12 Righting Wrongs: Criminal Law Provisions in the Philippines related to National Security and their Impact on Human Rights Defenders Article 357 (on prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings), punishes specifically reporters, editors or managers of newspapers or magazines who “publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue, and reputation of said person”, even though said publication is made “in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.” Persons convicted under this provision may be imprisoned for one to six months or ordered to pay a fine ranging from Php200 (approximately US$4.50) to Php2,000 (approximately US$44), or both. This provision is known commonly as the “Gag Law”. Persons convicted of making a defamatory remark orally may be punished under Article 358 of the RPC (on slander) and may be imprisoned for a term ranging from four months to two years or order to pay a fine not exceeding Php200 (approximately US$4.50). Acts that cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person but are not described in the provisions above are punishable under Article 359 (on slander by deed). Persons convicted under Article 359 may be imprisoned from four months to two years or ordered to pay a fine not exceeding Php200 (approximately US$4.50). Courts have the discretion to determine whether or not a particular statement is libelous or defamatory.57 On several occasions, the Supreme Court has held that it does not matter what the writer of the alleged libel meant; what matters is what those words meant to in the minds of “persons of reasonable understanding, discretion and candor, taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances which were known to the hearer or the reader.”58 Libel is committed once the libelous material has been communicated to a third person, regardless of whether or not the defamed person has read or heard the said statement.59 In 2008, the Supreme Court issued guidelines for judges, advising that in imposing penalties for libel, preference should be on imposing a fine instead of imprisonment.60 The Cybercrime Prevention Act was signed into law on 12 September 2012, but its implementation was suspended by a temporary restraining order by the Supreme Court on 9 October 201261 following 15 petitions from civil society groups and human rights defenders. The petitions alleged that the Act would, among other things, inhibit freedom of expression as Section 4(c)(4), which penalizes libel committed online, does not protect websites hosting user comments, and other provisions violate the right of privacy by permitting warrantless real time collection of traffic data.62 On 18 February 2014, the Court ruled that Section 4(c)(4) of the Act is constitutional “only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or article”, and that the provision on libel in the Act will be unconstitutional “only where it penalizes those who simply receive the statement or react to it.”63 57 58 59 60 Madrona Sr. v. Rosal, G.R. No. L-39120, 21 November 1991. People v. Encarnacion (CA), 48 Official Gazette 1817 (1952). Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110088, 1 February 1995. Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, Guidelines in the observance of a rule of preference in the imposition of penalties in libel cases, 25 January 2008. 61 Lorenz Niel Santos, “Supreme Court issues TRO on Anti-Cybercrime Act”, InterAksyon.com, 9 October 2012. http://www. interaksyon.com/article/45096/supreme-court-issues-tro-on-anti-cybercrime-act (Accessed August 2014). 62 National Union of Journalists of the Philippines et. al. v. the Executive Secretary, et. al., G.R. No. 203453, 2012. http://sc.judiciary. gov.ph/microsite/cybercrime/203453.php (Accessed August 2014); The temporary restraining order was extended indefinitely on 5 February 2013. Christine O. Avendaño and Leila B. Salaverria, “SC extends indefinitely suspension of cyberlaw,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 February 2013 http://technology.inquirer.net/22795/sc-extends-tro-on-cyber-law (Accessed August 2014). 63 Disini, et. al. v. Secretary of Justice, et. al., G.R. No. 203335, 18 February 2014.