". It is closely related to freedom
of speech which is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of
government retaliation or censorship.

But just like any other rights, the right or privilege of free speech has its limitations, the
right not being absolute at all times and under all circumstances. Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1949 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries
"special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when
necessary. The main restriction to the rights of freedom of speech and expression are that the
expressions do not endanger or harm others. Other exceptions to this right include restrictions
on the grounds of national security, public safety, the protection of health and morals,
restrictions to prevent crime and disorder, disclosure of confidential information, and of course,
the protection of the rights and reputation of others, (Crystal, 2015, para. 6). The government
has both the obligation and the power to prohibit and punish these kinds of restrictions.

In fact the Philippine government already addressed some of the issues related to
irresponsible or illegal activities on the Internet last September 12, 2012 when the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012, or RA 10175 was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III. By
its subject, the law was crafted to address criminal acts committed through the expedient of
cyberspace (i.e., fraud, child pornography, and theft of proprietary information). However, the
law also contains several provisions that diminish and restrict freedom of expression over
cyberspace, prompting vigorous protest from citizens, netizens, and journalists, and no less
than 11 constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court. (Malaluan & Mangahas, 2012,

para. 8) Most of the problems and complaints filed were caused with the insertion of the
provision on libel of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Article 355 of the RPC refers to committing libel by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means. This provision is also injected in the Cybercrime Prevention
Act and is called online libel. It appears in Section 4c, paragraph 4 (Cybercrime Offenses:
Content-Related Offenses) and reads: Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as
defined in Article 355 of the RPC, as amended, committed through a computer system or any
other similar means which may be devised in the future. The only difference between these
two is that the penalty imposed for online libel is one degree higher compared with print libel
under the Revised Penal Code. This is because the SC believes that in cybercrimes, the
offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause greater harm.
The distinction therefore creates a basis for higher penalties for cybercrimes.
Even after long arguments and amendments, the Cybercrime Prevention Act still took
effect as the Supreme Court (SC) upheld its constitutionality last February 18, 2014. Three
provisions were voted down as categorically unconstitutional: Section 4 (c)(3) which pertains to
unsolicited commercial communications; Section 12 which pertains to real-time collection of
traffic data and; Section 19 which pertains to restricting or blocking access to computer data.
But despite the hot debates regarding online libel, the SC still ruled it to be constitutional but
with an exception that is, in cases where it covers persons other than the original author.
Recipients of, and netizens who react to a potentially defamatory post, will not be covered by
online libel and will only be treated as a form of protected expression.
In an article from GMA News Online, Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares, who
was among those who challenged the law, said that "no one should go to prison just for

expressing oneself, especially on the Internet, where people express their frustration with the
government. Senator Teofisto Guingona III, the lone senator who opposed the passage of the
bill into law said in an article from Rappler, I think what will happen is people will now be afraid
to express themselves on the Internet. This is a big blow to our democracy. Guingona also said
it is problematic for the law to transplant the Revised Penal Code definition of libel to the
Internet without specifying who is liable. Senator Miriam Santiago in another report from
Rappler, agrees, saying that the SC ruling on online libel in the cybercrime law is erroneous.
She said the ruling is vague, even if it limited the liability for online libel to the original author of
the post. She states that the main problem of this provision is identifying who the real author is.
Santiago adds, Who is the sender? The service provider? The individual netizen? Or if theyre a
group, how do we identify them? Or even worse, if they are not using their true identities, how
are you going to go beyond what they profess to be their identities on the Internet? Santiago
said that the SCs decision treated the Internet as similar to traditional media when they are two
completely different universes.
Freedom of expression is not only a basic human right but also an essential component
of any democracy. It is this freedom that enables citizens to exchange views and information, to
protest against injustice, to influence the public discourse, and to criticize the actions of the
government. It is stated in the 1987 Philippine Constitution Article III Section 4 that no law shall
be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for the redress of their grievances.
This is the very reason why various groups and individuals condemn the decision of the SC in
deeming online libel constitutional. For them online libel, ultimately and clearly, works to infringe
freedom of expression in cyberspace. They say that restrictions on free speech cause harm to
the democratic life and stands in contradiction to the fundamental principles of a democracy

that a government should impose no more than the necessary minimum of restrictions on
individuals, especially regarding their basic rights.

