18 Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders This practice is inconsistent with the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council calling on States to refrain from imposing restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression on “discussion of government policies and political debate” and “government activities and corruption in government”.106 Furthermore contrary to the guidance of the Human Rights Committee, the laws do not adequately ensure that truth or a public interest in the subject of the criticism are recognized as defenses; and that such provisions are not applied to forms of expression that are not, of their nature subject to verification.107 An uncensored press is crucial to ensure the enjoyment of political rights.108 States not only must respect freedom of expression, but they also must ensure that private persons or entities do not impair the right.109 Article 19 of the ICCPR was crafted with the vision to include and to accommodate future technological advancements that individuals may use to exercise their right to freedom of expression, including the Internet.110 The Human Rights Council has affirmed that the same rights guaranteed under Article 19 offline are also protected online.111 The expansion of the Internet has enabled “individuals all over the world to use new information and communications technologies”.112 The Human Rights Committee has taken notice of the impact the Internet has had on communication and information sharing and has advised that “States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media”. The Human Rights Committee also held that any restrictions on electronic and Internet media must be compatible with Article 19(3).113 Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act provides that acts of libel committed through the Internet shall be punishable by one degree higher than the penalty provided in the RPC, thereby raising the penalty to imprisonment from six to nine years. 114 This provision is out of line with calls for the decriminalization of libel and the clarification by the Human Rights Committee that imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for libel. Furthermore, the Act provides for extraterritorial application when damage is done to a person in the Philippines,115 thereby placing human rights defenders and NGOs in danger of sanctions for allegedly libelous statements made before regional or international human rights mechanisms when reporting on concerns about the country’s or its officials’ respect for human rights guarantees. 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Human Rights Council, Resolution on freedom of opinion and expression, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/12/16 (2009), para. 5(p)(i). Human Rights Committee General Comment 34, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, para 47. Human Rights Committee General Comment 34, UN Doc.CCPR/C/GC/34, paras. 13, 20. Ibid. at para. 7. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, UN Doc. A/ HRC/17/27 (2011), para. 21. Human Rights Council, Resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, UN Doc. A/ HRC/20/L.13 (2012), Preamble. Ibid. at para. 1. Human Rights Committee General Comment 34, UN Doc.CCPR/C/GC/34, at paras. 14, 43. Violations of Article 355 of the RPC are punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from P200 to P6,000. One degree higher than prision correccional is prision mayor, which has a period of between six years and one day to twelve years. See Article 27 of the RPC. Section 21 of the Cybercrime Protection Act.