Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 The  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act  is  also  problematic  in  that  it  fails  to  provide  for  any   safe  harbour  provision  for  innocent  disseminators  of  defamatory  statements.  Article   354  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code  states:     Every  defamatory  imputation  is  presumed  to  be  malicious,  even  if  it  be  true,  if  no  good   intention  and  justifiable  motive  for  making  it  is  shown,  except  in  the  following  cases   1.   A   private   communication   made   by   any   person   to   another   in   the   performance   of   any   legal,  moral  or  social  duty;  and   2.  A  fair  and  true  report,  made  in  good  faith,  without  any  comments  or  remarks,  of  any   judicial,  legislative  or  other  official  proceedings  which  are  not  of  confidential  nature,   or  of  any  statement,  report  or  speech  delivered  in  said  proceedings,  or  of  any  other  act   performed  by  public  officers  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions.     This  is  highly  problematical  in  any  context.  Given  that  these  provisions  represent  a   restriction  on  a  fundamental  human  right,  freedom  of  expression,  the  presumption   about   malice   should   run   the   other   way   (i.e.   the   onus   should   lie   on   the   plaintiff   to   prove  malice),  and  there  should  be  absolute  protection  for  true  statements,  on  the   basis  that  one  cannot  defend  a  reputation  that  one  does  not  deserve.     They   are   even   more   problematical   in   the   online   context,   where   publication   and   republication   are   far   more   fluid   concepts   and   the   discourse   is   understood   to   be   more   freewheeling.     Liability   may   now   attach   to   any   Twitter   user   who   retweets   a   defamatory   statement,   or   a   blogger   who   reposts   a   defamatory   statement   found   elsewhere.   For   that   matter,   search   engines   such   as   Google   could   be   held   liable   for   returning   search   results   containing   a   defamatory   statement.   As   far-­‐fetched   as   this   might   seem,   it   is   unfortunately   not   without   precedent.   A   woman   in   India   was   recently  arrested  for  clicking  ‘like’  on  a  Facebook  posting.19     In   order   to   live   up   to   its   international   human   rights   obligations,   the   Philippine   government   should   not   only   remove   these   problematic   provisions   within   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act,   but   they   should   completely   repeal   their   criminal   defamation  laws.     Recommendations:     Ø Section  6  of  the  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act  should  be  deleted.   Ø The  standards  under  section  5(a)  of  the  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act  should  be   amended  to  replace  the  notion  of  wilful  with  a  requirement  of  intentionally   aiding  or  abetting  the  commission  of  an  offence.   Ø Section  7  of  the  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act  should  be  amended  to  eliminate   the  possibility  of  multiple  charges  being  filed  for  the  same  statement.   Ø Section   4(c)(4)   of   the   Cybercrime   Prevention   Act   and   Articles   353-­‐355   of   the   19  See  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-­‐South-­‐Central/2012/1119/Woman-­‐hits-­‐like-­‐on-­‐ Facebook-­‐gets-­‐arrested-­‐in-­‐India.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -8-