A report from Rappler informs us that the Court is clear in saying that the penal code
and implicitly, the cybercrime law, mainly target libel against private persons. As such, the
Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter standard of malice to convict the author of the
defamatory statement where the offended party is a public figure. To the Court, societys
interest and the maintenance of good governance demand a full discussion of public affairs.
So, online libel doesnt totally restrict us from voicing out our criticisms against public officials
especially if it includes controversial issues like corruption, political dynasties and government
anomalies. For libel to hold water in the case of public officials or public figures, the Court said
the higher standard of actual malice must be satisfied to attain conviction. Actual malice or
malice in fact is committed when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the
knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not.
As for me, saying that online libel is harmful to our democracy as a nation is a little bit
exaggerated. Yes, the constitution is saying that nothing or no one should curtail ones freedom
of expression in any way, but we cannot deny the fact that it is also the governments
responsibility to protect the well-being of its citizens. I agree with the SCs decision of ruling the
provision on online libel as constitutional. I think that this law really needs to be implemented for
the sake of the lives of ordinary people who experience being attacked by defamatory
statements from irresponsible social media users. They deserve to have their own rights
respected. They deserve the governments help in keeping their good names and clean
reputations. In my example above, we can see Liz Uy as someone who only wants to clear her
name after Lim allegedly placed her in a bad light, discredited her hard work and destroyed her
reputation as a stylist by posting false claims on his blog. Even if Lim defended himself by

saying that he was just expressing his observations, it still doesnt justify his actions that have
caused harm both to the reputation of Uy and her styling team.

In this time and age, everyone is so passionate in fighting for their freedom of
expression without even understanding what it really means. Unfortunately, this freedom has
now become just an excuse for people who love to spread offensive or harmful things about
someone. We misunderstand the freedom of speech as something that gives us the right to
speak whenever, however, and wherever we want. We tend to forget that we are becoming
anti-social by curtailing others freedom. Many people argue that voicing out their opinions, even
if it is offensive to others, is a right. However, we have to understand that if the material is
intended to bring harm against others then that is an abuse of the victims other civil and human
rights. People today seem to have forgotten that free speech is not freedom from responsibility,
but freedom with responsibility. The Think before You Click campaign may already be a trite
expression but it still remains true and should still be practiced. We are given such an immense
power through our free speech and social media combined. Let us put it into good use, to
influence others to do good, share responsible advocacies, share your talents, and inspire other
people.

I wish that we dont have to implement laws such as these, but then reality tells us that
sometimes we need these rules and regulations to discipline us and control our behavior toward
social media use. Its easy for us to fight against online libel because we feel that it oppresses
our right to freedom of expression but let us try to look at the other side of the coin. How about
those who are in need of this law to protect themselves from people who try to ruin their
reputation? Online libel is not there to totally restrict us from practicing our right to free speech; it
just reminds us to be responsible netizens concerned with others reputations.

REFERENCES:

Berg, D. (n.d.). Social media and online defamation. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html
Crystal, G. (2015, August 9). The right to freedom of speech. Retrieved November 11, 2015,
from http://www.civilrightsmovement.co.uk/right-freedom-speech.html
Freedom of speech. (2015). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Guingona wants online libel repealed. (2012, September 21). Retrieved November 17, 2015
from http://www.rappler.com/nation/12836-guingona-wants-online-libel-repealed
Malaluan, N., & Mangahas, M. (2012, October 8). Abridging freedom of expression, reneging on
freedom of information. Retrieved from http://pcij.org/stories/abridging-freedom-ofexpression-reneging-on-freedom-of-information/
Merueas, M. (2014, February 18). Internet libel in cybercrime law constitutional SC.
Retrieved November 11, 2015, from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/348945/
scitech/ technology/internet-libel-in- cybercrime-law-constitutionalsc#sthash.UttuvxpG.dpuf
Macaraig, A. (2014, February 24). Miriam: SC ruling on online libel erroneous. Retrieved
November 11, 2015, from http://www.rappler.com/nation/special-coverage/cybercrimelaw/51070-miriam-sc-ruling-online-libel-erroneous
Online defamation law. (n.d.) Retrieved November 16, 2015, from https://www.eff.org/
issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
Rufo, A. (2014, October 29). Making sense of online libel. Retrieved November 11, 2015 from
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/52027-making-sense-online-libel
Tantuco, V. (2015, November 9). Liz Uy files libel, slander complaint vs Fashion Pulis: 10 things
to know. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from
http://www.rappler.com/entertainment/news/112227-liz-uy-fashion-pulis-libel-slandercomplaint?cp_rap_source=ymlScrolly#cxrecs_s