I am sorry, but being passive/apathetic/safe silence is a far more unfortunate fate than dying after you take a stand and fight for a good cause.
The Internet is a doubled-bladed sword,
which could be beneficial, on one hand; and harmful, on the other hand. The
Internet has become a very powerful tool in making our lives better and easier
in many aspects. Yet, it has also caused destruction and damages to many.
Hence, it is but right for the government
to regulate, through its police power, our utilization of the Internet and the
computer devices.
Recalling the things I learned from my
Constitutional Law subjects, police power is the power of promoting the public
welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.
Did I miss saying PROMOTING THE PUBLIC
WELFARE?
Cybercrime laws regulating the people’s
activities using the Internet across the cyberspace could be beneficial and
valuable if they truly mean to protect the rights of the people, promote the
people’s interests for the good of most, provide safety, improve morals, and
provide and/or improve exchange of or access to information in furtherance of
the public weal.
It is important to note that the Cybercrime
Prevention Act (RA 10175) is a special penal law, ergo it is a law malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited,
like anti-wire tapping, anti violence against women and children, anti-hazing) as
opposed to law malum in se (wrong
because evil in itself, like those enumerated in the Revised Penal Code to wit
murder, robbery, bribery).
For cases mala prohibita, there need not be
criminal mind or bad faith or bad intention in order for one to be arrested. It
is enough that one perpetuated the act prohibited.
Since Unsolicited
Commercial Communication is prohibited by RA 10175, then sending Facebook
Messages advertising/offering products and services to a person who is irritable
at the moment and has no money, can use your act to your disadvantage, or you
can already sue big companies for sending you unsolicited marketing campaigns. (Yay
for the professional victims! They can make more money!)
Morover, since Libel is defined by law as a “public and malicious imputation of a
crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who
is dead” and since RA 10175 also punishes any person willfully abetting or
aiding the commission of any offense enumerated by said Act, then retweeting or
reposting “unlikely” messages or simply liking them may already constitute a
crime.
I am sorry, but being passive/apathetic/safe
silence is a far more unfortunate fate than dying after you take a stand and
fight for a good cause.
Section 19 of the Act deserves a good
attention as this violates the fundamental right of every person against
unreasonable searches and seizures (Section 2, Article III, Consti.).
I believe the sections under the Bill of
Rights are the limitations to the power of the government and the safeguard of
the people’s civil and political rights, which include:
1.
Right to due process and equal
protection
2.
Prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures
3.
Freedom of expression
4.
Impairment clause
5.
Guarantees against injustice to
the accused
As my professor pointed out, laws
enumerated under the Bill of Rights are self-executing, meaning by themselves
they are directly or indirectly applicable without the need of statutory
implementation.
So what does this Section 19 of the
Cybercrime law do now?
Without court order the DOJ can just order
to restrict or block access to your computer and compel you to stop publishing
your posts? Where then is the separation of powers between the executive body
(DOJ) and the judiciary (court)? I thought the present Constitution sought to
strengthen the power of the judiciary and to lessen the power of the
executive to correct the bad experiences under the Marcos authoritarianism.
It is ironic that the Cybercrime Law which
is supposed to protect the people and promote the common good is clearly
violating the supreme law, which is the Constitution. But more than ironic, it
is funny that some of our legislators who are supposed to represent the people and
pass laws which are supposed to promote the welfare of the people don’t do what
they are supposed to do and worse, don’t know what they are doing and the
implications of their actions and omissions.
Am I ranting? Yes I am ranting now… I thought
this would just be a Facebook Note, now this seems to be short story.
Four things:
1.
For the people, dura lex sed lex— literally, “the law
is harsh, but it is the law” that even draconian laws must be enforced and followed.
BUT, if anyone disagrees, one must seek to change the law.
2.
For the people, mala prohibita— these are special penal
laws that the mere perpetration of the act prohibited already constitutes a
crime. So the nobility of intention is insufficient to validate the act.
3.
For some legislators, salus populi est suprema lex—
literally, “welfare of the people is the supreme law” so please, make Sotto
este make sure to review the Constitution.
4.
For some legislators, Republican purpose is the promotion of
the common welfare according to the will of the people you represent and not
according to your personal vested interests. “The Philippines is a Democratic
and Republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.” (Section 1, Article II, Constitution)
My knowledge of the law is still scanty,
but when I looked through the new law, which takes effect today, I felt small
for some of the legislators. I am only an ordinary citizen, but commit to
respect and follow law. So I hope the legislators know what they’re doing and uphold
the mandate that the State gives them—PROMOTE THE WELFARE of the people.
PS: If I go to jail because of this, feel
free to visit me :-)
