WITH HER case of online libel, Maria Ressa of Rappler readily made the poster girl of press freedom under threat.
No mere threat but one already delivered though is the March 22 decision of the Kidapawan City Regional Trial Court convicting local broadcasters Eric Rodinas of Radyo Natin and Larry Baja Subillaga for online libel filed against them by North Cotabato Gov. Emmylou “Lala” Taliño-Mendoza.
The RTC imposed a penalty imprisonment from a minimum of four years and one day to a maximum of eight years and one day, and P1 million fine, P1 million for moral damages, and P500,000 for exemplary damages on the convicted journos.
The state “weaponizing the law” to go after its critics – that which every journalist worth his name in ink, every activist in the rights of man inhered, warned against has come for our sufferance indeed.
Our February 19, 2014 piece Cyberauthoritarianism makes a chilling prescience:
“THE JUSTICES who voted for retaining the libel provisions obviously have not graduated to the digital age. More worrisome: Their move constitutes one giant step toward state policing of the Internet. It is incumbent on us all to resist such a regressive move that can only end in cyberauthoritarianism.”
Thus, spake Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello of Tuesday’s Supreme Court en banc decision upholding the constitutionality of the controversial online libel provision in Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
And more: “This is most unfortunate. The Supreme Court has just legislated a massive restriction on the freedom of speech. The justices are light years behind the practitioners of the social media. They simply do not understand how Internet exchange quickly separates truth from falsehood, how the Internet has a wonderful capacity for self-policing.”
Fast and furious were the denunciations heaped upon online libel under RA 10175.
Chilling effect. Kabataan Rep. Terry Ridon said of the impact the ruling will have on netizens: “From Facebook to Twitter to Instagram and other social media, the decision will silence the netizens whose last recourse to evade culpability is probably to declare that their accounts had been hacked.”
Promptly raising the red flag: “The fight against e-martial law is far from over. We call on everyone to up the ante and once again show our collective dissent against this repressive law.”
Most erudite is journalist Inday Espina- Varona’s facebook post headlined No consolation: The SC and the Cybercrime law, portions of which are quoted thus:
In an age where citizen participation in the fight against corruption is being solicited by governments around the world, the Philippines’ highest court has just opened the gate to those out to harass watchdogs.
…Governments asks citizens for help in curbing the monster that is corruption. THIS IS THEIR REWARD. Unjust doesn’t even begin to cover it.
The Supreme Court decision on the Cybercrime Law only makes citizen watchdogs vulnerable to people in power with the resources to harass voices of dissent.
This is especially tragic since truth is not a defense in libel under PH law. The criminal nature of libel in this country makes it the perfect tool of harassment (short of murder, which has also taken out so many Filipino journalists). For those who say only the unethical and the corrupt have to fear libel, think again. Many award-winning, highly-praised articles and series have been the bases for libel charges. Again, truth, ethics, won’t spare you. Not from the appalling cost of having to defend yourself in a criminal case.
Complainants may file their cases anywhere an off ending article can be seen. They’ve done this to journalists. In the digital age, your blog and social media post can be read everywhere and woe to the poor citizen caught in the maws of a vindictive official.
…Whether or not you’re satisfied with the Supreme Court decision on the Cybercrime law, you can be assured of one thing: under the current climate of governance, those with the most reasons to silence opposing views and those with most to hide, will be crowing and giving each other high-fives.
Then again, nobody told us fighting for democracy would be a picnic. Given – the powers-that-be will exhaust all means to narrow democratic space. The question is, will we allow them? Will we roll over in defeat? Or do we fight tooth and nail for the right to free expression?
The fight must go on.
Aye, the cry of ages comes to fore anew: “Do not go gentle into that good night…Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
