03/02/2020 G.R. No. 203335 Petitioners peddle the view that both the penal code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act violate the country’s obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They point out that in Adonis v. Republic of the Philippines,47 the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) cited its General Comment 34 to the effect that penal defamation laws should include the defense of truth. But General Comment 34 does not say that the truth of the defamatory statement should constitute an allencompassing defense. As it happens, Article 361 recognizes truth as a defense but under the condition that the accused has been prompted in making the statement by good motives and for justifiable ends. Thus: Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted. Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties. In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. Besides, the UNHRC did not actually enjoin the Philippines, as petitioners urge, to decriminalize libel. It simply suggested that defamation laws be crafted with care to ensure that they do not stifle freedom of expression.48 Indeed, the ICCPR states that although everyone should enjoy freedom of expression, its exercise carries with it special duties and responsibilities. Free speech is not absolute. It is subject to certain restrictions, as may be necessary and as may be provided by law.49 The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes "similar means" for committing libel. But the Court’s acquiescence goes only insofar as the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement or article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard of when the penal code provisions on libel were enacted. The culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of print. The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything-goes writing style.50 In a sense, they are a world apart in terms of quickness of the reader’s reaction to defamatory statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply options offered by the networking site as well as by the speed with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to other internet users. Whether these reactions to defamatory statement posted on the internet constitute aiding and abetting libel, acts that Section 5 of the cybercrime law punishes, is another matter that the Court will deal with next in relation to Section 5 of the law. Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law Section 5 provides: Sec. 5. Other Offenses. — The following acts shall also constitute an offense: (a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable. (b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 5 that renders criminally liable any person who willfully abets or aids in the commission or attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated as cybercrimes. It suffers from overbreadth, creating a chilling and deterrent effect on protected expression. The Solicitor General contends, however, that the current body of jurisprudence and laws on aiding and abetting sufficiently protects the freedom of expression of "netizens," the multitude that avail themselves of the services of the internet. He points out that existing laws and jurisprudence sufficiently delineate the meaning of "aiding or abetting" a crime as to protect the innocent. The Solicitor General argues that plain, ordinary, and common usage is at times sufficient to guide law enforcement agencies in enforcing the law.51 The legislature is not required to define every single word contained in the laws they craft. Aiding or abetting has of course well-defined meaning and application in existing laws. When a person aids or abets another in destroying a forest,52 smuggling merchandise into the country,53 or interfering in the peaceful picketing of laborers,54 his action is essentially physical and so is susceptible to easy assessment as criminal in character. These forms of aiding or abetting lend themselves to the tests of common sense and human experience. But, when it comes to certain cybercrimes, the waters are muddier and the line of sight is somewhat blurred. The idea of "aiding or abetting" wrongdoings online threatens the heretofore popular and unchallenged dogmas of cyberspace use. According to the 2011 Southeast Asia Digital Consumer Report, 33% of Filipinos have accessed the internet within a year, translating to about 31 million users.55 Based on a recent survey, the Philippines ranks 6th in the top 10 most engaged countries for social networking.56 Social networking sites build social relations among people who, for example, share interests, activities, backgrounds, or real-life connections.57 Two of the most popular of these sites are Facebook and Twitter. As of late 2012, 1.2 billion people with shared interests use Facebook to get in touch.58 Users register at this site, create a personal profile or an open book of who they are, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile.59 A user can post a statement, a photo, or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible to anyone, depending on the user’s privacy settings. If the post is made available to the public, meaning to everyone and not only to his friends, anyone on Facebook can react to the posting, clicking any of several buttons of preferences on the program’s screen such as "Like," "Comment," or "Share." "Like" signifies that the reader likes the posting while "Comment" enables him to post online his feelings or views about the same, such as "This is great!" When a Facebook user "Shares" a posting, the original "posting" will appear on his own Facebook profile, consequently making it visible to his down-line Facebook Friends. Twitter, on the other hand, is an internet social networking and microblogging service that enables its users to send and read short text-based messages of up to 140 characters. These are known as "Tweets." Microblogging is the practice of posting small pieces of digital content—which could be in the form of text, pictures, links, short videos, or other media—on the internet. Instead of friends, a Twitter user has "Followers," those who subscribe to this particular user’s posts, enabling them to read the same, and "Following," those whom this particular user is subscribed to, enabling him to read their posts. Like Facebook, a Twitter user can make his tweets available only to his Followers, or to the general public. If a post is available to the public, any Twitter user can "Retweet" a given posting. Retweeting is just reposting or republishing another person’s tweet without the need of copying and pasting it. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_2014.html 8/19