Philippines: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012   The  ‘Crime’  of  Defamation   These   problems   are   particularly   concerning   in   relation   to   defamation.   In   line   with   the   need   for   restrictions   on   freedom   of   expression   to   be   constructed   as   narrowly   as   possible,  libel  should  be  considered  solely  as  a  civil,  rather  than  a  criminal  matter.   Under   no   circumstances   is   it   justifiable   to   impose   custodial   sentences   for   defamation,  because  such  oppressive  sanctions  are  simply  not  necessary  to  ensure   that   the   reputations   of   people   are   adequately   protected.   According   to   a   General   Comment  issued  in  September  2011  by  the  UN  Human  Rights  Committee,  the  official   body  responsible  for  overseeing  States’  compliance  with  their  ICCPR  obligations:     States  parties  should  consider  the  decriminalization  of  defamation  and,  in  any  case,   the  application  of  the  criminal  law  should  only  be  countenanced  in  the  most  serious   of  cases  and  imprisonment  is  never  an  appropriate  penalty.17     Defamation   is   essentially   a   dispute   between   two   private   individuals   and,   if   a   person   believes   that   their   reputation   has   been   harmed,   the   civil   law   can   provide   an   adequate   remedy   for   this.     Many   democracies   –   including   East   Timor,   Georgia,   Ghana,  Sri  Lanka,  the  United  Kingdom  and  the  United  States  –  have  rescinded  their   criminal   defamation   laws,   while   others   have   done   away   with   the   possibility   of   imprisonment   for   defamation.   There   is   no   evidence   to   suggest   that   decriminalisation   or   the   relaxing   of   penalties   have   led   to   any   increase   in   the   publication   of   defamatory   material.   If   a   less   intrusive   measure,   namely   a   civil   law   prohibition   on   defamation,   is   effective   in   protecting   reputations,   a   more   intrusive   measure,  i.e.  criminal  defamation,  cannot  be  justified.     In  the  Philippines,  defamation  remains  a  criminal  offence  pursuant  to  Articles  353-­‐ 355  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code.  The  UN  Human  Rights  Committee  has  already  held  in   one  case  that  the  application  of  criminal  defamation  in  the  Philippines  represents  a   breach   of   the   right   to   freedom   of   expression   as   protected   by   Article   19   of   the   ICCPR.18  Rather  than  moving  away  from  criminal  defamation,  section  4(c)(4)  of  the   Cybercrime  Prevention  Act  specifically  extends  the  criminal  defamation  provisions   in  Article  355  of  the  Revised  Penal  Code  not  only  into  the  online  realm,  but  also  into   “any  other  similar  means  which  may  be  devised  in  the  future”.       Since  the  Cybercrime  Prevention  Act  does  not  specifically  provide  for  a  penalty  for   section   4(c)(4),   the   provisions   of   section   6   would   apply,   so   that   defamatory   statements   published   online   are   now   punishable   by   up   to   12   years   imprisonment.   Considering  that  Philippine  law  already  punishes  defamation  far  more  harshly  than   international  human  rights  standards  permit,  this  shift  is  extremely  problematical.       17  General  Comment  No.  34,  note  7,  para.  47.   18  Adonis  v.  the  Philippines,  26  October  2011,  Communication  No.  1815/2008,  para.  8.10.   The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy -7-